FM3011: Comedy
Term Two: 2011-2012
For student completion:
Day
Room/s
Time/s
Module detail
Credits
Module leader
Other teaching staff
Assessment
Assessment Dates
20
Geoff King, GB111,
geoff.king@brunel.ac.uk
Xavier Mendik, GB106,
xavier.mendik@brunel.ac.uk
Leon Hunt, GB101,
leon.hunt@brunel.ac.uk
Two-hour unseen exam (50%)
Essay 2,500 words (50%)
In-Class Exam, 29 March
Essay, 27 April
Access to support material
Support material is provided electronically via the University’s u-Link
system. You can gain access to the u-Link system via the following web
page:
 http://www.brunel.ac.uk/intranets/weblearn/
Week-by-week overview
1. Taking Comedy Seriously, GK
2. Spanners in the Works: Slapstick and Comic Performance vs.
Narrative, GK
Screening: Duck Soup (US, 1933)
3. From Grotesque to Gross-Out: Crudity, Carnivalesque and the
Cultural Meaning of Comedy, GK
Screening: American Pie (US, 1999)
4. Comedy and Regression, XM
Screening: The Disorderly Orderly (US, 1964)
5. Television Sitcom, LH
Screening: Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads (UK), Peep Show
(UK), South Park (US)
6. Study Skills Week, no classes
7. Satire and Parody, GK
Screening: Brass Eye episodes (UK, 1997)
8. Black Comedy’: Comedy, Race and Representation, XM
Screening: The Nutty Professor (US, 1996)
9. From ‘Alternative’ to Cult Comedy: British TV Comedy, LH
Screening: Vic Reeves Big Night Out, The League of Gentlemen,
Spaced
10. Comedy Beyond Comedy: From Comic Relief to (Very) Dark
Tones GK
Screening: Four Lions (UK, 2010)
11. Exam practice.
Screening: to be announced
12. In-class exam, details to follow
Essay due, Friday 29 April
2
DESCRIPTION
Aims:
 To examine a spectrum of comic texts, from early film comedy to
contemporary television
 To develop an understanding of the various definitions, forms and
functions of comedy, and their historical contexts.
 To provide theoretical frameworks for the discussion of the genres,
performances, conventions, pleasures and politics of comedy.
 To evaluate the relationship between comedy and culture by
analysing the social construction of comedy and its representation
of race, gender or class.
 To identify the changing faces of `ancient’ comic forms and their
enduring capacity to offend, challenge and/or educate.
Objectives:
 To provide an historical perspective and a greater understanding
of the traditions, influences and styles of the dominant forms of
comedy.
 To familiarise students with the range of issues and problems
raised by comedy and the critical and theoretical approaches that
have been used to investigate them.
 To uncover the relationship between comedy and social identity,
and between the comic and politics and structures of power.
 To demonstrate a more reflexive consideration of the seemingly
straightforward notions of laughter and pleasure.
Learning Outcomes:
 Students will be able to demonstrate a good knowledge of, and an
ability to evaluate, theories of and debates about comedy.
 Students will be able to demonstrate an understanding of
comedy’s historical and generic contexts.
 Students will be able to engage in a high level of textual analysis of
a variety of texts, integrating theoretical ideas with close readings
of the comedy form.
 Students will be able to display sophisticated researching over a
wide range of sources for material relevant to any given project.
READING: The course outline includes reading for each week and
you MUST have read at least two items of the primary reading before
the session. It is vital that you do this so that you can benefit from the
3
lecture and seminar. Evidence of wide reading and engagement with
ideas raised in the reading are key criteria for assignment grading.
This is a final year module and you will be expected to have read and
engaged with material from a range of theoretical perspectives on
comedy.
DISCUSSION GROUPS: Most weeks there will be a discussion led
by students in groups. In week 1 you will be asked to sign up to lead a
discussion. To prepare for the discussion you and your partner/s
should devise some questions that relate to your presentation, the
film and the reading. These questions should be written (before the
seminar starts) on an overhead, PowerPoint or circulated on paper,
and supported by relevant video clips. The questions should aim at
promoting discussion in your group. It is your responsibility to make
sure that you do your preparation thoroughly. If you are ill on the
week that your presentation is due then you MUST let your partner/s
know beforehand and also one of the module tutors.
SCREENINGS: Please try to attend screenings or make sure you
have seen the texts before lectures/seminars so you can contribute to
discussion. Some but not necessarily all of the material will be
available in the library. Screened texts offer a shared point of
reference each week, to help to promote seminar discussion. They
are only examples, however, and you are encouraged to draw on a
much wider sample of film and television comedy in both seminar
discussion and essays. The approaches to comedy used each week
will be applicable to a very wide range of material. The fact that many
of the texts screened are films, for example, does not mean that the
issues cannot usually also be applied to television. Equally, the fact
that a screening happens to be a Hollywood film should not prevent
consideration of film or television comedy from anywhere else in the
world. Comedy is a very popular form, globally, and credit will be
given for use of less obvious material. Some alternative suggestions
are offered each week under ‘secondary materials’.
4
ASSESSMENT: The assessment is in two parts:
1. In week 12 of teaching (last week of term) there will be a twohour unseen exam instead of lecture/seminars. You will be
required to write about a comedy film or TV extract that will be
screened in class (50%). The requirement of the assessment is to
analyse some of the sources of the comedy contained in the
extract, to demonstrate your ability to apply some of the different
theories of comedy that will have been covered on the module in
the preceding weeks. A ‘practice’ session will be provided in
seminars in the preceding week. Details of time and venue to
follow.
