Whether someone finds something funny is not only about their preferred humor style, but also about their education and general knowledge. For example, a four year old would find things funny that someone of the teen generation and older would not. Younger humor styles include “Teletubbies”, “Bananas in Pajamas” and other similar television programs. Young people find these funny simply because of physical humor, if the character falls over the child would most likely laugh, but if the character made a witty remark on a past political event the child would not laugh. This is due entirely to the development of the mind, understanding of things going on around you, education and general knowledge (common sense). When I became a teenager I started the find a wider array of things humorous. For example when I was about 12 years of age I found shows like ‘the Simpsons’ funny, which is a clever show is the way that it suits many age groups. It has physical humor because the main character Homer is always hurting himself in different ways and it has witty humor for the older age groups. I found it funny mainly because of the physical humor, but by this age I had already started to develop the knowledge that is required to understand the more intelligent jokes. At the age I am currently at now, I fully understand the jokes and humor used in a television show such as ‘the Simpsons’ and now find myself interested in different humor. I find things like ‘family guy’ and ‘modern family’ humorous. These texts require a more developed and experienced mind to understand and appreciate the humor and message being made. For example in ‘modern family’ the humor is very clever, it uses wit but also interesting concepts that can be contrasted heavily with other television programs. In modern family there is no canned laughter, which requires the watcher to be more switched on and involved in the story to get the gag. This requires a higher level of concentration and intelligence.

Conclusion :)

Overall people’s different views on humor are mainly due to development/underdevelopment of the mind and general knowledge and intelligence.  Comedy relies on a number of things these can include; slapstick parody, satire, irony, sarcasm, farce, surrealism, timing, puns wordplay and misunderstandings for example Joe: “When I nod my head, you hit it.” Joe nods. Fred hits Joe over the head with the hammer. These qualities you will only come to appreciate through time and age as your knowledge and understanding of different situations and contexts broadens.

So… do you think you know your sense of humor developed over the years??…

The Club is a play written by David Williamson about the culture of Australian Football in the 1970’s, it shows the scandals within the sporting industry. In response to point 5 the text uses humour to highlight the values, such as mateship, loyalty and team spirit, its also highly focuses on the ‘typical Australian’

“Pull your socks up and start trying.” This is an Australian cliché. When a comment like this is stated in the text the audience would get two different understandings of the meaning, as an Australian would understand that it isn’t meant literally and would be able to follow along with that the point of the saying, though whereas an outsider for example would take it literally, and would be left feeling confused and unable to gasp the concept. It heavily relies on the audience to understand the slang Australian terms to be able to follow along, and to fully understand the humour which is being expressed throughout the play. It uses humour to emphasise the Australian language and the stereotype of the Australian ‘bloke’. Though there are challenges as I do believe the humour is generational, as I do not find many of the expressions used funny, where as people during the 1970’s would, though I am still able to understand the terms and realise why they might be found funny.

The Australians values have been a main focus point, as it allows a wide range of the readers to understand where it is coming from, and find the humorous side. As there is a discussion between a business man and the team couch about the true meaning of the sport. “It doesn’t matter how much natural ability he’s got. Ifs he’s hearts not in it, he’s a dud.” Its brings up the concept: Money verses love of the game. This is something all Australians would understand, as a true Australian shouldn’t be influenced by money, it’s the true passion for what they believe is right. Williamson also explores a wide range of characters, not only the funny characters, he also included the stubborn, stern and some more educated than others, which relates to the changes that have occurred, and are still happening today.

As I didn’t personally find the text as funny as many others did, I was able to see where they were coming from and how many others would find it funny, as Williamson has successfully been able to incorporate language techniques, to be able to emphasise  and mock the ‘true blue Australian’ and our way of life.

Whether someone finds something funny is not only about their preferred humor style, but also about their education and general knowledge. For example, a four year old would find things funny that someone of the teen generation and older would not. Younger humor styles include teletubbies, bananas in pajamas and other similar television programs. Young people find these funny simply because of physical humor, if the character falls over the child would most likely laugh, but if the character made a witty remark on a past political event the child would not laugh. This is due entirely to the development of the mind, understanding of things going on around you, education and general knowledge (common sense).

When I became a teenager I started the find a wider array of things humorous. For example when I was about 12 years of age I found shows like ‘the Simpsons’ funny, which is a clever show is the way that it suits many age groups. It has physical humor because the main character Homer is always hurting himself in different ways and it has witty humor for the older age groups. I found it funny mainly because of the physical humor, but by this age I had already started to develop the knowledge that is required to understand the more intelligent jokes.

