Humour and successful children's films: Structures and relevance of a cinematic medium 3658403225, 9783658403225

Table of contents :
Contents
Abbreviations
List of Figures
List of Tables
1: Introduction and Preparatory Questions
2: The Children’s Film and Its Definition
2.1 Target Group and Content Elements as a Characteristic of the Children’s Film
2.2 Multi-Perspective Approaches
2.3 Theme and Age-Appropriate Implementation as a Feature of Children’s Film
2.4 Discussion and Own Definition of Children’s Film
3: Humor in Science and Practice
3.1 Humour and Related Terms in Current Linguistic Usage
3.2 Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology
3.2.1 Superiority and Degradation Theories
3.2.2 Incongruence and Discrepancy Theories
3.2.3 Theories of Relief, Relaxation and Liberation
3.2.4 Game Theories
3.3 Humour in Research Practice
3.3.1 Sociological Research
3.3.2 Humour in Medical and Psychological Research
3.3.3 Humour in the Context of Media Studies
3.3.3.1 Subsuming Analyses
3.3.3.2 Multi-Perspective Approaches
3.3.3.3 Thematic and Genre Theoretical Approaches
3.3.3.4 Categorical Research
3.3.3.5 Recipient Research
3.3.3.6 Monothematic and Historical Analyses
3.4 Everyday and Television Humour of Children
3.4.1 Everyday Humour of Children in Research
3.4.2 Children’s Television Humour in Research
3.5 Discussion and Summary
4: Empirical Part
4.1 The Goal and the Questions
4.2 Questioning Children About Humour
4.2.1 Group Discussion
4.2.2 Recruitment of the Group
4.2.3 Guide
4.2.4 Implementation
4.2.5 Methodology of the Analysis of the Interviews
4.2.6 Definition of the Humour Categories
4.2.7 Results of the Group Discussions
4.2.7.1 Humour Categories Mentioned by the Children Interviewed
4.2.7.2 Humor Categories by Gender for Theatrical and DVD Movies
4.2.7.3 Humour Categories by Age
4.2.7.4 Humour Production of Girls and Boys
4.2.8 Context Specific Humour Description
4.3 Summary: Humour of Children of the Group Discussions
4.4 Film Analyses
4.4.1 Film Selection and Meeting the Children’s Film Definition
4.4.2 Scope and Methodology of Film Analysis
4.4.3 Components of the Humour-Structural Film Analysis
4.4.3.1 Definition of the Terms Humour Sequence, Humour Part and Humour Density
4.4.3.2 Forms of Appearance of Humour Sequences
4.4.4 Components of Technical and Qualitative Film Analysis
4.4.5 Exemplary Case Study for Film Analysis
4.4.6 Paula’s Secret (2008)
4.4.6.1 Content and Genre
4.4.6.2 Sample Humour Sequence
4.4.6.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene
4.4.6.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour Categories in the Example Scene
4.4.6.5 The Film “Paula’s Secret” and Its Humour
4.4.7 Hanni and Nanni (2010)
4.4.7.1 Content and Genre
4.4.7.2 Sample Humour Sequence
4.4.7.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene
4.4.7.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour Categories in the Sample Scene
4.4.7.5 The Film “Hanni and Nanni” and Its Humour
4.4.8 Lilly the Witch: The Dragon and the Magic Book (2009)
4.4.8.1 Content and Genre
4.4.8.2 Sample Humour Sequence
4.4.8.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene
4.4.8.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour Categories in the Example Scene
4.4.8.5 The Film “Lilly the Witch” and Its Humour
4.4.9 Wicki and the Strong Men (2009)
4.4.9.1 Content and Genre
4.4.9.2 Sample Humour Sequence
4.4.9.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene
4.4.9.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour Categories in the Sample Scene
4.4.9.5 The Film “Wicki” and Its Humour
4.4.10 The Wild Guys 4 (2007)65
4.4.10.1 Content and Genre
4.4.10.2 Sample Humour Sequence
4.4.10.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene
4.4.10.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour ­Categories in the Sample Scene
4.4.10.5 The Film “The Wild Guys 4” and Its Humour
4.4.11 Comparison of All Films
4.4.11.1 Coverage Ratio Between Children’s Humour ­Preferences and Humour Offerings in the Analysed Films
4.4.11.2 Complexity of Humour Offerings
4.4.11.3 Relevant Film Humour Devices
4.4.11.4 Interior and Exterior Motifs in the Humour Sequences
4.4.11.5 Characters in the Humor Sequences
4.4.11.6 Camera Movements in the Humour Sequences
4.4.11.7 Shot Sizes in the Humour Sequences
4.4.11.8 Focal Lengths in the Humour Sequences
4.4.11.9 Sound in the Humour Sequences
4.4.11.10 Acting in the Humour Sequences
4.4.11.11 Relevant Qualitative Parameters
4.4.11.12 Correlations to Budget, Shooting Days and Number of Visitors
4.5 Summary: Humour in the Analysed Films
5: Concluding Remarks
References

Citation preview

André F. Nebe

Humour and successful children’s films Structures and relevance of a cinematic medium

Humour and successful children’s films

André F. Nebe

Humour and successful children’s films Structures and relevance of a cinematic medium

André F. Nebe Berlin, Germany

Stewart Tryster (proofreader of the machine translation)

ISBN 978-3-658-40322-5    ISBN 978-3-658-40323-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40323-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 This book is a translation of the original German edition “Humor und erfolgreiche Kinderfilme” by Nebe, André F., published by Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH in 2019. The translation was done with the help of artificial intelligence (machine translation by the service DeepL.com). A subsequent human revision was done primarily in terms of content, so that the book will reads stylistically different from a machine translation. Springer Nature works continuously to further the development of tools for the production of books and on the related technologies to support the authors. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

For my parents, Daniela and all the children.

“Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious.” —Peter Ustinov1

“A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.” —Steve Martin2

 Cited in: DaSilva 2013, p. xi.  Facebook post by Steve Martin dated June 14, 2011: https://www.facebook.com/SteveMartinofficial/posts/155162211220518:0, last accessed 09.08.18 1 2

Contents

1 Introduction and Preparatory Questions�����������������������������������������������  1 2 The  Children’s Film and Its Definition��������������������������������������������������� 11 2.1 Target Group and Content Elements as a Characteristic of the Children’s Film��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 12 2.2 Multi-Perspective Approaches ��������������������������������������������������������� 16 2.3 Theme and Age-Appropriate Implementation as a Feature of Children’s Film����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 2.4 Discussion and Own Definition of Children’s Film������������������������� 21 3 Humor  in Science and Practice��������������������������������������������������������������� 27 3.1 Humour and Related Terms in Current Linguistic Usage����������������� 27 3.2 Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology������������������� 34 3.2.1 Superiority and Degradation Theories��������������������������������� 34 3.2.2 Incongruence and Discrepancy Theories����������������������������� 46 3.2.3 Theories of Relief, Relaxation and Liberation��������������������� 52 3.2.4 Game Theories��������������������������������������������������������������������� 55 3.3 Humour in Research Practice����������������������������������������������������������� 58 3.3.1 Sociological Research ��������������������������������������������������������� 58 3.3.2 Humour in Medical and Psychological Research����������������� 63 3.3.3 Humour in the Context of Media Studies����������������������������� 71 3.3.3.1 Subsuming Analyses����������������������������������������� 72 3.3.3.2 Multi-Perspective Approaches ������������������������� 78 3.3.3.3 Thematic and Genre Theoretical Approaches ��� 83 3.3.3.4 Categorical Research ��������������������������������������� 91

ix

x

Contents



3.3.3.5 Recipient Research������������������������������������������� 98 3.3.3.6 Monothematic and Historical Analyses �����������102 3.4 Everyday and Television Humour of Children���������������������������������110 3.4.1 Everyday Humour of Children in Research�������������������������111 3.4.2 Children’s Television Humour in Research�������������������������123 3.5 Discussion and Summary�����������������������������������������������������������������135