2. A 2,500 word essay must be handed in before 1.00pm on
Friday 27 April (50%)
You may choose to formulate you own question for the essay
assessment. But you MUST check this with one of the tutors on the
module before going ahead. If you do not do this your risk
jeopardizing your mark. Otherwise, choose ONE question from the
following:
 ‘Many scenes in Hollywood comedies exist almost solely for the
display of gags, comic incident, and comic performance.’ (Steve
Neale and Frank Krutnik). Discuss with detailed reference to two
examples.
 To what extent is comedian comedy a disruptive form. Answer with
reference to the work of two performers
 How do two different theories of comedy illuminate our
understanding of two comic texts of your choice?
 To what extent does comedy offer a licensed overturning of
cultural norms? Discuss with detailed reference to at least two
comic texts
 ‘Comedy is never as unconventional as it pretends to be.’
Comment on the validity of this statement with reference to at least
two comic texts
5
 What is the role of comedy in negotiating cultural notions of
acceptable ‘taste’? Answer with detailed reference to at least two
comic texts
 What might be the potential impact of satire as a form of social or
political criticism? Answer with detailed reference to at least two
texts
 Why are images of childhood and/or regression so common in
some forms of comedy. Answer with detailed reference to two
examples.
 According to John Thornton Caldwell, television sitcom is resistant
to stylistic change. Discuss with reference to two or three texts
 What is the significance of recorded laughter (or its absence) in
television comedy. Your answer should refer to two or three texts
 What are the political and/or ideological implications of the use of
comedy in two or three examples of your choice?
 Why is parody so widespread in contemporary film and
television? Answer with reference to two or three examples.
 What is the role of cultural stereotypes in comedy? Answer with
reference to at least two texts
 What kinds of pleasures do African-American comic performers
offer, respectively, to ‘white’ or ‘black’ audiences? Answer with
detailed reference to two examples.
 What is your understanding of the terms ‘alternative’ and/or ‘postalternative’ comedy. Answer with detailed reference to at least two
examples.
 What is the effect of the use of comedy in primarily non-comic
contexts? Answer with detailed reference to two or three texts
6
Criteria for this assessment:
A good assignment will:
 make close reference to the question and keep it central
throughout.
 demonstrate an understanding of, and a critical engagement with,
key theories and debates about comedy.
 demonstrate an understanding of socio-cultural or other factors
that impact on the popularity or pre-eminence of a certain form of
comedy.
 show evidence and use of discriminating reading and research
beyond material given in lectures, including the use of journals and
other research materials held in the college library or in the BFI.
 have a well-planned, well-structured and persuasive argument that
focuses on and engages critically with the question.
 have a good standard of spelling, punctuation and grammar.
Remember that focus, clarity and coherence of argument are primary
features of a good assignment.
GRADES
Brunel University
Generic Undergraduate Grade Descriptors
Grade A*
Clearly demonstrates a highly sophisticated, critical and thorough
understanding of the topic. Provides clear evidence of originality and
independence of thought and clearly demonstrates exceptional ability to
develop a highly systematic and logical or insightful argument, solution
or evaluation at the current Level. Demonstrates exceptional ability in the
appropriate use of the relevant literature, theory, methodologies,
practices, tools, etc., to analyse and synthesise at the current Level.
Shows an exceptionally high level of clarity, focus and cogency in
communication at the current Level.
Grade Band A (A+, A, A-)
Clearly demonstrates a sophisticated, critical and thorough
understanding of the topic. Provides evidence of independence of
thought and clearly demonstrates the ability to develop a highly
7
systematic and logical or insightful argument, solution or evaluation at
the current Level. Demonstrates excellence in the appropriate use of the
relevant literature, theory, methodologies, practices, tools, etc., to
analyse and synthesise at the current Level. Shows a high level of
clarity, focus and cogency in communication at the current Level.
Grade Band B (B+, B, B-)
Clearly demonstrates a well-developed, critical and comprehensive
understanding of the topic. Provides some evidence of independence of
thought and clearly demonstrates the ability to develop a systematic and
logical or insightful argument, solution or evaluation at the current Level.
Demonstrates a high degree of competence in the appropriate use of the
relevant literature, theory, methodologies, practices, tools, etc., to
analyse and synthesise at the current Level. Shows clarity, focus and
cogency in communication at the current Level.
Grade Band C (C+, C, C-)
Demonstrates a systematic and substantial understanding of the topic.
Demonstrates the ability to develop a systematic argument or solution at
the current Level. Demonstrates a significant degree of competence in
the appropriate use of the relevant literature, theory, methodologies,
practices, tools, etc., to analyse and synthesise at the current Level.
Provides evidence of clarity and focus in communication at the current
Level.
Grade Band D (D+, D, D-)
Provides evidence of a systematic understanding of the key aspects of
the topic. Demonstrates the ability to present a sufficiently structured
argument or solution at the current Level. Demonstrates an acceptable
degree of competence in the appropriate use of the relevant literature,
theory, methodologies, practices, tools, etc., to analyse and synthesise
at the current Level. Provides evidence of effective communication at the
current Level.
Grade Band E (E+, E, E-)
Provides evidence of some understanding of key aspects of the topic
and some ability to present an appropriate argument or solution at the
current Level. Demonstrates some competence in the appropriate use of
the relevant literature, theory, methodologies, practices, tools, etc at the
current Level. Provides some evidence of effective communication at the
8
current Level. However, there is also evidence of deficiencies which
mean that the threshold standard (D-) has not been met.
