Giggles

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

If a certain instance of humour works for its audience then it is 'good humour'? I must disagree, sir. Any sexist, racist or whatever else kind of joke told in a circle of, say, 20 people may elicit loud laughs from everyone, but it would still be bad humour.

As to the non-book reader's memory of Gimli as the quiet kinda subtle character, that may have to be a necessary consequence of such a film with many characters. This is still arguably better than having the non-book reader remember Gimli as the short clown.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Eomer

I must disagree, sir. Any sexist, racist or whatever else kind of joke told in a circle of, say, 20 people may elicit loud laughs from everyone, but it would still be bad humour.

The exceptions that prove the rule.

Seriously though, that would be "good" humour as far as it's audience is concerned (in the sense that it would work well as humour for that audience). Open it up to a wider audience and it would not necessarily work so well. So it would not be as "good" as humour that had a broader appeal. It's all subjective, you see, and you can only get some kind of objective view when you judge it by reference to the breadth of its appeal. But doesn't that mean that the more popular the humour, the better it is? Perish the thought!

Originally Posted by Eomer

This is still arguably better than having the non-book reader remember Gimli as the short clown.

Arguably indeed. I would rather see Gimli fondly remembered as the short clown than generally overlooked.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by TheSaucepanMan

Eomer of the Rohirrim is well advised to decline Bêthberry's invitation to attempt a definition of "humour", but I will attempt a very rudimentary one. "Humour" is that which people find humorous. And the more people that find something humorous, the better the humour is.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Seriously though, that would be "good" humour as far as it's audience is concerned (in the sense that it would work well as humour for that audience). Open it up to a wider audience and it would not necessarily work so well. So it would not be as "good" as humour that had a broader appeal. It's all subjective, you see, and you can only get some kind of objective view when you judge it by reference to the breadth of its appeal. But doesn't that mean that the more popular the humour, the better it is? Perish the thought!

For shame, SpM, even in jest, to employ the term under discussion in the definition. I would have thought better of a loyer, but then I guess that is your humour at work.

The problem with your suggestion that the only objective view is that determined by majority or mass appeal is that it grants this specious 'objectivity' to the tyranny of numbers. We accept the rule of the majority in democratic votes, but I don't think we assume it necessarily follows that we are often persuaded that the best party won.

The other problem is that aesthetic appreciation is often a matter of education. Not in the sense that high brow art must be beat into us, but in the sense that very often it takes one courageous artistic vision to suggest an idea which others cannot yet grasp. Slowly, though, they come round. After all, Tolkien's work was first derided by fellow academics because it flew in the face of the ruling style of the moment, modernism. But times change and his work is now generally regarded and the subject of university courses. Does this mean that at first Tolkien was a bad author, using bad humour? Or does it mean that in fact the general understanding of his art has changed.

I could as well name other writers who at first were vastly popular and well regarded, who have now fallen into the dust bin of history, ready to be recycled some day perhaps by some intrepid interpreter. Popularity is as fickle as teen heart throbs.

Minority interpreters do not have to fall in line with the majority. Nor should the majority brow beat the minority into submission. What they should do is listen to each other, and learn from each other, see where there is common ground and where there are differences of perspective. But to be told "You're in the wrong because more people agree with me", well, that amounts to plain ole bullying.

It seems to me that you take the subjectivity of humour and out of that argue that the most 'objective' approach is to accept that of the majority. I also argue that humour is subjective. Where I differ is that I think it is possible to consider some properties of art which create humour. Sometimes it is the daring inconsistency or unusual nature of the event, the implausibility, which draw out our laughter. (Here, bodily functions are easily seen as funnier than stolid, solemn mental gymnastics because they 'bring people down to earth'.)

Comedy, I think, is meant often to be a breaker of barriers (tension, false pride, arrogance, ignorance etc), bursting the balloon of pretension and self-blindness. (Heck, just look at what happened here with the various interpretations of the Death of Crystal Heart thread. ) Maybe comedy also is designed to show up the different perspectives which we all bring to bear on an event. Thus I think it is valuable to consider the context of Jackson's various bits of comedy. Is he asking us not to take Middle-earth seriously? Or take it just as a bit of a romp? Or is he just wanting to regale us with funny moments for the sheer fun of laughter? Did he simply want to make the most number of people laugh? Okay, I guess. But how does that sit with the other aspects of his movies? And since when is the filmaker's intention the final, absolute word?

