If laughter is unique to man, it comes in hundreds of shades: from cream to irony, from philosophical humor to burlesque, from punto absurdity. Although practiced worldwide, humor journeys with trouble as it mobilizes sometimes elusive sensibilities that may describe a national culture in addition to a household microcosm. If comedy is badly exported, it is, however, often apt to concentrate on the difference. Jokes about minorities, particular”types” of women, the disabled, children, the elderly …’ve ever been alone and triumphant signify a touch of humor frequently comes at the cost of a third party. . In the cinema, hot comedies which contain different personalities, often from minorities, are legion. Since these characters are produced to make people laugh, can they do violence to those they represent? Put more money, do they take part in racism?
The ambiguous mechanisms of humor
By Charlot to OSS 117, the comic figures cover a palette as vast as the springs of humor. To identify how humor introduces a problem for diversity, we have to return to what is the basis of laughter. This query is far from being settled and independently could reestablish long hours of doctrine. However, at the beginning of the 20th century, the philosopher Henri Bergson attempted a little essay on the”meaning of this comic,” which provided some probable answers.
Henri Bergson first notes that”Where the individual of the others stops to move us, only there can the humour start .In other words, both empathy and humor marry poorly. The theatre often provides the spectator with the main character to identify. Thanks to the identification, we’re inclined to shout or yell at the protagonist’s fate. Consequently, we implicitly wish he would not suffer. His happiness matters to people. For humor, on the contrary, the personality’s issues, if they compose the comic spring, become desired, to the detriment of his joy.
According to Henri Bergson, bliss in itself is”a sort of social bullying.” [ Two ]Laughing consists of sanctioning something of the order of the drift, of those strange. A character becomes possibly ridiculous when they reveal a deviation from what laughing society considers normal. This standard alone would paint a very dark portrait of humor. To the detriment of their Egyptian woman, the face, would laughter function as an unkind symptom of hot and trivial intolerance? In some cases, it’s a fact that comedies provide you with the display of supposed anomalies. The sketches Africans from Michel Lebb, still sometimes broadcast without a doubt, or perhaps the trendy collection of this truth when I lie about the Sephardic Jews of the Path, basically make people laugh at the difference.
For the philosopher, if the subject of the comedy is circulated and circulated, it is above all since the laughable sides of his individual are the indicators of a feature he can’t overcome. In a way, it is the consistency of these faults and their predictability that makes them humorous. The miser is funny since he doesn’t know how to give up his avarice, as the foreigner makes people laugh because his bizarre traditions resurface in the slightest twist. For the bible, this is actually what laughter sanctions: not a one-off deviation from the norm but the fact that an”inner itch” [ 3 ] appears to animate characters who don’t emancipate themselves from it. The diverted, the lazy, the clumsy are funny because they’re”motorized” with their tendency rather than by the circumstances, unlike”normal” people.
Comedies, therefore, often designate”forms” of personality whose humor doesn’t come out of a flaw that culture condemns but from the replica of a character trait where the character doesn’t understand how to lose himself. The vain instincts of the parts of De Funès are as absurd as the innocent impulses of those encamped by the sympathetic Bourvil (as exemplified by La Grande Vadrouille ).