Grade F
Work that is unacceptable.
Assessment Criteria
Indicative
Mark Band
90 and
above
80-89
73-79
70-72
68-69
63-67
60-62
58-59
53-57
50-52
48-49
43-47
40-42
38-39
33-37
30-32
29 and
below
Degree class
equivalent
1
Grade
Grade Point
A++
17
1
1
1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
3
3
3
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD+
D
DE+
E
EF
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Submitting your work
In order to be marked without penalty for lateness, work must always be
handed in before 1.00 pm on the day it is due.
It should be submitted with an official blue cover sheet (available in the
foyer of the Gaskell Building).
Your work must be date stamped in 4 places
1.
on the blue cover sheet
2.
on the front page of your work
9
3.
4.
on the last page of your work
and a page in the middle of your work.
The assignment and the attached cover sheet should be “posted” in the
appropriate coursework collection box in the foyer of the Gaskell
Building.
You must add your student number to the top of every page of your
work.
You must NOT write your name on the pages of your work.
ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF COURSEWORK:
You are also required to submit an electronic copy of every piece of work
submitted. This electronic version must be submitted within 48 hours (2
working days) of the coursework submission date.
Your work is to be submitted through U-Link. In order to submit work,
you need to click on Assignments on the left hand side of the Module
page and follow these instructions:
1.
Click on the Assignment button on the left hand side of the
page.
2.
then select the correct coursework you want to submit for;
and scroll down to Add Attachment – click into this.
3.
This will take you into a Browse screen, then double click on
my computer and this will take you into your computer files
then you can select the c/work you want to attach. Now
double click your work and this will place it underneath the
box for attachments, once you are sure this is the correct
piece, then press SUBMIT – there is no need to add any
comments. You will now have successfully submitted
your coursework on to U-Link.
If work is submitted late, the following penalties will be uniformly
applied, in the absence of accepted relevant mitigating circumstances:
10
o
o
o
o
o
o
Up to 1 working day late
Up to 2 working days late
Up to 5 working days late
Up to 10 working days late
Up to 15 working days late
More than 15 working days late
Grade capped at A- (GPA14)
Grade capped at B- (GPA 11)
Grade capped at C- (GPA 8)
Grade capped at D- (GPA 5)
Grade capped at E- (GPA 2)
Grade capped at NS
A working day is defined as Monday to Friday at any time of year, with
the exception of UK national holidays.
Mitigating circumstances are defined by the University as: “A serious or
significant event” (Senate Regulation 4.31). For example, serious illness
or death of a close relative. Please refer to the School of Arts
handbook for further details.
Feedback on your work
You will be notified via your Brunel Webmail account when your
coursework and feedback will be either available for collection from UG
Administration or posted to your term time address. If the deadline is at
the end of the term it will be posted to your permanent home address.
Please check your addresses are correct on e-Vision to ensure it is sent
to the right place.
Academic staff aim to grade work and provide detailed and constructive
feedback, normally within three weeks of the hand-in date. However,
there may be delays for work submitted at the end of terms and for
modules that have particularly high numbers, although you will be
notified via your Brunel webmail account if this is the case.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is passing off ideas words, illustrations, ideas or other
materials created by someone else as being one’s own ideas or words.
The following penalties currently operate:
First offences for
undergraduate
students
a mark of zero/grade F is assigned to the piece of work in
question and to the associated assessment block; where
permitted under the Regulations, reassessment may be
11
allowed for a maximum grade of D- in the assessment
block (this reassessment shall not contribute to the
reassessment volume limit defined in SR2); the
assessment block in question shall contribute grade point
0 to the GPA calculation for the classification of any
award.
Repeat offences for a mark of zero/grade F is assigned to the piece of work in
undergraduate
question and to the associated module; the student shall
students
be expelled from the University and barred from re-entry;
any credits already achieved will be retained and an
intermediate award may be awarded as appropriate,
unless the Panel determines that there is just cause to
deprive the student of any credits already achieved and
any intermediate award to which they may lead.
For further information on plagiarism, and how to avoid committing this
serious offence, please refer to the School of Arts handbook and Senate
Regulations 6 http://www.brunel.ac.uk/about/administration/rules/senateregs/sr6
The School of Arts Handbook contains detailed information on
referencing and the presentation of coursework.
STUDENT SUPPORT
University-level support is available in a number of areas such as the
quality of written English used in essays and other assignments. Do take
advantage of this resource – especially if you get comments in your
coursework feedback relating to writing.
Study skills support is offered in the Library. This covers a number of
areas including:
Academic Writing; Critical Reading; Maths, Numeracy and Statistics;
Time Management; Presentations and Seminars; Note Taking; and
Critical Thinking.
For further details, please contact the Library or go to
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/library/ask
12
REFERENCING
Correct referencing is crucial if you are to avoid accusations of
plagiarism (see separate section). But it is also a requirement in its own
right for all written work. You will lose marks if you do not reference
properly, so make sure you understand how to do it. If anything here is
not clear, seek clarification from one of your tutors. It is a basic
requirement that you understand the fundamentals of academic
referencing procedure.
You need to reference in each of two ways:
 references to texts that you use as you go along during an
essay
and
 a bibliography that needs to appear at the end, listing full
details all of the sources used.
References made as you go along apply to everything, including the
right way of citing films, TV programmes or other media. You can include
films, TV shows, etc, in your bibliography at the end if you wish (or in a
separate filmography), but this is not essential as the key details will be
provided in the text. A bibliography for written work cited is essential in
all cases.