I take your point about Lucas' and Speilberg's sentimentality. For me, the high point of Lucas' art was the original Star Wars, possibly extended to the two sequels. Jar Jar Binks and a plethora of improbable aliens show me the fraying limits of his vision. It is by the measure of the first SW that I consider Jackson's movies, because his movies bring to my mind so clearly Lucas' finest achievements.

[Holbytlass]

I found it, the one unfunny thing in 'Fellowship' (in my opinion). I was disappointed because everything humorous seemed to fit at least character-wise and in context to the situation, I am sure others would disagree but I was looking for pure unfunny. So I began to think that the unfunny stuff was only in 'Two Towers' and 'Return of King' because so much of the movies were battles, to give comic relief.
Of course it was Gimli (poor Gimli!!). The scene where the Fellowship is bedding down at Lothlorien, the elves are singing the laments for Gandalf, Sam tries to do his bit then Gimli snores and Aragorn hits him. That's not funny.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I agree wholeheartedly. But this is the problem with judging Jackson by Tolkien's standards. Jackson's approach and intentions were different in many significant respects, and understandable (in my view) by reference to today's "mass market" approach to films such as these.

It's true. You can't judge Jackson by Tolkien standards, because the two are separate entities. Example: the song Mrs. Robinson. Yesterday I listened to two versions... Simon and Garfunkle's and Frank Sinatra's. Both excellent in their own right, and completely uncomparable. I mean... all you have to do is listen to the first few chords and you automatically think "What? This isn't Mrs. Robinson as I know it!" But that doesn't mean that it's not Mrs. Robinson, and that doesn't make it bad. It just makes it different. Right Saucie?

But at the same time, some of the comedic lines in the Movies could effectively go in all of those "What they would never say" threads that keep springing up. I mean... honestly now, how many of you ever in your right mind imagined Gimli, proud and noble Dwarf that he is, drunkenly muttering that "It's the Dwarves that going swimming with little hairy women." I wasn't offended, per say, but I certainly thought that that line was completely... well... unfunny. If I'd been hanging out with a group of guy friends and one of them said something that (a) lame, (b) uncultured, (c) potentially offensive... I'd smack him. And yes, Keeper, because I know a rebuttal is coming, I understand that this is pre-Middle Ages, things were uncultured, people were slobs, and men were men. That doesn't make the line any less unfunny.

[Lalwendë]

Humour is all about personal taste, so I don't think quality judgements are always possible. Why do I think it's about personal taste? Well, humour often arises from our own experience of the world - here's an example: I find Pauline from the League of Gentlemen hilarious because I've had the misfortune to meet many such women; the line 'dole scum' makes me laugh because this is how they truly do view unemployed people. And having been unemployed and on the receiving end of their bile, this term is deeply and darkly satirical to me. But many other people find it utterly unfunny as they do not necessarily have that experience, or, having had it, they find themselves unable to laugh about it in retrospect. By the same token, certain types of jokes make me pull a face like I'm sucking a lemon because they make fun of things that I'm sensitive about.

As to PJ's use of comedy, I did find some of it good, in fact most of it was good, apart from what he did to Gimli. He played on Gimli's height and appearance a little too much, which I found to be cheap humour, much in the manner of the playground bully endlessly poking the 'speccy-four-eyes' or 'duracell' kid. After too many of these jokes I'd had enough. The "shall I get you a box" was delivered excellently by Orlando Bloom (perhaps he has a hidden talent for comedy), as it was very deadpan and subtle, but the remarks by Aragorn to Eowyn seemed merely snide, the kind of thing people say behind their backs.

[The Saucepan Man]

Actually Bb, I agree with most of what you say.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

For shame, SpM, even in jest, to employ the term under discussion in the definition. I would have thought better of a loyer, but then I guess that is your humour at work.

