Humor in Donald Trump vs. Hilary Clinton debate on SNL

        According to Descartes, the emotions of joy, hatred, and wonder play a major role in laughter. He points out that the feeling of joy only leads to laughter when it is “moderate and has some wonder or hate mingled with it” (Descartes 22). His theory reminded me of an SNL comedy routine, in which Alec Baldwin and Kate McKinnon preform as Trump and Clinton in a town hall debate. In the routine, it is evident that an element of wonder in union with the elements of hatred and joy creates a humorous situation.

         A layer truth plays a major role in this SNL skit, but it is worth noting that truth alone would not evoke laughter from an audience. It is truth combined with criticism and surprise that makes the mock debate humorous. The skit clearly makes fun of the ways in which Trump and Hilary communicate their points during a debate. Trump is notorious for being blunt and overusing hand gestures and Clinton is known for being robotic and scripted. The skit hones in on these small details and exaggerates them. When Clinton is answering a question from the audience she marches forward saying “let me start by walking over to you just as I practiced, right, left, right, left, plant, speak.” While the fact that Clinton is robotic is a relatively minute detail, it is emphasized to ridicule her entire persona.

         The humor of the skit rests largely on the audience’s belief that she is non-genuine and their subsequent hatred for her. While it doesn’t seem like hatred and humor add up, Descartes discusses how hatred functions with joy and wonder to produce laughter. He explains that scorn is a combination of joy and hatred, in which the audience perceives “some small evil in a person whom we consider to be deserving of it; and when that comes upon us unexpectedly, the surprise of wonder is the cause of our bursting into laughter” (Descartes 24). In this case the audience perceives an evil in Hilary, so they are joyful when she faces derision, and they laugh when they are surprised that her flaws are exaggerated and mocked.

          A few minutes later in the skit, Bill Clinton’s affair is brought up by Trump when he says his past sexual assaults are “nothing compared to what Bill Clinton has done. Okay? And Martha, Anderson, hold on to your nips and your nuts, because four of these women are here tonight.” Clinton’s marriage failure is brought up to not only criticize her, but to ridicule her and the audience laughs because they believe that she deserves it.

         At the same time, SNL is cleverly redirecting the audience’s laughter toward Trump. Hilary gives an expected response: “who’s here? Mistresses?... How will I go on with the debate? I will never be able to remember my facts and figures!... Get real, I made a steal. This is nothing. Hi girls!” her response is not only surprising, it redirects the laughter toward Trump to restore the balance of ridicule. Trump responds “Martha, she is trying to silence these women, but they need to be heard” then Martha says “what about the women accusing you of sexual assault?” and Trump responds “They need to shut the hell up.” SNL equally ridicules both Trump and Hilary to keep a balance. This balance is discussed by Descartes as necessary for keeping the laughter rolling. He makes it clear that “this evil must be small, for if it is great we cannot believe that he who has it is deserving of it” (Descartes 24). The ridicule of Trump and Hilary is not too large and it is limited by simultaneous ridiculing of the other. 

Polk County Humor

            As we continue our study of humor we are this week given a few new theories of humor to add with those that we have already looked at previously. This week the theories come from Herbert Spencer, Rene Descartes, and Sigmund Freud, all clearly comedic geniuses. Herbert Spencer’s theory of humor was more biological than those of Descartes or Freud, and also tries to directly dispute the incongruity theory of humor as well. He refutes this by offhandedly mentioning that there is an “obvious criticism that laughter often occurs from extreme pleasure or from mere vivacity” (Spencer, 99) which clearly does not result from any sort of incongruity. Spencer’s theory can essentially be boiled down to the idea that something humorous is nothing more than a nervous excitation and that “nervous excitation always tends to beget muscular motion; and when it rises to a certain intensity always does beget it” (Spencer, 100). Descartes somehow takes the idea of laughter and somehow sucks all of the fun right out of it, by beginning with his biological definition of laughter (Descartes, 21-22), but states that laughter stems from three basic emotions, wonder, hatred, and joy (Descartes, 21). Descartes seems to simply expand upon the superiority theory of humor by constantly mentioning the importance of hatred in laughter. He states that “nevertheless joy cannot cause it except when it is moderate and has some wonder or hate mingled with it” (Descartes, 22). This is furthered by saying that that even something like scorn for another is actually just a kind of joy, and often causes us to laugh because of our “perceiving some small evil in a person whom we consider to be deserving of it” (Descartes, 24) which is likely why people laugh when something slightly negative happens to Donald Trump or Mike Pence. The final theory this week comes from Freud, who yet again, somehow manages to talk about humor while simultaneously being devoid of all humor. As is stated at the beginning Freud and Spencer are rather similar and both are classified as relief theories (Freud, 111) but he later states that humor is somewhat liberating and that there is always a rebellious nature to it, rather than one of resignation (Freud, 113).