4 Empirical Part �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������151 4.1 The Goal and the Questions �������������������������������������������������������������151 4.2 Questioning Children About Humour�����������������������������������������������152 4.2.1 Group Discussion�����������������������������������������������������������������152 4.2.2 Recruitment of the Group�����������������������������������������������������154 4.2.3 Guide �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������156 4.2.4 Implementation���������������������������������������������������������������������158 4.2.5 Methodology of the Analysis of the Interviews�������������������159 4.2.6 Definition of the Humour Categories�����������������������������������167 4.2.7 Results of the Group Discussions�����������������������������������������174 4.2.7.1 Humour Categories Mentioned by the Children Interviewed ���������������������������������������174 4.2.7.2 Humor Categories by Gender for Theatrical and DVD Movies�����������������������������197 4.2.7.3 Humour Categories by Age�������������������������������200 4.2.7.4 Humour Production of Girls and Boys�������������201 4.2.8 Context Specific Humour Description���������������������������������203 4.3 Summary: Humour of Children of the Group Discussions���������������206 4.4 Film Analyses�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������209 4.4.1 Film Selection and Meeting the Children’s Film Definition�����������������������������������������������������������������������������212 4.4.2 Scope and Methodology of Film Analysis���������������������������216 4.4.3 Components of the Humour-Structural Film Analysis���������220 4.4.3.1 Definition of the Terms Humour Sequence, Humour Part and Humour Density�������������������222 4.4.3.2 Forms of Appearance of Humour Sequences�����224 4.4.4 Components of Technical and Qualitative Film Analysis �����232 4.4.5 Exemplary Case Study for Film Analysis ���������������������������257 4.4.6 Paula’s Secret (2008)�����������������������������������������������������������259 4.4.6.1 Content and Genre �������������������������������������������259 4.4.6.2 Sample Humour Sequence�������������������������������261 4.4.6.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene���������261

Contents













xi

4.4.6.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour Categories in the Example Scene�������268 4.4.6.5 The Film “Paula’s Secret” and Its Humour������270 4.4.7 Hanni and Nanni (2010)�������������������������������������������������������276 4.4.7.1 Content and Genre �������������������������������������������276 4.4.7.2 Sample Humour Sequence�������������������������������278 4.4.7.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene���������278 4.4.7.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour Categories in the Sample Scene���������281 4.4.7.5 The Film “Hanni and Nanni” and Its Humour �������������������������������������������������������283 4.4.8 Lilly the Witch: The Dragon and the Magic Book (2009)�����287 4.4.8.1 Content and Genre �������������������������������������������289 4.4.8.2 Sample Humour Sequence�������������������������������290 4.4.8.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene���������290 4.4.8.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour Categories in the Example Scene�������295 4.4.8.5 The Film “Lilly the Witch” and Its Humour�����297 4.4.9 Wicki and the Strong Men (2009) ���������������������������������������305 4.4.9.1 Content and Genre �������������������������������������������305 4.4.9.2 Sample Humour Sequence�������������������������������307 4.4.9.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene���������308 4.4.9.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour Categories in the Sample Scene���������318 4.4.9.5 The Film “Wicki” and Its Humour�������������������319 4.4.10 The Wild Guys 4 (2007)�������������������������������������������������������327 4.4.10.1 Content and Genre �������������������������������������������328 4.4.10.2 Sample Humour Sequence�������������������������������329 4.4.10.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene���������330 4.4.10.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour Categories in the Sample Scene���������336 4.4.10.5 The Film “The Wild Guys 4” and Its Humour�������������������������������������������������������������338 4.4.11 Comparison of All Films �����������������������������������������������������343 4.4.11.1 Coverage Ratio Between Children’s Humour Preferences and Humour Offerings in the Analysed Films�����������������������343 4.4.11.2 Complexity of Humour Offerings���������������������351 4.4.11.3 Relevant Film Humour Devices�����������������������354

xii

Contents



4.4.11.4 Interior and Exterior Motifs in the Humour Sequences���������������������������������������������������������355 4.4.11.5 Characters in the Humor Sequences�����������������357 4.4.11.6 Camera Movements in the Humour Sequences���������������������������������������������������������360 4.4.11.7 Shot Sizes in the Humour Sequences���������������363 4.4.11.8 Focal Lengths in the Humour Sequences���������365 4.4.11.9 Sound in the Humour Sequences ���������������������368 4.4.11.10 Acting in the Humour Sequences���������������������371 4.4.11.11 Relevant Qualitative Parameters�����������������������373 4.4.11.12 Correlations to Budget, Shooting Days and Number of Visitors�������������������������������������378 4.5 Summary: Humour in the Analysed Films���������������������������������������384 5 Concluding Remarks�������������������������������������������������������������������������������391 References�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������399

Abbreviations

AGF BR DWK4 Ed. (Eds.) FFA FSK GD GfK GTVH HK KiKa LIF MDR mE o. Ä. p.(pp.) marginal no. (Rn.) RTL

Working committee on television research (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Fernsehforschung) Bavarian Radio (Bayrischer Rundfunk) “The Wild Guys 4” (“Die wilden Kerle 4”) Editor (Editors) German Federal Film Board (Filmförderungsanstalt) Voluntary Self-regulation (of the film industry) (Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle (der Filmwirtschaft)) Group Discussion (Gruppendiskussion) Society for Consumer Research (Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung) General Theory of Verbal Humor Humor category (Humorkategorie) Children’s channel (of ARD and ZDF) (Kinderkanal (von ARD und ZDF)) Encyclopedia of International Film (Lexikon des internationalen Films) Central German Broadcasting (Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk) In my point of view (meines Erachtens) or the like (fitto) (oder Ähnliches) Page (Pages) Randnummer (needs attention) Radio Television Luxembourg (Radio Television Luxemburg)

xiii

xiv

SFB ÜS WDR ZDF

Abbreviations

Sender Freies Berlin Overlap (Überschneider) West German Broadcasting (Westdeutscher Rundfunk) Second German Television (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen)