OK then. Humour is what people find amusing.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The problem with your suggestion that the only objective view is that determined by majority or mass appeal is that it grants this specious 'objectivity' to the tyranny of numbers. We accept the rule of the majority in democratic votes, but I don't think we assume it necessarily follows that we are often persuaded that the best party won.

Well I am not saying that, just because something is popular, people have to accept it. As I said, I never found Friends funny. But I accept that it must have some quality which eludes me in order for it to have become so popular. As for democracy, well I would rather have to sit through every single episode of Friends than endure another four to five years of a government which I despise. But, alas, it looks like I shall have little choice on that particular issue. At least, as far as comedy is concerned, I have the option to switch off, not read etc.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The other problem is that aesthetic appreciation is often a matter of education.

I agree with you to an extent. To a degree, I think that it is possible to judge something as being of greater quality if it is praised and respected by those who know what they are talking about. Hence I respect the views of professional critics when it comes to films (although I do not necessarily always agree with them). Similarly, I respect the fact that Dickens is generally acknowledged in academic fields to be one of the literary greats, even though I cannot abide the man’s work myself.

But how far do we take this? As you yourself said, Tolkien’s work was not generally regarded as having a great deal of literary worth by academics when it was first published. It was acceptance by a less lofty audience which first won him acclaim.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Does this mean that at first Tolkien was a bad author, using bad humour? Or does it mean that in fact the general understanding of his art has changed.

I actually think that it makes him a better author. His work had broad appeal and, in many ways, that means a lot more than a few nods from the ivory towers. But had LotR fallen flat on its face when first published and achieved only minimal sales, then I would say yes, judged by the standards then prevailing, Tolkien would have been a bad author. But tastes and standards do change over time, so a work of art which is judged “bad” by one generation may be judged as “good” by another.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Popularity is as fickle as teen heart throbs.

Indeed. So, while popularity is relevant in considering artistic merit, popularity combined with longevity is an even better indicator. Indeed, it is perhaps the closest that we can get to a truly objective assessment. LotR has fared well on this analysis (so far). It remains to be seen how Jackson’s films will fare.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But to be told "You're in the wrong because more people agree with me", well, that amounts to plain ole bullying.

As you know, this is an argument that I have never sought to advance. I merely bring popularity up as a consideration, to be weighed along with other relevant considerations. I certainly do not like the films, or appreciate their humour, simply because they are popular. I like them because they appeal to me (despite being frequently told how wrong I am on this forum ).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It seems to me that you take the subjectivity of humour and out of that argue that the most 'objective' approach is to accept that of the majority. I also argue that humour is subjective. Where I differ is that I think it is possible to consider some properties of art which create humour.

I do not disagree. Although, as I said, I think that the most objective approach is to look not simply at popularity at one point in time, but to look at the degree to which something retains its appeal over time. It is not that long ago that the racist and sexist humour that Eomer spoke of was broadly acceptable. In some places it still is. But we have moved on and, as a general proposition, it no longer is acceptable to derive humour from such matters. But other forms of comedy are timeless. Slapstick is one such. And bodily functions have always been a rich source of comedy, even though society’s taboos have, at times, dictated that such comedy was not for general consumption – not publicly at least. Crude and obvious comedy was not Tolkien’s style, but it quite clearly is something that Jackson feels able to use. And, as it is his film, he is within his right to include such humour within it.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Thus I think it is valuable to consider the context of Jackson's various bits of comedy. Is he asking us not to take Middle-earth seriously? Or take it just as a bit of a romp? Or is he just wanting to regale us with funny moments for the sheer fun of laughter? Did he simply want to make the most number of people laugh? Okay, I guess. But how does that sit with the other aspects of his movies?

I don’t think he is suggesting that we should not take Middle-earth seriously. But he is including light-hearted moments in order to break the tension and also to provide general amusement, and he is doing so in a manner with which he feels comfortable and which he feels will broadly appeal to his audience.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And since when is the filmaker's intention the final, absolute word?