            These theories can be found in the other reading, which was Zora Neale Hurston’s “Polk County”. Now it must be said I did not find this play to be particularly funny, or even that entertaining for that matter, but there are definitely instances where these theories could be ascribed to the text. One of the first instances can be found when Lonnie begins describing what he’s seen women dreaming about saying that “they dreams about hatchets, and knives, and pistols, and ice-picks and splitting open people’s heads” (Polk County, 279) which is both a combination of the incongruity theory, simply because no one is expecting someone to state that women are dreaming of weapons and murder, but also part of Spencer’s theory as well. Each additional listing continues to build up nervous excitement and once we get to the end we invariable laugh because of all the pent up excitement. Descartes’ theory can be found during the standoff between Nunkie and the Quarter Boss. The Quarter Boss shakes down Nunkie and searches him the stage direction states that he “finds about a dollar’s worth of small change and transfers it to his own pocket immediately” and then follows it up by accusing Nunkie of “stealing honest people’s money too!” (Polk County, 284) which is funny for a few reasons. Up until this point Nunkie has been portrayed as someone of a shady character, one likely to trick others out of their money, so when this evil falls upon him, as Descartes would say, we laugh because we think in some small way he deserves what is coming to him. It is also funny because of the incongruity theory as well. This whole speech by the Quarter Boss is making him seem like some sort of moral superior, when he just steals the money from Nunkie, despite the fact that it was never proven that he won it from gambling. It is clear that even if the author may not have intended to use these theories in their works, they can nevertheless be found throughout. 

Memes

I’m sure all of us have had those nights where we just can’t sleep and will do anything to keep yourself busy until you're finally ready to catch some Z’s. You might be stressed out before a test, and even though you’ve done all of the studying you can do, it is all you can think about. Personally, I have a test tomorrow and class all day today, so naturally I didn’t get an ounce of sleep last night. Spencer talks about how a lack of physical activity will increase emotions, like how one that sits there and plans revenge will come up with the most diabolical plan (kind of like Dicey). So there I am, an emotional ball of stress in my bed that is 110% focused on how I am going to fail my accounting exam. Naturally, the next course of action is to whip out my phone and look at memes until I am relaxed enough to maybe get some much-needed sleep.

I feel that memes elevate your mood late at night, just like stressing out for a test completely destroys it. Memes have become so popular because they focus on the broader audience and try to be relatable. They also demonstrate some of the theories of humor. Freud’s relief theory is present in the meme above. If you had this uber driver, you would probably be pretty scared, so the “no thanks, I’ll walk” is a relief of the tension. They also demonstrate spencer’s theory of descending Incongruity. The theory of descending incongruity is when something is expected to be great, but falls short (108). Hurston also demonstrates the theory of incongruity when Big Sweet beats up Nunkie. Nunkie hides away from Big sweet with Lonnie’s money and Big Sweet is threatening to kill Nunkie over it. Sop The Bottom says, “Big Sweet is two whole women and a gang of men-descending incongruity” (Hurston 282). This demonstrates descending incongruity as well as the absurd. It is absurd how a woman named “Big Sweet” is pummeling a con man like nunkie. The incongruity comes from Sop the Bottom’s immense description of Big sweet followed by a disappointing turn of events. This is also a funny situation because of Freud’s relief theory. In the relief theory, Freud claims that for something to be funny, you have to see yourself as the father figure and the others as your children. In this part of the play Big sweet plays the role of the father, and Nunkie is the child.

Freud, Descartes, and Movies

            Before class let out last Tuesday, I ended my class discussion with a question about the (dubious) art of watching bad movies for enjoyment, and how it fit in to the different humor theories we’re beginning to discuss. Sometimes I think I enjoy watching quote-unquote bad movies more than I do good ones. I’ve been to my fair share of midnight Rocky Horror screenings, watch Tommy Wiseau’s infamous The Room (also brought up in class) on a monthly basis with my roommates, and spend every holiday season laughing at the incomparably cliché and saccharine Hallmark original Christmas movies. (It’s truly astounding just how many ways they can rework the same plot—not to mention the channel’s bizarre grudge against real estate developers.) Over this past summer, a girl I barely spoke to in high school texted me for bad movie recommendations; I felt as though I had achieved eternal peace.