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 3.1

Theme preferences for films among children and adolescents�����������19 What children and young people do not want to see in films�������������20 Humour categories of primary school children according to areas of life���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������125 Fig. 4.1 Ranking of the DVD and TV broadcast film titles mentioned in the group discussions �������������������������������������������������������������������163 Fig. 4.2 Ranking of the cinema titles mentioned in the group discussions ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������164 Fig. 4.3 Ranking of the TV shows in the group discussions �������������������������165 Fig. 4.4 Ranking of the humour categories in the group discussions for the areas “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcasting”, “TV programmes” and “everyday life”���������������������������������������������175 Fig. 4.5 Overview chart for the ranking of humour categories for “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcasting” by gender���������������������198 Fig. 4.6 Overview chart for the ranking of humour categories for cinema and DVD films by age�����������������������������������������������������200 Fig. 4.7 Number of all statements and of these all humour-producing statements in the group discussions by gender���������������������������������202 Fig. 4.8 Representation of the data on the humour sequences in Excel, example for the film “Hanni and Nanni”���������������������������221 Fig. 4.9 Screenshot of a shot of a simple humour sequence from the film “Hanni and Nanni” (2010)���������������������������������������������������224 Fig. 4.10 Screenshot of a shot of a hypotactic humour sequence from the film “Wicki” (2009)�����������������������������������������������������������226

xv

xvi

List of Figures

Fig. 4.11 Screenshot of a shot of a paratactic humour sequence from the movie “Lilly the Witch” (2009)�����������������������������������������231 Fig. 4.12 Coded shot sizes in the analyses�������������������������������������������������������236 Fig. 4.13 Coded camera perspectives in the analyses �������������������������������������242 Fig. 4.14 Coded focal length sizes in the analyses�������������������������������������������247 Fig. 4.15 Coded lighting scenes in the analyses�����������������������������������������������251 Fig. 4.16 Screenshot of the Akira III analysis software showing a humour sequence from the film “Hanni and Nanni” (2010) ���������257 Fig. 4.17 Screenshots of all shots of the sample humour sequence “Trick mit Taxi und Verkleidung” from the film “Paula’s Secret (2009)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������262 Fig. 4.18 Screenshot of the humour sequence “Trick mit Taxi und Verkleidung” from the film “Paula’s Secret” (analysis programme Akira III – view: humour categories)�������������267 Fig. 4.19 Screenshot of the humour sequence “Trick mit Taxi und Verkleidung” from the film “Paula’s Secret” (Analysis programme Akira III – View: Film technical means)�������269 Fig. 4.20 Temporal duration of the use of humour categories in the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation)�������������272 Fig. 4.21 Ranking of humour categories for “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcast” in the group discussions compared to the occurrence in the film Paula’s Secret (2008)������������������������������������275 Fig. 4.22 Screenshots of all shots of the sample humour sequence “Begrüßung” from the film “Hanni and Nanni” (2010)�������������������279 Fig. 4.23 Screenshot of the humour sequence “Begrüßung” from the film “Hanni and Nanni” (analysis programme Akira III)�����������������281 Fig. 4.24 Temporal duration of the use of humour categories in the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation)���������285 Fig. 4.25 Ranking of the humour categories for “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcast” in the group discussions compared to the occurrence in the film “Hanni and Nanni” (2010) ���������������������������288 Fig. 4.26 Screenshots of all shots of the sample humour sequence “Lilli spricht zum ersten Mal mit Drachen” from the movie “Lilly the Witch – The Dragon and the Magic Book” (2009)�����������291 Fig. 4.27 Screenshot of the humour sequence “Lilli spricht zum ersten Mal mit Drachen” from the movie “Lilly the Witch” (analysis programme Akira III – view humour categories) �������������294 Fig. 4.28 Frequency of humour categories in the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������300

List of Figures

xvii

Fig. 4.29 Ranking of the humour categories for “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcast” in the group discussions compared to the occurrence in the film “Lilly the Witch” (2009)�������������������������������304 Fig. 4.30 Screenshots of all shots of the sample humour sequence “Wicki als blinder Passagier” from the film “Wicki” (2009)�����������309 Fig. 4.31 Screenshot of the humour sequence “Wicki als blinder Passagier” from the film “Wicki” (analysis programme Akira III – view humour categories)�������������������������������������������������316 Fig. 4.32 Temporal duration of humour categories in the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation) ���������������������������������323 Fig. 4.33 Ranking of the humour categories for “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcast” in the group discussions compared to the occurrence in the film “Wicki” (2009)�������������������326 Fig. 4.34 Screenshots of all settings of the sample humour sequence “Jungen und Mädchen” from the film “DWK 4” (2007) �����������������331 Fig. 4.35 Screenshot of the humour sequence “Jungen und Mädchen” from the movie “DWK 4” (analysis programme Akira III – view humour categories)�������������������������������������������������334 Fig. 4.36 Temporal duration of humour categories in the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������339 Fig. 4.37 Ranking of humour categories for “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcast” in the group discussions compared to the occurrence in the film “DWK 4” (2007)�������������������������������������������342 Fig. 4.38 Mean deviation of the humour categories according to frequency in the films and their mentions in the group discussions �����������������344 Fig. 4.39 Mean relative deviation humour categories/movies from children’s humour preferences ���������������������������������������������������������348 Fig. 4.40 Graphical comparison of all films in terms of humour structure (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������352 Fig. 4.41 Interior and exterior motifs in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation)�������������355 Fig. 4.42 Interior and exterior motifs in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation)���������355 Fig. 4.43 Interior and exterior motifs in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation) �����������355 Fig. 4.44 Interior and exterior motifs in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation)���������������������������356 Fig. 4.45 Interior and exterior motifs in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation)�������������������������������356

xviii

List of Figures

Fig. 4.46 Interior and exterior motifs in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent)�����������������������������������������������357 Fig. 4.47 Characters in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation)���������������������357 Fig. 4.48 Characters in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation)�����������������������������358 Fig. 4.49 Figures in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������358 Fig. 4.50 Figures in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������358 Fig. 4.51 Figures in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������358 Fig. 4.52 Characters in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent) �����������������������������������������������������������������359 Fig. 4.53 Camera movements in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation)���������������������360 Fig. 4.54 Camera movements in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation) ���������������361 Fig. 4.55 Camera movements in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation)�������������������361 Fig. 4.56 Camera movements in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation) ���������������������������������361 Fig. 4.57 Camera movements in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation)�������������������������������361 Fig. 4.58 Camera movements in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent) �����������������������������������������������������������������362 Fig. 4.59 Shot sizes in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation)���������������������364 Fig. 4.60 Shot sizes in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation) ���������������364 Fig. 4.61 Shot sizes in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation)�������������������364 Fig. 4.62 Shot sizes in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������365 Fig. 4.63 Shot sizes in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������365 Fig. 4.64 Shot sizes in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent) �����������������������������������������������������������������366 Fig. 4.65 Focal lengths in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation)���������������������366

List of Figures

xix

Fig. 4.66 Focal lengths in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation) ���������������367 Fig. 4.67 Focal lengths in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation)�������������������367 Fig. 4.68 Focal lengths in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation) ���������������������������������367 Fig. 4.69 Focal lengths in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation)�������������������������������367 Fig. 4.70 Focal lengths in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent) �����������������������������������������������������������������368 Fig. 4.71 Sound in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������369 Fig. 4.72 Sound in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������369 Fig. 4.73 Sound in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������369 Fig. 4.74 Sound in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������369 Fig. 4.75 Sound in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������370 Fig. 4.76 Sound design in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent) �����������������������������������������������������������������370 Fig. 4.77 Acting direction in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation)���������������������371 Fig. 4.78 Acting direction in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation) ���������������371 Fig. 4.79 Acting direction in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation)�������������������371 Fig. 4.80 Acting in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation) �����������������������������������������������372 Fig. 4.81 Acting direction in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation)�������������������������������372 Fig. 4.82 Acting direction in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent) �����������������������������������������������������������������372 Fig. 4.83 Correlation of humour-relevant parameters – I���������������������������������379 Fig. 4.84 Correlation of humour-relevant parameters – II�������������������������������383