Well, subject to the demands of the studio and his backers, he does have the final absolute word over what goes into the films. But he of course has no control over the subjective reaction of individual members of his audience. And he would no doubt accept that.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It is by the measure of the first SW that I consider Jackson's movies, because his movies bring to my mind so clearly Lucas' finest achievements.

I agree, although my conclusion clearly differs from yours. Having said that, while I do feel that the LotR trilogy will be judged Jackson’s greatest achievement, primarily because of the sheer scale of the project, I somehow doubt that it will represent his greatest directorial achievement. I believe that his best is still yet to come.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

The other problem is that aesthetic appreciation is often a matter of education. Not in the sense that high brow art must be beat into us, but in the sense that very often it takes one courageous artistic vision to suggest an idea which others cannot yet grasp. Slowly, though, they come round. After all, Tolkien's work was first derided by fellow academics because it flew in the face of the ruling style of the moment, modernism.

I have to stick my 'oar' in here briefly - but bear with me, I agree, as you shall see. Do you really mean education? And in what way? Do you mean in terms of formal education or in terms of broader education which might include the simple thirst for knowledge whether leading to qualifications or not, maybe being undertaken in the local library independent of any formal system?

I'm often loathe to rely purely on the opinion of the academic for which way my tastes ought to go, simply as in my experience they can be as prejudiced as any 'lay' person. As you point out, the academics indeed derided Tolkien at first (and I have to say that in the UK they still do; an expert like Shippey is exceedingly hard to find in our Universities), so perhaps this itself shows that 'education' might not always be a pointer to what is 'worthy'.

Hmm, so as not to argue pointlessly, how about 'artistic vision' as the quality which the innovator must possess? The willingness and bravery to take a different point of view must be important if any academic is to stick their neck out and say that writers such as Tolkien are worthy. This would be where 'education' might come in, as such a person would need the authority and knowledge to back up their statements.

Now I've discussed my point back aorund in a circle to where it began, I think that yes, education does count, certainly in terms of giving added weight to the authority of what someone says. But in addition vision is also vital. just who was it who did this with Tolkien?

As a final thought - it is now more common for the authority figures in the world of knowledge, the academics, to take up popular culture and bestow it with deep meaning and significance, not always correctly. Are we about to see a backlash whereby academics will return to extolling the virtues of obscure and high-brow 16th century poets?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Actually Bb, I agree with most of what you say.

Now, a statement like that is just about designed to silence one's opponents! I certainly won't risk falling out yet again with Sauce by nit-picking his points.

What I will do is elaborate on my comment about education, for that is the point which has drawn comments about academics and Dickens from Sauce and Lalwendë's disparaging observations about formal education. You know, for people who claim to think so highly of Tolkien, himself an academic and whose work is so closely informed by his academic loves and knowledge, you sure do take a jaundiced view of higher education! (In fact, I would go so far as to say that Tolkien's work would not exist had he not had an academic's love of philology and mythology. Or they certainly would have existed in a highly different form.)

Let's take a closer look at what I said:

The other problem is that aesthetic appreciation is often a matter of education. Not in the sense that high brow art must be beat into us, but in the sense that very often it takes one courageous artistic vision to suggest an idea which others cannot yet grasp. Slowly, though, they come round. After all, Tolkien's work was first derided by fellow academics because it flew in the face of the ruling style of the moment, modernism. But times change and his work is now generally regarded and the subject of university courses. Does this mean that at first Tolkien was a bad author, using bad humour? Or does it mean that in fact the general understanding of his art has changed.

I could as well name other writers who at first were vastly popular and well regarded, who have now fallen into the dust bin of history, ready to be recycled some day perhaps by some intrepid interpreter. Popularity is as fickle as teen heart throbs.

I tried to suggest two things here, which probably were lost in my example of the reception history of Tolkien's work. So let me try again.