If any of this is unclear to you, check with one of your tutors. Also, look at
how references appear in the books and academic journal articles you
read.
Referencing films, TV programmes, etc.
Titles of films or TV programmes should be given in italics (or
underlined); titles of individual episodes of TV shows should be given in
quotation marks and not italics. On first mention of a film or TV
programme, you must give a date in brackets (or dates for longer
running TV shows, for example, 2000-2004). If you wish, or if it is
appropriate, you might also give the name of a film’s director, studio or
nationality (or the equivalent for a TV show), but these are optional.
13
Referencing books, chapters from edited collections, journal
articles, etc.
Referencing sources as you go along in a piece of written coursework:
Whenever you are drawing on an argument or background information
from a source, that source must be referenced. It is not sufficient just to
put sources in a bibliography at the end. You must indicate in some
specific detail where you are drawing on which sources. Not to do this
can be to risk accusations of plagiarism, or at the least to be marked
down for poor referencing. This is the case regardless of whether you
are directly quoting or putting a source words into your own terms. There
are two basic ways of doing this – you can do either, as long as you are
consistent, but do not mix the two together or do both.
The two options are:
1. Endnotes (which appear at the end of the essay) or Footnotes
(which appear at the end of each page).
or
2. References in brackets in the main part of the essay text.
In either case, you need to provide information that allows the reader to
know who the author is, what the text by the author is, and what page or
pages of the work you are referencing. You do not need to give every
last bit of information about the source in these kinds of references (for
example, the publisher), as some of these can be put just in the
bibliography at the end. Please note: one very common error occurs in
references to essays in collections of essays. You must cite the actual
author of the essay you are using, as well as the editors of the collection.
Do not just cite the editors of the collection, as they didn’t write piece.
Titles of books, like those of films, should be in italics or underlined.
Titles of chapters from edited collections or titles of journal articles
should be in quotation marks and not in italics.
14
1. If you use footnotes or endnotes, do it this way. Place the note
number at the end of the relevant sentence, after the full stop. In the
note, give name, title of piece cited, and page number/numbers – for
example. John Smith, Book About Film, 34-5. In this format, you do not
need to provide the date or the details of publication, as they will be in
the bibliography.
2. If you use references in brackets in the text, do this way. Place the
reference in brackets at the end of the relevant sentence. If there is only
one text by this author in your bibliography, you can just give the
surname of the author and the page number: e.g. (Smith, 34-5). If you
use more than one source by the same author, you need to add the date
of the work (Smith, 2004, 34-5) to make it clear which of the sources you
are using. The full details – the title of the work, publisher, etc, will then
be available in the bibliography and not needed in the bracketed
reference.
Slightly different information is given in each case, but those are the
dominant conventions in widespread use.
If you use long quotations, of more than three lines or so of text, these
should be presented off-set into the text: indented from the left. When
you do this, you do NOT use quotation marks. An indented quotation of
this kind can then be referenced by either of the methods outlined above
Bibliography
You must provide a bibliography at the end. This is an alphabetically
ordered list of sources cited. If you want to include films and TV
programmes here, do them separately, also alphabetically, in a
filmography. If you do not include a bibliography you will lost marks.
A book should be cited this way:
Names of Author (surname first), Title of Book, Publisher’s Name: Place
of Publication, year of publication
For example:
David Bordwell, Poetics of Cinema, Routledge: New York, 2008-07-21
15
For the whole of an edited collection:
Chris Berry (ed), Perspectives on Chinese Cinema, BFI: London 1991
If you have only cited one essay in a collection, cite that in its own right
only (don’t cite the collection as well), eg:
Peter Kramer, ‘Disney and Family Entertainment’, in Linda Ruth Williams
and Michael Hammond (eds.), Contemporary American Cinema,
London: McGraw-Hill, 2006
A journal article should as follows (sometimes there will be an issue
number, sometimes a volume number and issue number – if the latter,
give both, as in vol. 34, no. 3):
Mark Gallagher, “Masculinity in Translation: Jackie Chan’s Transcultural
Star Text”, Velvet Light Trap, 39, Spring 1997
When citing internet sources, give the fullest details you can. Never just
give a web address or url. If the piece has an author and/or title, give
those in the same way as you would for any other text, followed by the
name of the website and its web address. The aim is to give the reader
as much information as is available to understand the nature of the
source (internet sources being so variable in kind). If no author’s name is
given, cite it as ‘anon’ (short for anonymous).
BOOKS TO BUY
Books that contain material useful for several weeks on the module
include:


Geoff King, Film Comedy (Wallflower, 2002)
Steve Neale and Frank Krutnik, Popular Film and Television Comedy
(Routledge, 1990)
 Kristine Karnick and Henry Jenkins (eds), Classical Hollywood
Comedy (Routledge, 1995)
16
Week One
Lecture: Introduction: ‘Taking Comedy Seriously’
Screening: No screening this week
What is comedy? Something that makes us – or somebody – laugh? But
what exactly is the basis of this particular reaction? How can we go
beyond questions of ‘is it funny’ to understanding how and why? This
session will introduce some of the general principles of the module,
including an initial glance at some of the kinds of theories that have been
used in attempts to explain or understand comedy. Seminar discussion
will focus on a selection of screened comedy extracts.