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9

Theme preferences for films among children and adolescents by age����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������20 McGhee’s infantile stages of humour development, based on Piaget ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������113 Ranking of humour categories among primary school children according to Neuss 2003a, p. 22�������������������������������������125 Ranking of humour categories at Neuss and Ensinger in comparison �������������������������������������������������������������������������������133 Number of participants in the group discussions by age and gender�������������������������������������������������������������������������155 Humour categories for coding the statements in the group discussions��������������������������������������������������������������������������161 Number of statements for the area “cinema + DVD films +TV broadcasting” according to humour categories���������������������176 Number of utterances for the field “TV programmes” according to humour categories�����������������������������������������������������176 Number of expressions for the domain “everyday life” according to humour categories�����������������������������������������������������177 Genre preferences by age status ���������������������������������������������������179 Theories of humour and the explanatory power of children’s humour�������������������������������������������������������������������������205 Selection of the analysed films �����������������������������������������������������209 Viewed German live-action children’s films of the years 2007–2010���������������������������������������������������������������������������211

xxi

xxii

List of Tables

Table 4.10 Overview of all film technical analysis components including their coding units�����������������������������������������������������������234 Table 4.11 Overview of humour categories and film technical parameters of the film analyses�����������������������������������������������������254 Table 4.12 Frequency of humour categories in the film “Paula’s Secret”�������273 Table 4.13 Frequency of individual humour categories in the film “Hanni and Nanni” (2010)������������������������������������������������������������287 Table 4.14 Frequency of individual humour categories in the film “Lilly the Witch”���������������������������������������������������������������������������302 Table 4.15 Frequency of individual humour categories in the film “Wicki” (2009) �����������������������������������������������������������������������������324 Table 4.16 Frequency of individual humour categories in the film “DWK 4”���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������341 Table 4.17 Film lengths of the analysed films and their humour density�������345 Table 4.18 Proportion of hypotactic humour and humour playtime in all films �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������353

1

Introduction and Preparatory Questions

Erfurt, June 2011. In a small cinema, children sit on the floor in front of the screen and tell me what they laughed about. Levi, aged 9, enjoys recalling a scene from the film “Greg’s Diary” (2010, directed by Thor Freudenthal): What happened there?1 Levi: Greg saw a girl. He wanted to have her as a girlfriend and wrote something about her in his book. Then his big brother took it away while Greg was asleep. Then the big brother ran away and Greg ran after him in his underwear in front of his grandmother and his girlfriend. That was naturally a bit embarrassing, wasn’t it? Levi: Actually, yes, but he took a chance. So he was brave too, he didn’t care either. Levi: Yeah. That was funny.

A little later, in the same group, Paul (10 years old) remembers a scene from the film “7 Dwarfs” (2004, directed by Sven Unterwaldt): Paul: In “The 7 Dwarfs”, they were supposed to get Snow White out of the castle. When he said, we have to storm the castle, there is a kind of lock, a kind of padlock.

In another group,2 a girl recalls an everyday scene from her school:

 Digital Appendix (to be consulted at the University Library of the Film University Potsdam-­ Babelsberg) Group Discussion [GD] 3, para. 275 under file: “AAA3. Gruppe 3 FINAL 16.02.15.pdf”. 2  Digital Appendix (available at the University Library of the Film University Potsdam-­ Babelsberg) GD 4, para. 73 under file: “AAA4. Gruppe 4 FINAL 16.02.15.pdf”. 1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. F. Nebe, Humour and successful children’s films, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40323-2_1

1

2

1  Introduction and Preparatory Questions Anne Marie: When Timo was there, I thought that was the funniest – that was the best. He had two chocolate bars, and then he rubbed them together and said: “I want to have children now! Candy bars! More candy bars!” The whole class laughed.

Three different circumstances that made children laugh. The impetus to write this paper was born out of my own interest, because as a storyteller and especially as a filmmaker one has to face a fundamental truth: children expect two things above all from films, and that is for the films to be funny and exciting (cf. Wegener 2010, p. 14 f.; Wegener/Gibbon 2010, p. 60; Richter/Plath 2005, p. 49; Goldstein 1994, pp. 326–327 for TV shows; Ehlers/Lange-Fuchs 1992, p. 3). Creating cinematic tension is already a big challenge, but being funny is, in my experience, incomparably more difficult. The question I therefore asked myself was: how can filmmakers make funny children’s films? But what is funny? What is humour anyway? And what is funny for children? Can such different statements as the three quoted above be brought down to a common denominator in terms of humour theory? It makes sense not only to look through publications on this topic, but also to ask children themselves, because it is questionable whether theories that have tried since antiquity to define the nature, functions and characteristics of humour can even encompass children’s humour. The discrepancy between the expected and the actual, which is, for example, the determining factor for the often cited incongruence theory of humour, may still offer a theoretical explanation for the scene from the film “Greg’s Diary” (2010) recalled by little Levi, but what about the following case from everyday life, in which the participating children were completely clear about what was happening at all times and what they thought and what was real were identical? Group 4, para. 359: 4. Anne Marie, 10: (giggling) Me and Emma were chatting. And I was looking at my shoes. And Emma’s looking forward like this and smirking like this, “Shit.” I already knew what it was, I look forward and I run into the pillar. (laughter)

Obviously, children laugh at what is expected and known just as much. Contrary to what proponents of the equally popular theory of superiority might have us believe, children like to laugh at their own blunders and mishaps, which of course does not exclude laughing at others. So children’s humour is obviously quite a complex field. It becomes even more complex when we ask what children’s ­humour preferences are when it comes to movies. In addition, children receive films in a way that is completely different from adults:

1  Introduction and Preparatory Questions

3

They are involved with all their senses and communicate this to those around them. They turn away, they criticize, they ponder, they are affected, they lean back and disengage, they cheer, they call encouragement, they clap their hands and cheer on. (Goehlnich 2003, p. 50)

Children thus receive films in a very lively participatory way, and this naturally includes humour. What their cinematic humour preferences are, however, has not yet been investigated, as children have never been interviewed on this topic. If cinema films remain unexplored in this respect, a number of recent research studies, on the other hand, have dealt with manifestations of humour and comedy in children’s television (see, among others, Prommer 2014; Götz/Berg 2014; Rathmann 2004; Buijzen/Valkenburg 2004; Götz 2003; Kübler 2005; Ensinger 2003a; Neuss 2003a, b; Deutsch 2003). The studies sometimes arrive at very unexpected results. For example, Ensinger (2003a) demonstrates that television editors miss the needs of their young viewers when assessing which category of humour is most popular with children. For, while children favour aesthetic forms of humour (body deformations, funny appearances) when questioned, editors focus entirely on the degradation category of humour (slandering, belittling, making fun of others). That the perceived social image of young recipients will develop accordingly, as a result of appropriate programming with a focus on degradation, cannot be completely ruled out when viewed responsibly. So children often laugh at different content than adults (want to) believe. But they also like entirely different themes and stories than those chosen for them by adults. Richter/Plath (2005), for example, demonstrates that primary school pupils have a clear preference for stories that can be assigned to the genre of adventure literature in terms of their reading behaviour. At the other end of the popularity scale for them are so-called true stories (authentic events, realistic literature, religious themes). While children prefer this category the least, the teachers interviewed, however, ranked it highest among the kinds of literature dealt with in class. Children’s later reluctance to read is thus based on adults’ pre-selection, which ignores children’s preferences. Whether a similar disproportion of thematic preferences between children and adults also exists in relation to films will also be investigated in this paper. What is certain is that the mostly pedagogically motivated approach of teaching adults, which determines the canon of works from various media, often has the opposite effect of what was intended due to its obviousness,; instead of joy, interest and curiosity, rejection of a long-lasting and resentful kind arises in children and young people:

