Response_for_Week_1

The readings which were required for this week were as follows:
1. Henri Bergson, from "Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of Comic" (1900)
2. Sigmund Freud, from "Jokes & their relationship to the Unconscious" (1905)

I will give my thoughts regarding both readings in successive order.

1. I find Bergson's opinion of how comedy relates specifically to the actions and reactions of people rather than lifeless objects to be very interesting. To elaborate, Bergson compares how a landscape is not really humorous because it doesn't contain personality or human traits. On the other hand, however, a dog which barks loudly to obtain attention, or looks longingly at its owner to be petted and cared for are similar traits to which a human may express. We then, as humans, laugh because a human trait, such as personality, is displayed through the object or being which we are viewing.
Bergson goes on to say that intelligence is a major factor which determines how we interpret comedy and humor. This statement leads me to believe that not only is humor only understood by humans, but that it is also only understood by the more informed or intellectually-minded.
Lastly, I also found the idea of how an individuals' laughter is "fed" by the laughter of others to be true yet emphasized too much. In other words, I don't know that Bergson allows for the fact that one can laugh heartily about something while not being in the presence of other individuals.
I am probably taking this too far, therefore I will move on to the next reading.

2. Kuno Fischer stated, "A Joke is a playful judgement."
This statement means that a person who wishes to tactfully approach a person about their actions or comments may indirectly confront those issues through a joke. This could also be interpreted as a good deed not going unnoticed through the playful examination of a persons' work or effort. Either way, it is a way of portraying ideas and opinions without getting directly involved with the person or situation; possibly linked to insecurity within the individual.
It is mentioned that contrasting ideas are what gives "life" to a joke. Comparing two ideas of like nature does not convey humor because they lack the ability to compliment the other.
Taking two ideas which are normally or socially considered to be separate from each other, and finding the similarities between the two, resolves to be funny. In the words of Sigmund Freud, we find the "hidden similarities."
One more idea that I found interesting was that a joke is not limited to words on a page, or the way it is said. It can infer as to the meaning of something without being directly stated. Therefore, the joke is a powerful tool which can be interpreted in many ways. It should be used only after analyzing the individual or object it is directed at, and the situation in which it will be presented.

- A few words on the short film of "Buster" Keaton which was shown in discussion:

Being that this is a silent film, I feel that it offers more to the viewer because they have to mentally process the information and deduce what is being said. The portrayal is given through the moving picture, but one cannot look away from the screen and still follow the story line.
In correlation with the readings, I enjoy how "Buster" uses the art of contrast by trying to accomplish a task as any one else would, however with each attempt at success he is confronted with the worst possible tragedy. He however remains calm in spite of the fact that things are being destroyed or not cooperating with his efforts. For instance, he stands on the hull of a boat while it sinks to the bottom of a lake and realizes what is happening after it is too late to salvage anything. This stark contrast of his remaining calm in the midst of tragedy is what makes his films funny.