The idea of an “action transvestite” is not like anything I have ever heard before. What it means, I have not the slightest idea. As far as explaining it to someone else, I would not know where to begin. Still, regardless of actually knowing what it means, these two concepts together seem to be enough to cause laughter. Why is this? Looking to one of humor theorist Murray Davis’s less wordy concepts will undoubtedly help shed some light on exactly why Izzard’s alter-ego invokes such a positive audience response. Davis states, “The humorizer may produce humor by continually juxtaposing phenomena until a pair appears whose attributes are incongruous” (29). Now it becomes clear. Izzard’s classification is funny because in it there are two phenomena whose attributes are not compatible. On the one hand, there is the “action” part which conjures up images of manly superheroes who are the assumed role models of all young boys. On the other, there is the “transvestite,” a man who no longer looks like a man given his choice of female attire. Of course, who cannot help but laugh at the use of these total opposites to classify the same character?
*****
Another peculiarity of Eddie Izzard’s stand up is the exclusive comedy found in his critique of American movies (with exclusive meaning one must be British or American in order to find humorous what he proposes). Being American, I take for granted the odd relationship which exists between the United States and the United Kingdom. No matter what European, Asian, African, or other country one’s ancestors are actually from, the pilgrims, colonies, and Revolutionary War are such a strongly ingrained and repeated part of American education, that those who grow up here, cannot help but feel some intimate connection with Britain. For that reason, even though these are two entirely different cultures, the people of them seem to come out belonging to the same group of understanding. It is an understanding which is vital to Izzard’s comedy. Well, how so?
Having enjoyed Izzard’s performance so much, I wanted to share the laughter with a friend of mine. I thought it was so funny, that I had no doubt he would feel the same. What I failed to take into consideration was that my friend is not American, but Eastern European. He watched it, smiled a bit, but by the end, only offered, “It’s alright.” At first, I could not think of a reason for his reserved reaction. Certainly, he understood everything, but why didn’t he find it as funny as I (and many in the class) did? To come to an answer, I started with the piece’s actual comedy. Clearly, as much as Izzard is provoking the British to laugh at the over-the-top violence and grandiose attitudes of American film, he is likewise providing cause for laughing at the understated pretentiousness prevalent in British cinema. From here, one can see why an Eastern European probably would not laugh. In order to find it funny, one needs to belong to one of these two groups, thereby having an understanding that such opposites in movie taste are funny because they are actually pointing out prevailing differences which have colored the interactions of these two countries since the beginning.
Surely, the above is a concept which can extend to other sets of countries who have had mutual, yet sometimes turbulent, relations. However, as for the exact theories covered in class, I do not know if my supposition fits neatly into any of them. There is the “us vs. them” quality, but I do not think that description is completely accurate, given it is more about finding humor in a shared history rather than trying to ridicule countries (or others) outside the two involved. Any thoughts?
Davis, Murray. “Wit’s Weapons: Incongruity and Ambiguity.” Laughing Matters. Ed. Marvin Diogenes. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. 13-36.
Izzard, Eddie. “Dress to Kill: British vs. American Movies” www.youtube.com. 2 June 2006. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. 5 February 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjC3R6jOtUo.
In expanding the circle, I wanted to point on two themes I especially appreciate. The first is your statement of outlandish exaggerations. In the context, you apply it to Whitcher’s piece. I think that is an accurate account of her writing. I wanted to add another aspect of hyperbole that I found in, “Aunt Maguire Continues Her Account of the Sewing Society.” The whole scenario surrounding the elections is fairly bizarre. From the first page of the story it seems these women are just goofing off, having a good time, and occasionally spinning a thread. When the topic of elections arises, I am bewildered that they would have any such legislature. This must be one of Whitcher’s ploy to provoke humor, because the elections are totally inappropriate, and thus, outlandish. Secondly, I liked your use of “over-the-top” from your entry titled, British Invasion. You refer to it in context of violence and grandiose attitudes of American film. This is a great claim considering that it can be generally concluded that American cinema could be characterized by these two things. I remember Izzard’s example of, “A Room with a View.” He proceeds to explain how British cinema would adopt the film, then juxtaposes that with how America would warp it into some high-end action movie with an elaborate name. “Over-the-top” is used to describe many pieces of writing we have used so far.
ReplyDeleteActually the 'elections' were and are still appropriate and they take place. During the time period before suffrage, it was the ONLY place where women had a vote, and it also shows a mimicking of the public sphere in the private one inhabited by women. I am interested in the Izzard comments, tho, as they reflect and demonstrate that a difference in culture can make all of the difference in humor. Think of the furor over the politically incorrect Islamic jokes (cartoons) published in the Finnish papers. Since I didn't see the actual cartoons, I can't really comment on the content's offensiveness, but it follows that there are jokes that Muslims find funny, and these were not in that category--in much the same way that the Pope jokes were a bit stale for some of us (except the popapalooza--sorry, that one gets points just for punning). Finding the fine line is the hard part, and why some people can't be comedians or humorists or even tell a joke.
ReplyDelete