4

1  Introduction and Preparatory Questions In Saxony, for example, pupils are dragged through “Schindler’s List” throughout the state. But when the pedagogical or political intention comes across so clumsily, even the last pupil understands that and in which direction his attitudes are to be changed. This “educational situation” then cannot be saved by the best film, and one only has to talk to the students once to see how counterproductive this is in some (not all) cases. (Vollbrecht 2014, p. 21)

Humour in children’s television and children’s thematic preferences in conflict with adult ideas are thus certainly the subject of research. However, the gap in research on the topic of humour in children’s cinema remains inexplicable when one realises how important comedy in films is to children alongside exciting entertainment (see above). An important need of the target group of children’s films thus remains unexplored, although children’s films are of great importance in German film production. Of all European films, children’s films are seen by 11% of all European visitors. Annual attendance figures for the years 2011–2017 average 51 million visitors, and the producing countries with the highest attendance figures are France, the UK, Germany, Belgium and Denmark, which together account for 71% of all attendance numbers (Ebert 20193). With an average European ticket price of €6.70 (UNIC 20184), box office profits of European children’s films amount to around €340 million. Thus, German children’s films have experienced a real boom in recent years, which has continued into the present, even though a strong downward trend is now becoming apparent: Among the 40 German top 10 cinema productions of the 4 years 2005–2008 alone, there are 14 children’s films a, with around 18.7 million viewers, which, with around 70.28 million viewers for all 40 films in the Top 10 of this period, represents a market share of more than 26%. For the 4 years 2011–2014, only 9 children’s films can still be found among the 40 films in the top 10 with more than 9 million viewers,5 which is a market share of just under 16%. For the years 2015–2017, the German top 10 films together yielded a good 54  million viewers, while the five children’s films below them reached almost 6.8  million viewers, corresponding to a market share of

 Ebert, S. (2019). Daten zum Europäischen Kinderfilm: Ergebnisse, Herausforderungen & Fragestellungen. https://opendata.uni-halle.de/bitstream/1981185920/32144/3/Ebert_EuropaeischeKinderfilme_pdfa.pdf 4  UNIC (2018) EUROPEAN CINEMA - FACTS AND FIGURES, Union Internationale des Cinémas / International Union of Cinemas / UNIC. https://www.unic-cinemas.org/fileadmin/ user_upload/UNIC_Impact_brochure__1_.pdf 5  See FFA Info 1 of 2006–2009 and 2012–2015, accessed 12/18/15 at: http://www.ffa.de/ studien-und-publikationen.html 3

1  Introduction and Preparatory Questions

5

12.5%6 with all the fluctuations in market shares, audience figures are thus an indicator of the relevance of children’s films for the German film and culture industry. What types of humour and comedy can be found in successful cinema productions, how they are appreciated by young viewers and whether humour can even be reproduced as a cinematic device in the sense of a doctrine of film comedy – all this has not yet been the subject of research. The phenomenon of successful and humorous children’s film productions in recent years is thus an area that has been neglected by scholars, and one that cannot be approached with analogies appropriate to the results of television research. This is because most of the TV formats studied, such as soaps, sitcoms or educational programmes, are naturally not represented in the cinema. Even where there may be overlaps, such as cartoons, the crucial difference is often the length of the programme. In addition, the reception situation is completely different to that of television: the cinema auditorium and the screen are normally much larger than the living room and television at home, one sits with strangers in a dark room, the sound is loud, clear and, with the help of expensive cinema technology, offers a special acoustic experience. Leaving the auditorium during a screening – unlike at home – is unusual and often perceived as disturbing. Films in the cinema are therefore, as everyone can experience, more often watched “to the end”, while programmes on television can simply be switched off at the touch of a button. In general, the medium of the cinema film, in contrast to television, also has to contend with access barriers that make the film experience something special and set it apart from children’s everyday experience. Whereas the television is available in many places, a visit to the cinema must be planned and coordinated with adult companions, who must then also be prepared to pay the usually high admission fees. The humour preferences of children when watching television cannot therefore be inferred from corresponding preferences for cinema films due to the great contrast in conditions. Preparatory Questions Thus, there remains a research deficit from which the claim of this thesis is derived: to investigate children’s humour preferences with regard to children’s cinema films by means of an appropriate survey procedure and analysis of cinematic structures of humour in selected films. For this purpose, answers must be found to the following preparatory questions:

 See FFA Annual Hit List National 2015–2017, retrieved 08.05.18 from https://www.ffa.de/ filmhitlisten.html 6

6

1  Introduction and Preparatory Questions

1. Can a definition for children’s film be derived from the state of research on humour that is helpful for our own analysis components? 2. How is humour evaluated and defined in philosophy, science and research? Is a definition of humour possible and usable for one’s own investigation and what consequences result from it? 3. What role does humour play in media studies? Which evaluation standards are relevant for dealing with child-friendly entertainment/humour? 4. What other components for the conception of surveys of children on the subject of humour in children’s films and the analysis of children’s films with regard to the use of humour can be gained from the state of research? How can children’s humour in particular be recorded in order to be able to make statements about preferences? The review of the interdisciplinary state of research on humour is thus intended on the one hand to clarify fundamental questions about the nature and definition of humour and children’s films, on the other hand to inspire the conception of children’s surveys and finally to provide parameters for the explorative analysis of films. In doing so, a broad arc is deliberately drawn from general humour theories to humour research specialising in children, because both the special research on children’s everyday and television humour and the sociological, medical and media studies research on humour all draw on historical-philosophical explanatory models. For this reason, the state of research is examined from the general to the specific, and historical lines of development are traced, which requires a certain amount of conditioning on the part of the reader. For example, the connection between philosophical considerations, church history, and medical findings on the topic may seem unfamiliar to grasping children’s humour preferences in movies. These purely adult perspectives of both philosophy and centuries of church practices of sanctioning the comic, not to mention the surprising results of health effects of certain types of humour, suggest that childish humour is adapted to conventions and social desirability. Refreshingly unconventional, however, and in many cases undamaged by social filters, are the statements gathered in the group discussions. How “mindful”, to use a contemporary term, children both consume and produce humour, can only be judged, however, if one keeps in mind that humour, apart from pure amusement and the social components of struggles for power, ideology and hierarchy, has always been and is still a means of balancing psychological hygiene. With the help of the film analyses, it should be clarified, among other things, whether there is a direct connection between the humour density and structure of a film and its audience numbers, as well as between the type of acting, the number of