By 'education' (and in contrast to having 'highbrow art beaten into us'" I meant simply that we educate ourselves every time we read a new book or see a new movie (or reread, re-view). There is something about the experience of this activity which expands our appreciation of the work(s) in question. Stuff that at one time in our life we thought was great wears thin after we have read more. Stuff that we couldn't stomach sometimes becomes more palatable after we have read other works in the same vein. Our own tastes change, develope, elaborate (the possibility of becoming more stilted, grumpier, restricted exists also) over time. So that, people who have read widely in, say, fantasy, or watched many adventure flicks, tend to have a wider or more knowledgable frame of reference. They bring a greater experience of books or of movies to the table.

For instance, Sauce has argued on other threads that his first readings of Tolkien did not give him any sense of the religious elements in Tolkien's work, but that he has now come to understand, given the explanations of others, that such factors do exist 'in' the texts. (Relying on memory here, can't recall the thread). His posting here has educated him in aspects he did not initially see or appreciate. Does that invalidate his first readings? No! (In fact, it allows for some very interesting discussions about the particular nature of Tolkien's religious input.) But it does show how our appreciation of works change over time and through discussion. This is education. It might not be formal, but it is education.

I rather think that, as academics expanded their range of reading material to include popular works, they began to understand better what Tolkien was up to. The same thing can happen to someone who is well versed in popular culture and who then comes to more classic works: suddenly, they can see some very interesting links and similarities! Education in the sense of greater experience of art changes our appreciation, which isn't absolute or stable.

Now to my second point, which I will bold here from the quote above: very often it takes one courageous artistic vision to suggest an idea which others cannot yet grasp. Since artists--writers, musicians, film makers, painters--often have a deeper or greater or more intimate knowledge of art than we mortals, they are more educated or more experienced. Thus, they see farther--or at least, differently, and can lead us in the direction of their greater experience. This enlightenment does not invalidate anyone's experience, but it does expand the possibilities.

This is why I think Fea's example of Sinatra's cover of Simon and Garfunkel's song is so interesting. (I don't know Sinatra's.) Most often, covers of song are derided, mainly, I suspect, because of what Fea points out: things that run against our habitual way of hearing, seeing, understanding, often tend to run up against a sort of ingrained orthodoxy many of us have. It also seems to run into a human habit of making hierarchies. This is better than that. That sucks. This rocks. Fea is right to point out that differences are simply differences and can exist with equal validity. Nothing I have said contradicts this, and so, Fea, you can include me as well as Saucie in your "Right?"

At the same time, our habit for making comparisons cannot be completely ignored. For instance, why was it that so may people responded overwhelmingly with approval to Johnny Cash's cover of Hurt? I could be wrong, but my general sense is that people felt Cash created a better version, made better use of the lyrics and music, than the orignators of the song, Nine Inch Nails.

The point which interests me is not that one version is better than the other, but that people have this differing response. What was it in Cash's rendition which so appealed to people that they created a preferential treatment for it? This is what interests me in artistic appreciation. Cash had a vision of the song which he was able to impart to listeners, and his vision gave the song new meaning for many people.

Now, to get back to Eomer's point about giggles. For me, what is interesting is not that most people, SaucepanMan and critics and much of the movie going public enjoyed the humour and some of us did not. What interests me is why we have those different responses.

Some have attributed this difference to some fan's fanatical adherence to The Books. It could well be, but this is not the only possibility.

For me, it has to do with my expectation of how the humour fits into the movie. Yes, Sauce, I am aware that PJ tried to use humour to deflect from the tenseness of some of the action, a legitimate artistic move. Some people are happy just to get a laugh. But I want to see if that laugh really does more than just provide, well, a laugh. Does the humour work with the vision of LotR which Jackson presents in the movies?

I'm not sure. I think it was littlemanpoet who suggested that Jackson picked up on the adventure/quest aspects of Tolkien but not the moral/religious elements. Perhaps it is this difference which affects how we view the giggles.

For myself, I don't think Jackson, for whatever reason, was comfortable with certain aspects of Tolkien's work such as the religious or moral framework. Or maybe not even Tolkien's sense of high tragedy. Thus, the giggles are a way of deflating elements he didn't want to bring out. Comedy is often a rebellious mode, certainly more so than tragedy. Maybe the giggles are simply his way of achieving his vision of Tolkien, taking the adventure and leaving off other aspects. But for me, those other aspects are still lurking in the movies and the giggles, rather than providing some relief from the high drama, undermine it.