Reading:
 Geoff King, Film Comedy (London: Wallflower, 2002), ‘Introduction:
Taking Comedy Seriously’
 Steve Neale and Frank Krutnik, Popular Film and Television Comedy
(London/NY: Routledge, 1990), chapter 1 ‘Definitions, Genres and
Forms’
 Andrew Horton, ‘Beginnings: The Unbearable Lightness of Comic
Film Theory’, in Horton ed. Comedy/Cinema/Theory (Berkeley,
University of California Press, 1991)
 Jerry Palmer, The Logic of the Absurd: On Film and Television
Comedy (London: BFI, 1987)
 Andrew Stott, Comedy (New York/London: Routledge, 2005),
especially ‘Introduction’ and chapter 6 pp 131-140
 Robert Hodge and David Tripp, Children and Television: A Semiotic
Approach (Cambridge: Polity, 1986)
17
Week Two
Lecture: Spanners in the Works: Slapstick and Comic Performance vs.
Narrative
Screening: Duck Soup (US, 1933)
Secondary materials: Any films featuring central star comic performers,
from Charles Chaplin to Bob Hope, Norman Wisdom and Jim Carrey.
What is the relationship between comic gags, slapstick, general silliness
and the narrative structures in which it appears? To what extent does
comedy disrupt or undermine narrative? We will start this week by taking
an historical perspective, looking at the relationship between gag and
narrative in the context of silent slapstick in the early decades of the 20th
century. More recent ‘comedian comedy’, featuring performers such as
Steve Martin, Robin Williams and Jim Carrey, will also be considered.
Primary Reading:
 Frank Krutnik, ‘A Spanner in the Works? Genre, Narrative and the
Hollywood Comedian, in Kristine Karnick and Henry Jenkins eds.
Classical Hollywood Comedy (London and New York: Routledge,
1995)
 Geoff King, Film Comedy, chapter 2 ‘Comedy and Narrative’
 Steve Neale and Frank Krutnik, Popular Film and Television Comedy,
Chapter 6, ‘Hollywood, comedy, and The Case of Silent Slapstick
 Steve Seidman, ‘Performance, Enunication and Self-reference in
Hollywood Comedian Comedy’, in Frank Krutnik (ed.), Hollywood
Comedians: The Film Reader (London & New York, Routledge, 2003)
 Kristine Karnick and Henry Jenkins, Classical Hollywood Comedy,
section on Narrative, ‘Introduction: Funny Stories
 Tom Gunning, ‘Crazy Machines in the Garden of Forking Paths:
Mischief Gags and the Origins of American Film Comedy’ and
‘Response to “Pie and Chase”’, in Karnick and Jenkins, Classical
Hollywood Comedy
 Donald Crafton, ‘Pie and Chase: Gag, Spectacle and Narrative in
Slapstick Comedy, in Karnick and Jenkins, Classical Hollywood
Comedy
Reading:
 Henry Jenkins, What Made Pistachio Nuts? Early Sound Comedy and
the Vaudeville Aesthetic (New York: 1992)
18

Frank Krutnik (ed.), Hollywood Comedians: The Film Reader (London
& New York, Routledge, 2003), various essays, see especially those
by Seidman (listed above), Henry Jenkins, and Philip Drake
 Patricia Mellencamp, ‘Jokes and Their Relation to the Marx Brothers’,
in Stephen Heath and Mellencamp, eds. Cinema and Language (New
York: American Film Institute, 1983)
 Gerald Weales, Canned Goods as Caviar, Chapter 3, ‘Duck Soup’
(Chicago: 1985)
 Frank Krutnik, ‘The Clown-Prints of Comedy’, Screen 25, 4-5 (1984)
19
Week Three
Lecture: From Grotesque to Gross-Out: Crudity, Carnivalesque and
the Cultural Meaning of Comedy
Screening: American Pie (US, 1999)
Secondary materials: National Lampoon’s Animal House (US, 1978),
There’s Something About Mary (US, 1998), Kevin and Perry Go Large
(GB, 2000), Me, Myself and Irene (US, 2000), The Hottie and the Nottie
(US 2008), other ‘gross-out’ films; TV from The Young Ones to South
Park and beyond
Why do so many comedy routines revolve around activities such as
farting, shitting or other ‘unspeakable’ activities involving bodily fluids?
How can this kind of comedy be ‘taken seriously’ rather than dismissed
as of little worth? Our focus this week will be on theories of the
‘carnivalesque’ and the socio-cultural dimensions of this kind of comedy
– a licensed overturning of cultural norms?
Primary Reading:
 Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1984; original Russian publication, 1965), especially
chapter 5, ‘The Grotesque Image of the Body and Its Sources’
 Geoff King, Film Comedy, chapter 2, ‘Transgressions and
Regressions’, pp 63-77
 Xavier Mendik and Steven Jay Schneider ‘A Tasteless Art: Waters,
Kaufman and the Pursuit of ‘Pure’ Gross-Out.’ In Xavier Mendik and
Steven Jay Schneider (eds) Underground USA: Filmmaking Beyond
the Hollywood Canon (London: Wallflower Press, 2002).
Reading:
 William Paul, Laughing Screaming (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1994), Parts 1 and 2
 Andrew Stott, Comedy (New York/London: Routledge, 2005), chapter
1, pp 32-39, chapter 2 pp 51-55, chapter 4 ‘The Body’
 Mary Douglas, ‘Jokes’, in Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology
(London: Routledge, 1975); also published as ‘The Social Control of
Cognition: Some Factors in Joke Perception’, Man (new series), vol.