At the age I am currently at now, I fully understand the jokes and humor used in a television show such as ‘the Simpsons’ and now find myself interested in different humor. I find things like ‘family guy’ and ‘modern family’ humorous. These texts require a more developed and experienced mind to understand and appreciate the humor and message being made. For example in ‘modern family’ the humor is very clever, it uses wit but also interesting concepts that can be contrasted heavily with other television programs. In modern family there is no canned laughter, which requires the watcher to be more switched on and involved in the story to get the gag. This requires a higher level of concentration and intelligence.

Overall people’s different views on humor are mainly due to development/underdevelopment of the mind and general knowledge and intelligence. These qualities are acquired only through time and age.

Under 10

I interviewed my sister who is 10 years old and she said the funniest and most comedic text she had come across was ‘the Simpsons’. The Simpsons is a TV show that has been around since 1989, and is written and created by ‘Matt Groening’. I also agree this text is funny, but I different ways than my sister. She thinks Homer is funny because of how fat a stupid he is; he does nothing to benefit his family or anyone around him. He has catch phrases such as ‘Doh!’ and my sister finds it funny because of the way he says it and the tone of voice he uses. I think the Simpsons is funny for different reasons, such as, the family is so deformed and problematic, they always try to fix a problem and end up digging themselves into a deeper hole than they already began. The family is a typical comedy text family, the men are stupid and usually overweight, and the women are the sane ones and hold the family together. In the Simpsons, Homer and Bart are the two males and are both either overweight and stupid or rebellious and ill-mannered. The women are marge and Lisa, they both try and talk sense into the males and usually fail and end up having to clean up the mess that Homer or Bart have created. Marge is the wife and is reasonably strict in comparison to Homer, which is a good contrast to help the reader/watcher to understand the differences of the characters. Lisa is a ‘goody two shoes’, she does well at school, learns a musicals instrument, and is polite and well mannered. Bart (her brother) is the complete opposite, and is the town menace. Our different views on the text are due to, I believe, the under development of her mind and ability to understand the real message that ‘the Simpsons’ is trying to get across.

Parents’ Generation

I interviewed my dad for this one because I know he has a particular view on humor and humorous texts. He finds texts like ‘Faulty Towers’ and ‘Monty Python ‘. Monty Python is a parody of events that have occurred back in ancient times, such as the roman and the times of Jesus. It mocks the events that have occurred during these time periods in such a way that is funny to almost any audience, including myself. My dad finds it funny because the jokes that are used need to have an audience member who has an understanding of the time and place. My dad is a very knowledgeable person; I believe this is the reason why he finds it so funny. Someone my age though might not understand the jokes because of a lack of knowledge in the required areas.
‘Faulty Towers’ is a similar comedic text to ‘the Simpsons’ in the way that the main character is male and ignorant, and at times stupid. The females are the ones that hold everything together, and in this case that is a hotel. Bazil (the main character) is man who is very ignorant and rude to his guests. He only creates problems, not solve them, and like ‘the Simpsons’ the females are the ones that have to fix the problems and clean up the mess that the males have created. My dad finds it funny because of how “incredibly incapable” Bazil is of running a hotel. The humor is light hearted and easy for any audience to understand. I also find it very funny for the same reasons as my dad. This comedic text relies on the audience to have a basic understanding of the difficulties of running a hotel and people’s views and expectations when they visit one. Both my dad and I find this text funny because the understanding needed to find it funny is minimal.

Grandparent’s generation

When I interviewed my grandfather he said his favorite humorous texts are ‘the road to…’ films starring Bing Crosby (a singer) and Bob Hope (a comedian). It is a different type of humor; two men going on long trips to areas of which they are unfamiliar with, and them interacting with each other and trying to overcome obstacles as a team. Usually the characters have conflicting interests and ideals, this creates havoc for the characters, and this is where most of the humor comes from. They go from country to country and try to make money as con artists. Crosby is the one that comes up with the ideas whilst Hope is the one that has to do all the dirty work. My grandfather likes the texts because of the way they have to adapt to the way of life in different countries, and always end up doing the wrong thing and making mistakes that they have to overcome later on. I find these texts funny, but not as funny as modern texts. I believe this is because I have adapted to the modern humor style and thus do not find older texts as funny. The reason why we have different views on this text is mainly due to the vast time period that has occurred between the creation of this text and the creation of others that I find humorous. From the 1940’s to the 2000’s humor has developed hugely, and changed in many ways.