Now, those who don't care about this kind of artistic unity or who don't think this way about comedy will have a different reaction. That is all well and good. But neither response invalidates the other. An inclusive community should be able to recognise both.

Gosh, I've run on here! What has Eomer wrought!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

By 'education' (and in contrast to having 'highbrow art beaten into us'" I meant simply that we educate ourselves every time we read a new book or see a new movie (or reread, re-view). There is something about the experience of this activity which expands our appreciation of the work(s) in question. Stuff that at one time in our life we thought was great wears thin after we have read more. Stuff that we couldn't stomach sometimes becomes more palatable after we have read other works in the same vein.

I agree with what you are saying! I suppose I was trying to prod a little, as the word 'education' can be a surprisingly emotive one. Suggesting that a person with 'education' may be better placed to appreciate the merits of something can be risky - it can suggest many things, including that the thoughts of those without a brace of qualifications may somehow be discounted. But I see that we agree that education is a wider experience.

Am I jaded with Higher Education though? I would say that I am. I have spent far too long being educated, and then working within the sector in its many shapes and forms, and I do not like much of what I have seen. My own experiences as a student and as a teacher have shown me that much of what is termed education is entirely uncreative and students are simply required to regurgitate accepted opinion in order to secure those all-important grades. Today Tolkien might struggle to find a tutor who would accept his individualistic interests. But of course, this may be different in other countries where the education sector is not so tied to concepts of market forces.

Now about the comedy in the films... Perhaps the different views on whether the comedy was good or bad might be ascribed to how we view the books? Obviously Peter Jackson viewed the books as tremendous adventure stories, and I know a fair few keen Tolkien fans who think the whole concept of the thrilling quest is the best thing about the books. Perhaps readers who appreciate this aspect more have less of a tendency to be precious! Yes, a strong word, but I know I do tend to be precious about the books. Perhaps someone else could come up with a better term. Serious is not the correct word, as fans of the adventure aspects are just as serious, but maybe they are more open to interpretation? I'm thinking aloud here, so I'm happy if anyone wants to argue against that!

But the idea that PJ was uncomfortable with some of the more serious aspects of the books is a good one. Humour is often used by people in situations where they are nervous, where they feel the mood must be lightened lest everyone turn into quivering jellies. Maybe PJ thought that the films would be too ponderous wihtout humour. There was certainly a perception amongst the public that Tolkien fans were a little nerdy before the films, so maybe he wished to diffuse that? Yet at the root of it all, I think that PJ simply used jokes that he found funny himself. And judging by his previous blood-soaked, flymo-wielding schlock horror oevre then this is exactly what he did.

[Amrod the Hunter]

It's,of course,matter of personal taste,but think about this-ROTK alone lasts for more than three hours.If Jackson didn't put some of those comical lines in the movie,it would became boring.Also,Frodo's walking to Mount Doom would have been much more interesting if there was some humor or something in that,for me,most boring part of the movie.

[Fingolfin II]

Originally Posted by Amrod the Hunter

Also,Frodo's walking to Mount Doom would have been much more interesting if there was some humor or something in that,for me,most boring part of the movie.

For me this was one of the most interesting and moving scenes in RotK. It highlighted the strength of Frodo and Sam's friendship, their perserverance and determination to achieve their goal, no matter what it costs them personally. For me, humour at this point would be utterly out of context and ruin the whole scene/s- it's meant to show a more serious side of the movie and thus would be ruined by any humour in that scene, as it is inappropriate for for that part of the movie. However, it's a personal feeling and people will obviously have differing opinions, which are all valid.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

But Amrod, no-one is saying that all humour should have been cut out. The point is that a lot of the humour was bad and inappropriate. If you are suggesting that Jackson should have inserted some silly 'cheap laugh' humour into that Frodo/Sam scene then I must utterly disagree with you.

[The Perky Ent]

Because 'shall I fetch you a box'' is a funny line