3, no. 3, 1968
 Nathalie Claessens and Alexander Dhoest, ‘Comedy taste:
Highbrow/lowbrow comedy and cultural capital’, Participations:
20







Journal of Audience and Reception Studies vol. 7, issue 1, May 2010,
free online at
www.participations.org/Volume%207/Issue%201/claessens.pdf
Mary Douglas, ‘Do Dogs Laugh?’, in Implicit Meanings
Kristine Brunovska Karnick and Henry Jenkins, ‘Comedy and the
Social World’, pp. 265-75, in chapter 13 of Karnick and Jenkins (eds),
Classical Hollywood Comedy (a useful summary of elements of
Bakhtin, Douglas and others)
Mahadev Apte, Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach
(Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press, 1985), especially chapter
5, ‘Humor in Religion’ and chapter 7, ‘The Trickster in Folklore’
Simon Dentith, Bakhtinian Thought: An Introductory Reader (London
& New York: Routledge), chapter 3, ‘Bakhtin’s Carnival’
Leon Hunt, British Low Culture: From Safari Suits to Sexploitation,
(London: Routledge, 1998)
Jeff Nuttall and Rodick Carmichael, `Laffs’ in Common Factors/Vulgar
Factions (London: Routledge, 1977)
Jerry Palmer, Taking Humour Seriously (London & New York:
Routledge, 1994)
21
Week Four
Lecture: Comedy and Regression
Screening: The Disorderly Orderly (US, 1964)
Secondary materials: Any other films featuring Jerry Lewis or other
‘childlike’ comic performers, from Harry Langdon to Pee Wee Herman, or
Michael Crawford in Some Mothers Do ‘Av Em
Comedy often seems to involve a process of regression on the part of
the comic performer, to a state akin to that of childhood or infancy. How
might this kind of comedy be understood, particularly in reference to
psychoanalytical theory? Why might the spectacle of regression be a
comically pleasurable one, or one that causes irritation (as is often the
case for the modern viewer of Jerry Lewis, star of this week’s screening
and the focus of the primary reading material)?
Primary Reading
 Geoff King, Film Comedy, chapter 2 ‘Transgressions and
Regressions’, pp 77-92
 Krutnik, Frank, ‘Jerry Lewis: The Deformation of the Comic’, Film
Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 1, 1994
 Bukatman, Scott, ‘Paralysis in Motion: Jerry Lewis’s Life as a Man’, in
Andrew Horton (ed.), Comedy/Cinema/Theory (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1991)
 Shaviro, Steven, The Cinematic Body (Minneapolis: University of
Minneapolis Press, 1993), chapter on Jerry Lewis
 Sikov, Ed, Laughing Hysterically: American Screen Comedy of the
1950s (New York: Columbia University Press,1994), chapter 4
Reading:
 Sigmund Freud ‘Humour’ (1927), in Art and Literature (Penguin Freud
Library, 14)
 Jerry Palmer, The Logic of the Absurd, 30-36 (a useful summary of
Freud’s Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious)
 Sigmund Freud, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (1905;
Penguin Freud Library, 6)
 Mellencamp, Patricia, ‘Jokes and Their Relation to the Marx Brothers’,
in Stephen Heath and Mellencamp (eds), Cinema and Language
(New York: American Film Institute, 1983)
22

Steve Neale and Frank Krutnik, Popular Film and Television Comedy,
chapter 4, ‘Laughter, humour and the comic’; chapter 7, ‘The comedy
of the sexes’
23
Week Five
Lecture: Television Sitcom
Screening: Whatever Happened to The Likely Lads (UK, 1973-74),
Peep Show (UK, 2003-), South Park (US, 1997-)
Sitcom is the most studied form of television comedy, analysed for its
representations of gender, ethnicity and class and seen as a
quintessential format for the medium – ‘domestic’, rooted in dialogue and
performance. While programmes like The Young Ones sought to
deconstruct the genre, its visual style and production methods remained
relatively unchanged until recently – shot three-camera style in front of a
studio audience. However, a broader range of ‘looks’ have started to
appear in the genre, from the animation of The Simpsons and South
Park to the heavily stylised Spaced, from the ‘docu-soap’ look of The
Office to the use of point of view in Peep Show. One of the most
interesting aesthetic shifts has been the use of recorded laughter
(‘canned’ or studio audience generated) – long a mainstay of sitcom, it
seemed to be going out of fashion in single camera sitcoms but is
currently staging a revival. This lecture will look at ‘classic’ sitcom style,
but also examine some of the recent stylistic shifts and their implications.
Primary reading:
 Brett MiIls, Television Sitcom (London: BFI. 2005)
 Brett Mills, ‘”Paranoia, Paranoia, everybody’s coming to get me”:
Peep Show, Sitcom and the Surveillance Society’, Screen 49: 1
(2008).
 Jacob Smith, ‘The Frenzy of the Audible: Pleasure, Authenticity
and Recorded Laughter’, Television and New Media 6: 1 (2005)
Secondary reading:
 Brett Mills ‘Sitcom’ in Glen Creeber (ed) The Television Genre
Book (London: BFI. 2001
 Steve Neale and Frank Krutnik, Popular Film and Television
Comedy, Routledge 1990, ch.8
 Jim Cook (ed) Television Sitcom (London: BFI, 1982)
 Mick Bowes ‘Only When I Laugh’ in Andrew Goodwin and Garry
Whannel (eds) Understanding Television (London:
Routledge,1990)
 David Marc, Comic Visions: Television Comedy and American
Culture (Oxford: Blackwell 1997)
24
 Ben Walters, BFI TV Classics: The Office (London: BFI 2005)
Week Six: Study Skills Week. No classes this week
25
Week Seven
Lecture: Satire and Parody
Screening: Brass Eye (1997)
Secondary materials: TV satire from Spitting Image to the
satirical/parodic Brass Eye and The Thick of It; American political satires
including Wag the Dog (US, 1997), Bulworth (1998); Dr. Strangelove
(GB, 1964); any film or TV parody from Blazing Saddles (US, 1974) to
the latest trend to be spoofed
Satire and Parody are two forms of comedy that involve mockery and
ridicule. Both entail victims, but of different kinds. This week’s lecture will
start with definitions of the two forms before going on to explore some of
the implications of the use of specifically comic strategies in both cases.