Of course, humour makes people laugh. Most of the time. There are some jokes that some people find hilarious, some don’t. But, humour can also be used to lighten a dark situation. Of course, you don’t want to be down right insensitive and say to your best friend right after her grandfather had a heart attack “I’m sure he’ll be right. I mean, even if he did cark it, who’d miss him?” and laugh at your own cleverness while your friend bursts into tears… not that I’m saying I’ve ever done that.

Often in advertisements people use humour to get a serious message across, so as to make it less blunt and extreme. People could use puns in a conversation to convey a deeper meaning. Or sarcasm because they mean something more serious. But mainly humour is just funny. Humour is there to make you laugh. Even if it is about a dreary situation. To make people feel better about themselves, or something bad that may have happened to them.

But beware, humour may be offensive. You may think what your about to say is very intelligent and well thought through, but in a majority of cases it will probably offend someone. For example, some people find racism funny, where it is actually rude and offensive. Some people get “kicks” out of making fun of others. This is breaking the golden rule of humour. It is only funny when everyone is laughing. So, obviously there are some bad types of humour, like making fun of someone or being racist. And some people just don’t think about how long something they may have done or said can stay in a persons system.

But enough of the dreary mean stuff, it’s making me depressed. I’ve warned you about not making a joke at others expense; now we can move on. I’d like to leave you with a joke I heard the other day that had me laughing for days afterward. (The person who told it may or may not be reading this, but thanks for the laughs) “What do you call a pig who can do karate? A pork chop!”

My set text is called the club and is written by David Williamson. It is a text written in a humorous light about an Australian football club in the 1970’s. It is based around five or six main characters from the football board and each has their view and spin on football culture. The author though these characters show explains the stereotypes and values of AFL in this time period. It uses humour to explore the values associated with football, such as mateship, loyalty, and tradition. It also uses language features such as parodies, sarcasm and cliché.  It similarly explores the values of personal gain.

David Williamson uses humour to explore values. Firstly he introduces the value of loyalty to tradition, in this example its loyalty to the tradition of the football club. Jocks quote strongly shows this, “This is a disgusting and despicable threat, Danny. I never thought I’d live to see the day. I’ve played two-hundred and eighty-two games for this club and every time I ran out onto the ground I felt as honoured to be out there wearing the clubs colours as I did the first time”. Also he explores the theme of personal gain and this is show best thought Geoff. This example is a perfect show of greed and a clear change in tradition football culture. It depicts a football culture changing from playing for a team out of pure love of the game with a huge amount of pride to a game with greed for money and the highest paying team. This quote from Geoff shows this well, “I read it three or four times over and shook my head and said, ‘I need more money’. I didn’t really expect to get any more – I just wanted to establish myself as something more than a tailors dummy – but it worked marvellously. All hell broke loose.”

Williamson also parodies different stereotypes in Australian football culture. These include those for example Geoff is your personal gain character who is stoned, young, hippy like (incest) with a larrikin style of humour. Jock and Lorry on the other hand are the opposite; They both appreciate the attitudes of loyalty to tradition and share a strong love of the game. The both comment on the correct approaches to football and talk about the role for a proper footballer playing the game.

Overall even though we are labelling the club with the tag “comedy”, I believe it is more of a drama than a comedy at it presents many conflicts in a not so comedic tone. These conflicts are between tradition and greed both combined with a new era and idea of football. The whole book itself I do not believe should be covered as a comedic text in our study of humour. I believe the moral lesson to be learned from the book is that greed with never get you as far as true and wholehearted commitment to a certain cause and in this case this commitment is towards the tradition of Australian Football Rules.

Interview of three people I know, questioning them with the following things:

Less than 10 years old: text found funny = The Simpsons

I do agree with her that this text is funny, although we both share the liking for this text, we see humour in the texts differently due to certain contexts. She likes this text so much because of the general stupidity of the characters and silly catchphrases which are humorous because they are just plain funny. As a young adult I find these texts funny due to innuendos and stereotypes which a younger child would not pick up and it is these undertones which are hidden in the scripts without saying it directly make the text humorous for me. This text relies on specific values to make it funny including stereotypes, it also targets our day to day life and makes us able to relate to the text more easily in turn making humour surround those ideas more amusing, relations are also made in the area of work and school. It is also innuendos of certain types and it’s all these values combined that the text relies on to be funny.  The views of my interviewer differ to mine on why they find it funny is due to an immature mind and different views on society, this can also mean they will not pick up on some of the stereotypes we see either. This is the age gap and innocent mind which leads to them finding it funny in the way they do. They values of why I find it funny require an understanding of society and the stereotypes which go with it, there are also innuendos which require a more mature mind for their understanding.