            My favorite television channel is Comet, a relatively new one that plays mostly reruns of The Outer Limits and Stargate Atlantis during the week, and all my favorite 1980's b-list horror movies back-to-back on Saturday nights. But this past Sunday (in honor of the Superbowl), they played a Mystery Science Theater 3000 marathon—something extraordinarily timely, taking into account last Tuesday’s class. For the unaware, the basic plot of Mystery Science Theater 3000 is (through handwavey science) a handful of characters are held captive (in space) and forced to watch terrible movies, but spend the time making snarky commentary, with occasional interludes with the “plot” of the episode. I grew up watching Mystery Science Theater on movie nights with my parents and uncles, so watching them now is equal part childhood nostalgia and part enjoyment of the jokes.

            There was a particularly unbearable one on called Robot Holocaust—imagine Star Wars, but the characters are running around in underwear, have some serious 80's hair, and all sound like they’re partially overdubbed. I never quite understood what the plot was, but I gathered that the scrappy band of rebels and their high-voiced robot sidekick had to break into a castle, where the villain (a vaguely Russian-accented woman in robes, who was a worse actress than myself in my high school production of Our Town) had someone’s father captive. There were some bizarre male-dominating gender dynamics thrown in as well. Halfway through the movie was when I started to think about why I thought it was so funny. I was watching the marathon alone, and I realized that if it wasn’t for the running commentary the basic MST3K layout provided, Robot Holocaust would’ve been totally unwatchable; if had aired in its original, non-MST3K form, I would’ve shut it off the second the rebels were attacked by sock puppets masquerading as worms.

the screencap doesn't do their hair enough justice

Consequently, I realized that bad movies are pretty much only fun when you’re watching then with other people. People shout the dialogue along at midnight screenings of cult classics; my friends and I make a night out of pointing out consistency errors and bad special effects in Sci-Fy originals; the Hallmark channel has to be watched with my mom. Part of the enjoyment, I feel, comes from having other people there. It could be a certain aspect of we’re in this together, or even personal validation when your own jokes are laughed at. I think there’s also a sense of being amused at other people’s reactions, however. I laugh at Mystery Science Theater because the characters are making witty jokes about the movie they’re watching (and I’m watching them watch), or at Hallmark movies because my mom was able to predict an entire chunk of dialogue. I even listened to a podcast with a similar idea; two friends watched Grown Ups 2 together once a week, every week, for an entire year, and then reviewed it differently after each viewing (thus the podcast). I wasn’t watching the movie with them, but gaining joy at their reactions to it. (Plato and Hobbes may shine through in their superiority theory here—that movie is truly awful, as I learned when a friend and I eventually watched it, and I had a little comfort in that I didn’t have to watch it for an entire year, but they did.)

We talked about humor in regard to superiority and contradiction, but I think that Descartes and Freud have the most relevance to my minute revelation. First, there is Descartes’s idea of the relationship between humor and scorn. Descartes, similar to Hobbes, primarily thought that humor (and laughter) was rooted in scorn. To Descartes, scorn comes from seeing a fault in someone (or something) we think deserves it, and thus, we “have hatred for this [fault], we have joy in seeing it in him who is deserving of it; and when that comes upon us unexpectedly, the surprise of wonder is the cause of our bursting into laughter” (24). This, essentially, tackles the first part of what I called the dubious art of bad movie watching. You are watching, primarily, not for the plot, but for the things wrong with the plot. Bad movies typically have bad plots, and we laugh when it becomes glaringly obvious just how bad it is; in short, the fact that it’s bad makes us feel it deserves our ridicule.

Then, there is the second aspect: laughing at the remarks of others. Descartes discusses this as well, in relation to his concept of humor and scorn: “and it is not wrong to laugh when we hear the jests of another; these jests may even be such that it would be difficult not to laugh at them” (25). He then proceeds to basically say don’t laugh at your own jokes. That is to say—following Descartes’s line of thinking, other’s scornful remarks at something’s expense are usually funny, and it is better to laugh at then than at your own. (Or, watch a bad movie with friends than alone in your living room.) Freud discusses the act of making jokes as well, though in typical Freud fashion, his theory of humor is more rooted in the repressed subconscious than in Descartes’s scorn. My understanding of bad movies is indeed still applicable, though, in one of Freud’s theories of the way the humor process works: “one person may himself adopt a humorous attitude, while a second person acts a spectator, and derives enjoyment from the attitude of the first” (112). To Freud, we find joy in and laugh at the amusement of others. In the context of my idea, I find humor in laughing at the reactions, scornful or otherwise, of others to bad movies, whether it’s as small as a movie night with friends or TV show like Mystery Science Theater. I’m an amused “spectator” to these reactions—and I think it’s a lot of fun.