1  Introduction and Preparatory Questions

7

shooting days, the budget, the use of the camera and the sound, and even the choice of film locations. The film analyses should also make the structure of cinematic humour in films with a high humour density visible and comparable. Usefulness and Relevance of This Work The results obtained from almost 300 publications, 1091 statements by children on this topic and the analysis of 2649 film settings and a further 1639 data records from five German children’s films with high audiences are particularly useful for filmmakers, authors, producers and editors of children’s film productions and also help to clarify the question of whether original children’s films, i.e. films that are not based on a novel, could possibly be more successful if they take children’s preferences more seriously and implement them accordingly. Children’s needs have a high priority in this work, and it is to be hoped that the findings derived from it will also have an effect on the opinions formed by potential adult companions through corresponding film reviews, because those who know what children want will hopefully no longer proceed solely on the basis of their own adult preferences. The results of this work make it clear that humour techniques can be used effectively, but that children’s preferences must be known. If this is the case, scripts, for example, can be analysed for their degree of congruence with children’s preferences even before the expense incurred in production. The ultimate aim of this exploratory work is to facilitate an understanding of children’s humour and to provide a basis for making it teachable in the future. Structure of the Study The study is structured as follows: In the following Chap. 2 the preliminary question of what makes a film a children’s film in the first place is explored. A working definition of its own, based on its criteria, is then used later in Sect. 4.4 to select appropriate children’s films for film analysis. After the definition of the children’s film, in Chap. 3 the state of research on humour in science and practice is presented. By way of introduction, Sect. 3.1 the history of colloquial meanings of terms in the field of humour is briefly examined. Among other things, the question of how and why terms such as comedy, humour and laughter are repeatedly used interchangeably in everyday language is examined. Subsequently, both historical-philosophical theories of humour and sociological, medical and media studies research practice are examined, taking into account studies of children’s everyday and television humour (Sect. 3.4, p.  110) examined to determine whether humour can be defined at all and how the

8

1  Introduction and Preparatory Questions

c­omponents of one’s own humour analysis can be narrowed down as a result. Finally, the state of research is critically appraised (Sect. 3.5) and the preparatory questions are answered, including an approach to an abstract definition of humour (cf. pp. 147), deductions are made from the state of research, and further research questions are formulated, which form the basis of the following chapters. Part 1 of the research questions refers to the survey of children and Part 2 to the film analyses. The presentation of the state of research thus serves to elaborate the components for the following analyses within the framework of a preliminary investigation. The core question for our own empirical part of the work, which is followed by further sub-questions, is: which categories of humour prove to be particularly popular when children are questioned? This question can be answered by evaluating an empirical study in the form of group discussions, the methodology of which is described in Sect 4.2 and their evaluation in Sect. 4.2.7 carried out. The answer to the research questions for this first part will then be given in Sect. 4.3. The results of this empirical study will be transferred to the film-analytical part in Sect. 4.4 because the humour preferences of the target group are now available and films can be analysed on the basis of these humour categories. The selection of the films and their conformity with the definition of a children’s film 2.4 are discussed (Sect. 4.4.1) and then the humour categorical, film technical and qualitative components of the film analysis are presented (Sect. 4.4.2), which have emerged from the discussion of the state of research in Chap. 3 with additions. The five German children’s films of the years 2007–2010, selected on the basis of their high audience response, are each presented and interpreted on the basis of an exemplary analysed humour sequence (Sects. 4.4.6, 4.4.7, 4.4.8, 4.4.9 and 4.4.10).7 All films are discussed in terms of humour-relevant similarities and differences (Sect. 4.4.11). In particular, correlations between humour density and humour structures with technical, qualitative and production parameters are discussed. Among other things, it is explained which humour structures correlate with a high number of visitors. Of particular interest is which humour categories mentioned by the children in the group discussions are served by the films, i.e. whether children’s humour preferences are taken into account in the films.

 The complete analysed humour sequences of all films can be found in the digital appendix (to be viewed in the university library of the Film University Potsdam-Babelsberg), folder “C. Filmanalysen”. 7

1  Introduction and Preparatory Questions

9

The second part of the research questions, which refers to the film-analytical part, is determined by the following core question: What role does humour play as a cinematic device in selected high-attendance German children’s film productions of 2007–2010? In Sect. 4.5 answers the related complex of questions. In the concluding Chap. 5 discusses the limitations of the method, gives an outlook on the practical applicability of the findings and draws a conclusion of the study.

2

The Children’s Film and Its Definition

If, in this thesis, children are to be questioned about children’s films and a selection of such films is to be examined in terms of their humour content, it is firstly helpful to define when it is possible to speak of a children’s film, as this thesis will only analyse films that meet the definition of a children’s film, and secondly to define what humour actually is in order to be able to examine it. This chapter will first discuss how a children’s film can be defined. In the literature on this subject, there is disagreement as to when a film is to be considered a children’s film. Only a small number of authors deal with this question at all. But in practice, too, the terms children’s film, youth film and family entertainment (film) are often used interchangeably. A similar problem emerges here as it does later with the definition of humour: everyone seems to know when they are dealing with the phenomenon, but no one is able to define it with clarity. As Kümmerling-Meibauer (2013, p. 40; 2010, p. 10) aptly notes, one has not yet found a consensus with regard to a theory or definition of children’s and youth film. The questions that arise in this context are: Is a film already a children’s film because children are its protagonists? Or because children view it? Or because it was intended for children? Is the children’s film a genre of its own? Are children’s films allowed to frighten or are they “only” supposed to entertain? Are family entertainment films, those that are also aimed at adults, still children’s films at all? Given the complexity of the issues, Wojcik-Andrews (2000) comes to the following conclusion: Defining children’s cinema and film is similarly difficult. […] Not all children’s films are just about children and not all films children see are just children’s films. Defining

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. F. Nebe, Humour and successful children’s films, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40323-2_2

11

12

2  The Children’s Film and Its Definition a children’s film and thus the child viewer said films presuppose, is something of an impossibility. (Wojcik-Andrews 2000, pp. 6–7)

Notwithstanding this opinion, recent approaches to the definition of the term will be critically appraised here, before we can come to a definition of our own, which is decisive for the selection and analysis of the films.

2.1 Target Group and Content Elements as a Characteristic of the Children’s Film Some authors define children’s films by using the child target group and content-­ related aspects as the yardstick. Kurwinkel/Schmerheim (2013, p. 16 ff.) first distinguish five definitional approaches to children’s films in analogy to Ewers’ (2012, p. 14 ff.) research on children’s and youth literature: Thus, they count as factual children’s and youth films those “that are voluntarily consumed by children and adolescents outside of school lessons and which are also consumed unaccompanied” (Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p.  16). This takes in films that are “commonly identified as children’s and young people’s films”. The authors cite films such as “Kletter-Ida” (2002, directed by Hans Fabian Wullenweber), “Tschetan, der Indianerjunge” (1972, Hark Bohm), “Der Grüffelo” (2009, Max Lang, Jakob Schuh), “Hände weg von Mississippi” (2007, Detlev Buck) and “Yogi Bär” (2010, Eric Brevig). This category also includes films viewed by children, although made for adults, which were also not passed for children and young people by the Voluntary Self-Regulation Body of the Film Industry (FSK). The authors include in the intended children’s and young people’s film those “which are considered suitable for children and young people by certain adults. In part, these are recommended films and in part films produced specifically for children and young people” (Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 16). The focus here is therefore on an assessment made by adults. As examples, the authors mention pedagogues, educators, filmmakers and parents. By contrast, original children’s and youth films are those that were produced specifically for children and young people. “[…] these include all the films that were intended by the filmmakers as potential children’s and youth films” (Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 16 f.). In other words, “children’s films are films for children” (Völcker 2009, p. 231). Adaptations of video games and books are also part of this for the authors, as long as the film adaptations are aimed at children and young people.