Parents: text found funny = Dads Army

I do agree with him that this text is funny, I do believe that we both find it funny for MANY of the same reasons but not all. He likes this text so much because the fighting determination of these old men is humorously incongruous with their frail aging physiques. I like this text so much just because of witty little phrases and a generally humorous script. The kind of values this text relies on to be funny include a little background knowledge of the way, and being able to relate to the situation they were in. Having this understanding makes the text very funny. The gaps between my age group and dad in values differ only very slightly and the only values which would be different to the others is his greater knowledge of the time period and due to this finds it easier to relate to the humour used which some unless with a small amount of familiarity would not pick it up.

Grandparents: text found funny = ‘the road to…’ films

When I interviewed my grandfather he said his favourite humorous texts are ‘the road to…’ films starring Bing Crosby (a singer) and Bob Hope (a comedian). It is a different type of humor; two men going on long trips to areas of which they are unfamiliar with, and them interacting with each other and trying to overcome obstacles as a team. Usually the characters have conflicting interests and ideals, this creates havoc for the characters, and this is where most of the humor comes from. They go from country to country and try to make money as con artists. Crosby is the one that comes up with the ideas whilst Hope is the one that has to do all the dirty work. My grandfather likes the texts because of the way they have to adapt to the way of life in different countries, and always end up doing the wrong thing and making mistakes that they have to overcome later on. I find these texts funny, but not as funny as modern texts. I believe this is because I have adapted to the modern humor style and thus do not find older texts as funny. The reason why we have different views on this text is mainly due to the vast time period that has occurred between the creation of this text and the creation of others that I find humorous. From the 1940’s to the 2000’s humor has developed hugely, and changed in many ways.

What is funny? what makes something funny? who makes something funny? why is it funny?

These are many of the questions i ask myself when i hear a funny joke or see a funny video. In today’s society, in australia’s culture, many of the jokes we hear ourselves at in the playground at recess and lunch are seen as offensive or inappropiate to other generations. we now find racist and sexual jokes funny, where as back in the day these jokes would have been highly innapropiate.

Humour is merely tragedy standing on its head with its pants torn ~ Irvin S. Cobbs
states how we make things funny, often slapstick humour is seen as funny, seeing other people in pain. often making something that its not, so riduclous can be hilarious, for instance putting a pair of boots onto a cat, and calling him ‘Puss in Boots’ is completely stupid and would seem riduclous to people in an older generation, but, to a 5 year old it would seem fabulous and hilarious because its something that they would make up, something that feeds their imagination, sometimes the simplest things can be funny.

The Club, an Australian play written by David Williamson about football in the 1970′s, uses many examples of Australian humour. The play takes place in the committee room of a top, professional football club. Humour is used in The Club to try and teach us lessons of some sort. (From the title, you may or may not have noticed that i didn’t really pick up on the funny side of the play) Sometimes it is obvious and other times it is barely detectable. The main moral values present in the play are loyalty, mate ship, team spirit and tradition ; humour is used to show these values.

“The teams made him feel as welcome as a blowfly at a butchers picnic ” uses alliteration and simile as an example of team spirit and Australian humour. Even though it may not sound particularly funny, this quote is basically the most obvious bit of humour used throughout the entire text. Either its just me or the fact that Australian’s of the 1970′s had a completely different sense of humour to the people of my generation

Williamson created one of his characters as the owner of a meat pie factory. Meat pies in themselves are a typical Australian icon, let alone actually owning a factory that makes them! This is an example of humour, and being Australian we understand and can connect with it, where as if you weren’t Australian you’d find it hard to relate.

Another reason why Australian’s could understand the text would be that Williamson’s strong characters embody the typical ‘blokey’ attributes. In that way we are vulnerable and able to laugh because in fact, the play is mocking us.

“Blind Freddy could have seen that Danny was beaten pointless…” is said when two of the businessmen are talking. Blind Freddy isn’t a character but a figure of speech. Most Australians wouldn’t necessarily pick up on that because its just an Australian kind of thing to say and to we’re accostomed to it. Like Joe Blake (snake), “Let’s have a Captain Cook” (look) or even dead horse (tomato sauce). Say you’re from Europe, imagine coming to Australia and hear people talk like that!

Personally I didn’t find The Club funny. However, i found the movie a lot funnier and more enjoyable to watch than reading the play. I think that it helped to see it played out on screen, and gave a better understanding of what was happening in the novel.

I wonder how many other people in Year 10 that read The Club found it funny?