Late Night Messages and Laughter

            At 1 a.m. on Wednesday, I received a text message from my RA in a group text message for our floor.  There was no content in the message, just a video.  Somewhat confused, I watched it while I was lying in bed.  In the video, my RA walked through the door to the lounge in our building, carrying an umbrella and a fire extinguisher.  He was out of breath, and announced that he had an important message for the residents of our floor.  He then proceeded to tell the camera about the Super Bowl party he would be hosting.  He went into extreme detail, explaining all the different kinds of food he would have and listing the specifications of the television he owns.  At the end, he walked out the door, shouting, “PSA. Brado out!”  This alone made me laugh quite a bit.  Less than five minutes after finishing the first video, I received another.  Shortly after that, I received a third.  After about half an hour, I had gotten 6 videos from my RA.  Each of them was a slightly different skit of him running around the lounge and excitedly shouting various details about the party and his new television.  Every time my phone buzzed to deliver a new message, I began to laugh, wondering how many skits my RA could possibly dream up.  The one that made me laugh the hardest was a video that began with a view of some cabinets, which quickly panned to my RA hula hooping, telling the cameraman that he needed to get into top physical condition for the party on Sunday.  These videos made me laugh because they were completely unexpected.  As each video appeared on my phone, I laughed harder and louder.  The videos were funny because they were completely unexpected, but at the same time, not very surprising.  My RA is extremely enthusiastic whenever he tells us about events he is planning for our floor, but no one seems to share his enthusiasm.  In these videos, he seemed to be acknowledging that people typically do not share his enthusiasm, as if he gave a knowing wink to the audience.  These videos were meant to inform our floor of the Super Bowl party happening this weekend, but the sheer number of them made me think that there was some sort of deeper purpose.  It was obvious that my RA wanted us to laugh at the videos, so I did not feel like I was making fun of him in anyway.  The announcements were for a real event, but the tone was not serious.  One of the funniest parts of the announcements was the absurdity of them.  My RA did not always use a logical story-like sequence to explain the events of his videos; in one, he was locked in a closet after searching rope that he needed for the party.  Upon his release, he began giving all of the same party details that he shared in the other videos.  There was no explanation given for the rope, and it is not an item typically needed for a party, so its presence was absurd yet purposeful, because it provoked the desired response of laughter.

The video that started it all

            These videos from my RA were very funny, but they were not funny in the same way that Tales of the Tikongs was funny.  The people of Tiko were funny because their stories were told in a sarcastic way, using past tragedies combined with time to provide a social commentary.  This provides more insight into the subject matter that is the source of the comedy.  The videos did not provide a commentary on any social ills.  The laughter they created was not rooted in malice or feelings of superiority, like Plato and Thomas Hobbes believe.  In fact, I believe that the videos made me think of my RA in a more positive, friendly light.  My laughter did not make him appear inferior.   The source of my laughter in this situation can most likely be contributed to mix of joy and wonder.  Descartes writes, “Nevertheless joy cannot cause [laughter] except when it is moderate and has some wonder or hate mingled with it” (22).  In this sense, Descartes’ ideas on the source of laughter are correct.  The videos did give me intense feelings of happiness that greatly improved the quality of my life, but they did provide a small amount of joy that brightened my evening.  This joy was not mixed with feelings of scorn, for the videos did not conjure up any resentment in myself.  Instead, I felt a sense of wonder.  The series of videos were much longer than I had initially expected, which intensified my laughter over time.  Herbert Spencer provides a physiological explanation of this laughter that is caused by incongruity.  He believes that energy and emotions build up over time along with expectations of a situation.  He writes, “Had there been no interruption, the body of new ideas and feelings next excited, would have sufficed to absorb the whole of the liberated nervous energy.  But now, this large amount of nervous energy, instead of being allowed to expend itself in producing an equivalent amount of the new thoughts…is suddenly checked in its flow” (Spencer 107).  When I was sitting in my bed, getting ready to go to sleep, my emotions had mellowed out and all of the excitement from the day was passing calmly.  When I got the message from my RA with the video, the flow of my emotions was interrupted by the unexpected emotions brought on by the video.  This interruption caused a release of feelings that was my laughter.  The spontaneous and absurd video message did not fit with the events of my evening, and changed my feelings before I went to bed. 