Primary Reading:
 Geoff King, Film Comedy, chapter 3 ‘Satire and Parody’
 Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey Jones & Ethan Thompson (eds.), Satire TV:
Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Age (New York, NYU Press,
2009), especially ‘Introduction’
 Stephen Wagg, ‘You’ve never had it so silly: The politics of British
satirical comedy from Beyond the Fringe to Spitting Image, in Dominic
Strinati and Stephen Wagg ed. Come on Down (London: Routledge,
1992)
 Dan Harries, Film Parody (London: BFI, 2000)
 Andrew Stott, Comedy (New York/London: Routledge, 2005), chapter
5, ‘Politics’
Reading
 Wes Gehring, Parody as Film Genre: ‘Never Give a Saga an Even
Break (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1999)
 Peter Keighron, ‘Politics of Ridicule: Satire and Television’, in Mike
Wayne ed. Dissident Voices: The Politics of Television and Cultural
Change (London: Pluto Press, 1998)
 Andrew Crisell, ‘Filfth, Sedition and Blasphemy: The Rise and Fall of
Satire, in John Corner ed. Popular Television in Britain (London: BFI,
1991)
 Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism, ‘The mythos of winter: irony and
satire’, p 223-239 (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990 [1957])
 Steve Neale and Frank Krutnik, Popular Film and Television Comedy,
‘parody and satire’, pp. 18-20
26





Margaret Rose, Parody: ancient, modern, and post-modern, Part 1
‘Defining parody from the Ancients onwards’ (Cambridge University
Press, 1993)
Linda Hutcheon, The Politics of Postmodernism, Chapter 4, ‘The
politics of parody’ (London: Routledge, 1989)
Barbara Klinger, Beyond the Multiplex: Cinema, New Technologies,
and The Home (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2006),
chapter 5, ‘To Infinity and Beyond: The Web Short, Parody, and
Remediation’
Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell, Film History: An Introduction
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), pp. 544-5, 634-9 (brief mention of
use of satire in Eastern Europe under Stalinism)
Horton, Andrew (ed.), Inside Soviet Film Satire: Laughter with a Lash
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993)
27
Week Eight
Lecture: ‘Black Comedy’: Comedy, Race and Representation
Screening: The Nutty Professor (US, 1996)
Secondary materials: Any other films featuring black comic star
performers, from Richard Pryor to Martin Lawrence; other forms of
comedy based on or including elements of race/ethnicity, including Ali
G., Goodness Gracious Me
A number of black or African-American comic performers have achieved
enormous box-office success in recent decades. What kind of issues are
raised by the ways in which they and other black performers are
characterized? How should they be understood in historical context, and
to what extent have they escaped or remained trapped within racist
stereotypes? The initial focus this week will be on black stars in
Hollywood, but seminar discussion might also include a wider range of
material, including the controversy around the British television
performer Ali G.
Primary Reading:
 Donald Bogle, Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, and Bucks: An
Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films, Chapter 1, ‘Black
Beginnings: from Uncle Tom’s Cabin to The Birth of a Nation’, and
Chapter 8, ‘The 1970s: Bucks and a Black Movie Book’, Chapter 9,
‘The 1980s: Black Superstars and the Era of Tan’ (New York:
Continuum, 1989)
 Geoff King, Film Comedy, chapter 4 ‘Comedy and Representation’,
pp 143-157
 Ed Guerrero, Framing Blackness: The African-American Image in
Film, Chapter 4, ‘Recuperation, Representation, and Resistance’
(Philadelphia, 1993)
 Kobena Mercer, ‘General Introduction’, in Therese Daniels and Jane
Gerson ed. The Colour Black (London: BFI, 1989)
Reading
 Nigel Mather, Tears of Laughter: Comedy-Drama in 1990s British
Cinema (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006), Chapter 2,
‘Racial discourses, ethnicity, and the ‘comic mode’ in contemporary
British cinema’ (also includes some discussion of earlier TV sitcom)
28





Sarita Malik, Representing Black Britain: Black and Asian Images on
Television (London: Sage, 2002)
Andrea Stuart ,‘The Outsider: Whoopi Goldberg and Shopping Mall
America’ in Pam Cook and Philip Dodd eds. Women and Film: A
Sight and Sound Reader (London: Scarlet Press, 1993)
Homi Bhahba, ‘The Other Question: The Stereotype and Colonial
Discourse’, Screen vol. 24 no.6 Nov-Dec 1983.