2.1 Target Group and Content Elements as a Characteristic of the Children’s Film

13

A further definitional approach arises for the authors from the question of whether a film is suitable for children and young people. Here, the focus should be on the nature of a film in terms of form and content. In this context, they communicate motifs, material and themes to the audience, such as the role of the outsider. Less important, according to this definition, is the “communicative plot” (Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 17). Here, then, the appropriateness for children and young people is a prime yardstick, although the authors leave open the question of who should determine suitability and how a distinction should be made between an age-appropriate theme and a plot. The authors also classify the so-called family entertainment film as a children’s film. The film texts are multiply addressed and speak to adults as well as children. For the authors, this multiple addressing is the result of several aspects of content and form, which they cite in literary research: While the message of the text is revealed to the ‘old’ in its entire meaning, many things remain incomprehensible to the child reader. However, the text is so designed that it is possible for the child recipient to glide over what is incomprehensible to him, so that there is no interruption of the child’s reading. (Ewers 2008, p. 123 cited in Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 21 f.)

These readings would be realized in family entertainment films through intertextual references, nostalgic elements, production value, and merchandising. “The (child) recipients, who lack the “intertextual encyclopedia” to decrypt the references, can nevertheless assign meaning to the film text” (Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 22). Accordingly, for adult viewers, identification effects result from new film adaptations of films, books or radio plays already known and consumed in their own childhood, or also from figurative elements such as the many design-­ historical quotations in the Harry Potter films. In this context, the authors are critical of commercialisation through merchandising and secondary exploitation and see a development in Germany that is detrimental to original children’s films (cf. Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 22 f.). Within the framework of their monograph on analysis, Kurwinkel/Schmerheim ultimately opt for the definition of the original children’s film as authoritative, according to which the intended target group on the part of the filmmakers should be the decisive factor. As a further criterion, they cite the age of the intended target group and draw a line here at 12  years, also designated by other authors (cf. Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 18; Bazalgette/Staples 1995, p. 92). The authors answer the question of whether the children’s film is a genre of its own or a category within a genre by locating it in its own category between genre and category, namely as a “hypergenre” (Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 23). For

14

2  The Children’s Film and Its Definition

the authors, a category here refers to “modes of storytelling and depiction” (Hickethier 2012, p. 208 cited in Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 24). Their distinction includes that between long and short films, between fictional and non-­ fictional forms, real feature films and animated films. The genres that emerge from the film categories, on the other hand, are, quoting Hickethier, “content-structural determinations of film groups […] story-generating systems” (Hickethier 2012, p. 205 f. cited in Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 25) that provided formal, aesthetic and basic narrative patterns. Hickethier (2007), cited earlier, himself formulates it somewhat more elaborately in a previous publication, referring, in turn, to other authors: In film theory, >genres< are understood to be those groups of films that are characterized, for example, by a typical social or geographical localization, by specific milieus or features, constellations of characters or conflicts, or by particular themes or subject matter’ (Müller 1997: 141) or by specific emotional or affective constellations (Caroll 1999; Grodal 2000).1 (Hickethier 2007)

For Kurwinkel/Schmerheim, children’s films are, after all, not a category that can be defined purely formally, such as by the intended or factual age group. Rather, children’s and youth films draw on a mixture of specific characteristics, namely narrative content (e.g. depiction of childhood, recourse to episodic narratives, inclusion of musical elements), aesthetic (e.g. inclusion of the child’s perspective in camera work) as well as formal (e.g. average length of film). For the authors, the advantage of such a classification of children’s and youth film as a hypergenre, which in turn forms its own genres, lies in the differentiation between age-specific types of filming as well as in the fact that it is thus possible to justify why genres such as thrillers and erotic films are omitted from children’s film. Thus, the genres of children’s and youth films include adventure films, fantasy films, romantic films, road movies, science fiction films, crime films, etc., which in turn form their own sub-genres (cf. Kurwinkel/Schmerheim, p. 26). According to the authors, a children’s film is considered to be a children’s film if it is originally aimed at the target group, i.e. if it was conceived and produced by  In this context, Grodal (2000, p. 163) uses the only seemingly profane term of familiarity. Those who frequently watch Westerns are familiar with the iconographic meanings of the Western genre and have positive feelings towards it (cf. Grodal 2000, p. 163). In my opinion, however, this also means that genres can hardly be defined objectively if the characteristic of positive familiarity is constitutive for them. For then the interpretative authority for a genre would lie exclusively with those who are familiar with it and react positively to it. However, typical genre conventions of a Western, for example, will also be recognizable by those who are less familiar with the genre and do not develop positive feelings for it. 1

2.1 Target Group and Content Elements as a Characteristic of the Children’s Film

15

the filmmakers for people up to the age of 12. As a hypergenre, the children’s film makes formal use of elements from various categories and genres. A selection based on these criteria would therefore disregard those films that had actually been seen by children, even if they were not originally conceived for this target group. Kümmerling-Meibauer (2010, p. 10 ff.), for whom children’s and youth films do not constitute a genre of their own, is also oriented towards the target group, since for her they lack narrative conventions and stylistic characteristics that are common to all films of this kind. For the author, children’s films have a spectrum that now encompasses almost all genres. She reviews four approaches to defining the term (some without references) that she identifies in the discourse before offering her own three-part definition: The assumption that a “children’s or youth film is a children’s and youth film if it has been produced explicitly for a child or youth audience” (Kümmerling-­ Meibauer 2010, p. 10) is target group oriented. This definition correspomds to that of the original children’s and youth film in Kurwinkel/Schmerheim (see above). According to a narrow definition, which according to the author derives from the American theatre scholar Douglas Street, on the other hand, only those films are to be understood as children’s films “whose screenplay is based on an original children’s literary text” (Kümmerling-Meibauer 2010, p.  11) and for which the term “literary children’s film” is sometimes also used. However, at the same time, the author is critical of the fact that this distinction disregards the increased production of children’s films based on original screenplays. For the author, the term children’s film covers many films that were not initially produced for children, but which have acquired the status of children’s or youth films in the course of their reception. As examples she lists: “Die Brücke” (1959, directed by Bernhard Wicki), “La guerre des boutons” (1961, Yves Robert), “Stand by Me” (1986, Rob Reiner), “Au revoir les enfants” (1987, Louis Malle) (Kümmerling-­Meibauer 2010, p. 11). For her, the family film, on the other hand, addresses the whole family, including adults, from the outset, in that in the film there are “allusions to other films, to historical events or social aspects that can be grasped more readily by adults than by children” (Kümmerling-Meibauer 2010, p. 12). In this context, the author refers to the complexity of themes and levels of interpretation in these films, as well as indicating the multiple addressability familiar from literary research, as Kurwinkel/Schmerheim also do in their later publication. Known in English literary research as crosswriting, according to Kümmerling-­ Meibauer the term can also be applied analogously to films. “Crossfilming” would

16

2  The Children’s Film and Its Definition

then refer to the phenomenon that many children’s and youth films are multiply addressed (cf. Kümmerling-Meibauer 2010, p. 14). This classification corresponds to that of Kurwinkel/Schmerheim, who, however, use the term “family entertainment film,” which is more accurate and also more common as an industry term, and by family film mean only those films with stories that revolve around family life (Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, pp. 19 and 287). Kümmerling-Meibauer herself avoids defining children’s film and concludes by emphasizing that, depending on the intended use, the term “children’s and youth film” has different meanings and implies different formations of corpus. She distinguishes between: (a) the totality of films received by children and adolescents; (b) films expressly recommended for children and young people (= intentional films for children and young people); and (c) films produced specifically for children and young people (=specific children’s and young people’s film). (Kümmerling-Meibauer 2010, p. 12)

Under the intentional children’s and youth film she also explicitly subsumes those films that are aimed at both children and adults or that were not actually produced for children and youth. According to this broad approach, both intended, recommended, and actually received films would determine the selection of a children’s film canon.

