ArticlesHelp me solve a dilemma that has nagged me for many years.
I went to see a performance. Right near the beginning, one of the performers chose a member of the audience in the front row, and asked him a question.
The audience member was quick-witted. He immediately replied with a funny answer. The audience ate it up – me included. That guy was funny! We laughed…. we applauded… and then we learnt the truth…
The audience member soon took his rightful place on stage. He was a plant – one of the performers had been sitting with the audience members.
With weeks to plan and rehearse the response, suddenly the humour wasn’t as strong. The laugh was largely because of how strong the impromptu joke was; how the picked-upon, under-dog, there-but-for-the-grace-of-God audience member had bravely stood up in the face of the mean performer and delivered an off-the-cuff retort.
So, here’s my dilemma. Was the episode still funny?
I feel slightly ripped off, and yet I can’t deny that I was laughing uproarishly at the time.
Does it make sense for me to claim that the revelation was anti-funny – that it sucked out the humour that was originally there? Or do I have to simply admit that it was a fun night was had… and so was I?
Comment by A on April 13, 2006
You went to theater. You laughed. You paid for it. What more is there to say? There’s no CTRL-Z.
Comment by Alastair on April 13, 2006
I’ve just realised what you witnessed:
Sock puppet theatre!
Comment by Sunny Kalsi on April 13, 2006
I say the same thing about rapping. Originally, it was about making it all up on the spot, having lyrical fights with other rappers. Recording it doesn’t make it music. The thing is, if you listened to recorded rap music but thought it was made up on the spot, you might think “hey this is really good”. You can “CTRL-Z” that, and say “well, it would’ve been good if it was made up.”
Unfortunately, laughter is more instantaneous. You can’t say “well now I realise it wasn’t funny” because you’ve already laughed. A difficult question, I can’t solve it, save for “kill everyone who heard you laugh.”
Comment by Aristotle Pagaltzis on April 14, 2006
Sunny: if violence doesn’t solve the problem, you’re not using enough violence?
Comment by Alan Green on April 16, 2006
Julian at the Supreme Court of New South Wales:
Comment by Julian on April 18, 2006
An anonymous commenter writes:
Alan hinted at the answer:
Perhaps the impact of this misdirection isn’t quite that bad. Time has healed this wound, and I find myself able to laugh at many live performances, so long as the performers sign certain affadavits beforehand.
There is, however, a real impact on the integrity of all performances by this style. It’s the same as plagiarism. It’s the same as lip-synching. It’s the same as prepared raps. It causes audience members, like Sunny and me, to be disillusioned with the entire industry.
I am the first to admit this was a mild case. I heartily recommended the show to others at the time because it was hilarious. In fact, I went to see the same show several years later (different performers, different city, same trick of the planted audience member). However it still sticks slightly in my craw.
As an aside, I can’t quite place it, but I feel there is a link here between this mild affront and the repulsive scum that do TV psychic performances. I can see there is some analogy here with the argument that goes along the lines of “You went to the TV studio. You were comforted with falsehoods. You paid for it. What more is there to say?” I think there is a lot more to say on that topic, but that can wait for another day.
Comment by Cassie on April 20, 2006
Unfortunately, laughter is more instantaneous??
What a pessimistic view of the wonderful blessing of laughter! I don’t think humour would work so well if laughter wasn’t instantaneous, and had to be planned.
But back to the question – was it still funny? To start with, whether something is funny or not is subjective. It’s different for each individual, and influenced by many factors. But, as you mentioned, you found it funny to start with. So whether it’s still funny, I think, depends on your psychology, largely your ego. What you experienced was the shock of the joke shifting from being on the performer, to being on you. You obviously feel uncomfortable with this. If you feel like the original joke had lost its edge, do you think the joke on you was funny? Would you have laughed if it was on someone else, and not you?
Still feel like this doesn’t answer the question? As I mentioned, humour is different for each person, so really, you’ve gotta figure this one out.
Comment by cassie on April 23, 2006
BTW, if you feel ripped off, violated, and unable to laugh at any live performance upon realising that a funny joke has been thought about in advance, you should consider never seeing any type of performance… ever. The chances are quite high that anything you see will contain at least some material that has been planned, workshopped, practiced, and performed before. And if it hasn’t, chances are also high that it will be shit.
Comment by cassie on April 23, 2006
Sorry, but this annoys me. Do you hate magic shows? They work on the same idea of misdirection. The difference is that when you go to see a magic show, you’re expecting to be fooled.
Comment by Aristotle Pagaltzis on April 24, 2006
In a magic show…
1) … you expect to be fooled.
2) … you expect full well to be fooled and yet not to be able to tell how – therein lies the watchworthiness.
Neither point applies here.
Comment by Julian on April 24, 2006
Cassie,
You are asking some good questions – and you have provoked me to think more about the issues – but I think you’ve slightly missed my point.
You point out that laughter/humour is “influenced by many factors” and that “chances are also high that [unrehearsed humour] will be shit”.
I think they are very important points. We (or, at the very least, I) judge humour on its context. I was laughing at the riddles of an 8-year old recently, which if I heard from a stand-up comedian would have left me stony-faced. Similarly, the level of humour required to make me laugh with a random person standing in a bus-stop is much lower than the level of humour I expect from a TV comedy.
Given that most unrehearsed humour – e.g. from a random audience member, in response to a question from the stage – is “shit”, it doesn’t take much to make it uproarishly funny, relative to what you’d expect.
The writers of the show took advantage of that, and made me judge the remark against the wrong context – as impromptu humour rather than rehearsed humour.
I remain happy to see prepared performances – I just have different expectations of them than day-to-day humour.
As for magic shows, I love magic shows. Although the words slightly differ, many magicians distinguish themselves from psychics and the like by claiming to be “honest liars”. They tell you up front that they are going to fool you, and then they do. I’ve heard many magicians speak on the subject, including James Randi, Penn Jilette, and Max Maven – and a few Australian ones whose names elude me.
Comment by Cassie on April 24, 2006
Julian, I see your point.
However, I still think the question remains as to whether your ego is clouding your view of the situation. And my ego is probably clouding mine – had I been there, I may have felt ripped off too.
As you mentioned, you judge humour on its context. To me, this implies more than just the person. With this in mind, I think it is important to recognise this show as a whole and not just pick at one thing. You did credit the performance as being hilarious and worthy of recommendation.
So, yes, I think you do have to admit that the show was funny, and get over it. When you perform, you’re not going to impress everyone with everything you do, so if this is the only thing you have to complain about, then it sounds great.