Mark A. Reid, Redefining Black Film. (Berkeley; Los Angeles;
Oxford: University of California Press, 1993) Chapter 2, ‘AfricanAmerican Comedy Film’
Sut Jhally and Justin Lewis, Enlightened Racism: The Cosby Show,
Audiences, and the Myth of the American Dream (Boulder: Westview
Press, 1992)
29
Week Nine
Lecture: From ‘Alternative’ to Cult Comedy: British TV Comedy
Screening: Vic Reeves Big Night Out (UK, 1990-91), The League of
Gentlemen (UK,1999-2002), Spaced (UK, 1999-2001)
The phrase ‘Alternative Comedy’ has been applied both to a specific
group of oppositional comedians mainly associated with The Comedy
Store club and to a longer tradition that can stretch back to Monty
Python or Spike Milligan. However, with the huge success of Little
Britain, what exactly is the difference between cult and mainstream
British comedy? We will look at three areas. Firstly, cult comedy’s
‘cultural capital’ has undergone a series of shifts from the intellectual
references of Monty Python and Peter Cook, to the ‘political correctness’
of the Comedy Store performers to the pop culture references of more
recent comedy like The League of Gentlemen. Secondly, ‘alternative’
comedy is institutionally determined by the public service demand for
‘innovation’, the niche targeting of older (BBC2, Ch 4) and newer (BBC3)
channels), and developments in comedy management. Finally, ‘cult
comedy’ is defined by a particular kind of fan consumption, which is
intensified by the ‘intimacy’ created by DVD commentaries and the
creation of ‘worlds’ that can be explored as obsessively as those of noncomic genres like SF/Fantasy.
Primary reading:
 Ben Thompson, Sunshine on Putty: The Golden Age of British
Comedy from Vic Reeves to The Office (Harper Perennial, 2004),
ch’s 1 and 21.
 Leon Hunt, BFI TV Classics: The League of Gentlemen,
(BFI/Palgrave Macmillan, 2008)
 Steve Neale and Frank Krutnik, Popular Film and Television
Comedy (London: Routledge, 1990) ch’s 8 and 9.
Secondary reading:
 Edwin Page, Horribly Awkward: The New Funny Bone (London:
Marion Boyars 2008)
 Roger Wilmut and Peter Rosengard, Didn’t You Kill My Mother-inLaw: The Story of Alternative Comedy in Britain from The Comedy
Store to Saturday Live (London: Methuen, 1989)
 Jane Littlewood and Michael Pickering, ‘Heard the One About the
White Middle-Class Heterosexual Father-in-Law? Gender,
Ethnicity and Political Correctness in Comedy’ in Stephen Wagg
30
(ed) Because I Tell a Joke or Two: Comedy, Politics and Social
Difference (London: Routledge, 1998
 Brett MiIls, Television Sitcom (London: BFI, 2005), ch.2
31
Week Ten
Lecture: Comedy Beyond Comedy: From Comic Relief to (Very) Dark
Tones
Screening: Four Lions (2010)
Secondary materials: The Searchers (US, 1956), Pulp Fiction (US,
1994), American Psycho (US, 2000), Happiness (US, 1998), Secrets
and Lies (GB, 1996) or other films by Mike Leigh, Jam (Channel 4,
2000), Nighty Night (BBC, 2004), Man Bites Dog (C’est arrivé prè de
chez vous, Belgium, 1992)
What is the function or effect of comedy beyond its normal bounds;
beyond a clear-cut sense of comedy as a genre or modality? Comedy is
often used as a form of ‘relief’ in primarily non-comic forms or contexts,
but the mixture of comedy and other qualities can also be challenging or
disturbing, as will be seen in some very dark examples considered in this
week’s screening and lecture.
Primary Reading
 Geoff King, Film Comedy, chapter 5, ‘Comedy beyond Comedy’
Reading
 Deborah Thomas, Beyond Genre: Melodrama, Comedy and
Romance in Hollywood Films (London: Cameron & Hollis, 2000)
 Susan Smith, Hitchcock: Suspense, Humour and Tone (London: BFI,
2000)
 Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering, Beyond a Joke: The Limits of
Humour (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009)
 Brett Mills, ‘“Yes, it’s War!”: Chris Morris and the boundaries of comic
acceptability’, in Laura Mulvey & Jamie Sexton, eds, Experimental
British Television (Manchester University Press, 2007)
 Geoff King, “‘Killingly Funny’: Mixing modalities in New Hollywood’s
comedy-with-violence’, in Steven Jay Schneider (ed.), New Hollywood
Violence (Manchster: Manchester University Press, 2004)
 Andrew Stott, Comedy (New York/London: Routledge, 2005), chapter
5, ‘Politics’
32
Week Eleven
Screening: to be announced
There will be no lecture this week. Instead, there is a screening and
seminars in which you will be asked to explore various different ways of
bring the perspectives introduced so far on the module to the text
screened. This will be useful preparation for the examination in the
following week. It is essential that you attend the screening, or see the
film yourself soon beforehand, if you are to gain any benefit from this
session.
Week Twelve
*** This week there will be a two-hour in-class exam ***
Details of time and venue will be supplied later. You MUST arrive
promptly for the exam. If you miss the start, when the extract is
screened, you will not be able to participate and will fail the
assessment. Late admission will not be permitted.
33
BRUNEL UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF ARTS
ASSIGNMENT FEEDBACK FORM
Student Number:
Module Title:
Assignment:
Unacceptable Unsatisfactory
F
E
Satisfactory Good
D
C
Very Good
B
Excellent
A
Addresses
Question
Depth of
Analysis
Structure
Written
English
Presentation
Referencing
Comments:
Provisional Grade:
For an explanation of the meaning of this grade, please refer to the Module Booklet
(Please note that all marks are provisional until ratified by the Board of Examiners)
Name of Marker:
(please print clearly)
Date:
Note to student: If there is any aspect of this feedback that requires further clarification, please contact
the marker.
34