            Something similar to Spencer’s explanation of humor happened when I was reading Polk County as well.  When the first scene is being set, there a brief mention of women earning prestige by serving prison terms (Hurston 273).  I did not fully absorb that note when I first read it, so the idea of the women having criminal records was not at the front of my mind as a read.  Because of this, the moment when Quarters Boss came in to tell Big Sweet that she had killed three men so far, I was surprised.  This surprise turned to laughter when I read Big Sweet respond, “I know it. I kilt ‘em my ownself, didn’t I?” (Hurston 336).  I was not expecting such a brazen response, nor was I expecting the overall situation in that scene to occur.  According to Spencer, this disrupted the flow of my emotions, forcing a physical manifestation in laughter.  My mind was thrown off its balance in a way, and I needed a moment to laugh to recover.

Humor Theories Used in Polk County

     Hurston makes liberal use of the humor theories discussed in the Descartes, Spencer, and Freud readings. Descartes claims there are only six basic emotions, and that laughter is found in three of them: "wonder, (mild) hatred, and joy" (21). The characters in Polk County exhibit these three emotions whenever there is the most laughter going on. A stage direction on page 278 shows characters being awestruck by something Lonnie says before breaking into laughter. Descartes also claims that whenever someone has "laughed much," they are more inclined to be serious because the more fluid blood has been exhausted making way for the course blood of sadness (23). While I fail to find the theory of happy and sad blood believable, Lonnie behaves this way when he gets the mysterious letter we later find out was a fake staged by Dicey.
     She defies Spencer's theory can that people who "conceal their anger are habitually found to be more revengeful than those who explode in loud speech," but Hurston does not give us an example of one who holds in their anger so there is no one to compare Dicey to to figure out if Spencer is correct (103). From life experience, I have found his theory to be true, but it is not played out fully in Polk County. Instead, we have Dicey frequently exploding into rage-filled action and pulling out her knife whenever something goes wrong in the slightest way. Dicey is always doing things the opposite way from everybody else in the play. Another stage direction shows everybody laughing "but Dicey" (284).
     One situation that comes to mind when considering Freud's theory on humor is the standoff on the porch between Big Sweet and Leafy. The air is tense in this scene, full of "hostility or cold indifference" (298). After staring at each other for a while, "Leafy breaks into a grin" prompting Big Sweet to smile also (298). Freud says "the energy of repression is released in laughter," and that surely is the case between Big Sweet and Leafy when they dissolve into laughter after their stare-down (111).

Hurston's Use of Humor

     Similar to the Incongruent Theory, Spencer and Freud believe that the unexpected and uncomfortable cause laughter. These humor theories are executed by future authors like Zora Neale Hurtson, in her musical Polk County. In this musical from the Harlem Renaissance, Hurston uses dynamic and endearing characters to keep the audience laughing and engaged. 

     According to Descartes, one of the only causes of laughter is “the surprise of admiration or wonder” (Descartes 22). A humorous situation in Polk County is when people who should be in charge and have the power are scared and cower beneath the people who should have less power. For example, the women who live in the quarters exasperate Quarter Boss, bringing him to say “All right! All right! Big Sweet is the bellcow, and to hell with it!” (Hurston 286). The audience finds this entertaining and humorous as the man whose name is Boss is dominated by a group of women led by Big Sweet. The admiration for Big Sweet and her friends’ confidence and fearlessness mixed with the wonder of how Quarter Boss lost all control leads to laughter. 

     Spencer’s hydraulic theory of laughter is that “nervous energy builds up within our bodies and requires release through muscular movement” (Spencer 99). We can see this both in the audience and on stage in Act 1 Scene 2 of Polk County, when Big Sweet and Leafy first meet. In the play, the nervous energy causes Leafy and Big Sweet to smile and laugh together instead of arguing as “Big Sweet gives in, takes her foot down, stands akimbo and [makes] an attempt to conceal her admiration under rough good humor” (Hurston 298). Similarly, the audience gets nervous as they are expecting to witness a fight on stage, and are pleasantly surprised and relieved to see the two characters they expected to argue actually getting along, being friendly with one another. 

     Overall, Hurston’s Polk County uses humor explained by Descartes and Freud to both entertain and teach the audience about culture and power in the American South.