2.2 Multi-Perspective Approaches Some authors, especially from the Anglo-American world, approach the phenomenon of children’s film by illuminating various aspects that for them are related to films seen by or intended for children. For example, while Parry (2013) avoids defining children’s film, he draws attention to, among other things, the fact that children’s films, much like other texts for children, have a coherence of their own in which the presence of reality is not paramount: Children’s texts are often on the edge of coherence, so we might argue that in a coherent story a crocodile cannot just turn up in the front room and eat the baddie (or indeed the goodie), but actually this might well happen in a children’s story. (Parry 2013, p. 32)

2.2 Multi-Perspective Approaches

17

The author also points to the clear moral stance often found in children’s films, in which good triumphs over evil in the story (cf. Parry 2013, p. 32). Examining the influence of American cinema on children’s films, Parry (2013) criticises Disney films for making heterosexuality and marriage the ultimate goals of each story (cf. Parry 2013, p. 26). Even if she identifies patriarchal origins in American children’s films, the author provides further evidence to emphasise that children see films differently than adults, which also applies to the ideologies offered (cf. Parry 2013, p. 202). Dance scenes, for example, may appeal, but not the love scenes that follow them: Children might choose to enjoy aspects of Disney; that does not mean they accept without question the moral meanings on offer, nor does it mean they take on the gender and sex roles represented without bringing to them their own characteristics and cultural experiences […]. (Parry 2013, p. 29)

Wojcik-Andrews (2000) lists characteristics that are often found in children’s films, such as the motif of parental separation, travel, exploring strange worlds, and, in addition, the fact that children are often the protagonists of children’s films (cf. Wojcik-Andrews 2000, p. 8 ff.). The author’s comments on the differences between American and European children’s films are interesting. While in American films the children have to be perfect in the sense of prettiness, in Europe care is taken not to portray children as dolls (cf. Wojcik-Andrews 2000, p. 18). Invoking the concept of cultural imperialism, he states that most children’s films come from America and that in this regard the exchange between Europe and America is rather one-sided (cf. Wojcik-Andrews 2000, p. 19). Cornell (2015) takes on numerous American family entertainment films including “Happy Feet” (George Miller, 2005), “Ice Age 1–4” (Carlos Saldanha, Mike Thurmeier, 2002–2012), “Toy Story 1–3” (i.a. John Lasseter, 1995–2010), “Shrek 1–2” (Andrew Adamson, 2001, 2004) and makes the point that typical children’s films most often feature an authority figure with whom the (child) protagonists have to match up (cf. Cornell 2015, p. 23). In this context, for him apparent rebellions, imaginative settings and multi-addressed messages, which children do not fully understand, but which take adults into account as recipients, ultimately serve only a didactic purpose, namely to transmit to children a kind of life lesson (cf. Cornell 2015, p. 18 f.). According to the author, the core of this pedagogy conveyed via films is to prevent unbridled fantasy and to deploy it only in an entertaining way, ultimately to the degree that a behavioural adaptation of children that is palatable to the adult world takes place, which in America is primarily characterised by consumer values and acceptance of commercial institutions (cf. Cornell 2015, p. 25).

18

2  The Children’s Film and Its Definition […] instrumentalization of children’s fantasy and play is not confirmed to easily identifiable character types, themes and visuals, rather it is embedded in the very structures of films for children. […] In a genre where the return to home and to safe place is the only appropriate resolution, where behavior modeling is not just the overt theme, but also the underlying structural logic, children’s films engage in a pedagogy of fantasy containment. (Cornell 2015, pp. 25–26)

The author thus sees children’s films as an educational medium that serves to reinforce capitalist and value-conservative structures. The authors Wojcik-Andrews (2000), Parry (2013) and Cornell (2015) thus independently of one another avoid a definition of children’s film, but instead enumerate qualities and concomitants that for them are characteristic of children’s film, which include aspects of content, ideology, pedagogy, culture, institutions and social criticism. To define a film canon according to these criteria, some of which are shaded in quite culturally pessimistic terms, would hardly prove feasible, especially since the authors focus almost exclusively on American films. Bazalgette/Staples (1995), on the other hand, define children’s films above all in terms of theme and perspective: Children’s films can be defined as offering mainly or entirely a child’s point of view. They deal with the fears, misapprehensions and concerns of children in their own terms. They foreground the problems of coping with adults, or of coping without them. (Bazalgette/Staples 1995, p. 96)

According to the authors, then, it is certain themes, mainly the relationship with adults who are present or absent from the child’s point of view, that constitute the children’s film. A selection of children’s films would therefore be based on whether the films are told from the perspective of children. Actual reception, or recommendations or intentions to address a child target group would not be considered here.

2.3 Theme and Age-Appropriate Implementation as a Feature of Children’s Film Wegener (2011, p. 125 f.) opens up two new aspects in the discussion about what constitutes a children’s film. Firstly, for her, films in which children play a leading role do not necessarily constitute children’s films. In this context, she uses Barg (2009) to refer to films from the horror genre in which children serve as mediums and come in contact with mythical creatures or with the dead. According to Barg

2.3 Theme and Age-Appropriate Implementation as a Feature of Children’s Film

19

(2009), these films are primarily aimed at adults also because the children’s characters reminded them “of the possible potentials of other levels of perception” (cf. Barg 2009, p. 218). Audience successes such as “The Shining” (1980, directed by Stanley Kubrick) and “The Sixth Sense” (1999, Manoj Night Shyamalan) are cited here. Thus, if a child protagonist is not sufficient to constitute a genre of its own, for Wegener (2011) it is then the needs and expectations of the young target group itself. Surveys of children reveal that, above all, certain themes constitute a children’s film and “an age-appropriate dramaturgy, a perspective on events that ­children can understand and a hero who embodies characteristics, needs and problems in which adolescents find themselves” (Wegener 2011, p. 125). According to a non-representative, random survey of 200 children between the ages of 7 and 12 (55.6% boys, 44.4% girls), the topics that interest children and adolescents most in films include “friendship,” “sports,” “problems of children and adolescents” and “love” (Wegener 2010, p. 22 ff.; Fig. 2.1). A distinction must be made here for three themes which differentiate significantly by gender. For girls, for example, it is much more important for films to deal with “growing up” than for boys (40.9% compared to 22%). For the theme of “love”, these figures diverge even further. While 58% of girls consider this topic “What themes are important to you in a film?” Politics Erotic Disadvantage Violence foreign countries school past Growing Up Animal Stories Dear Problems of children and young people Sport Friendship 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Fig. 2.1  Theme preferences for films among children and adolescents. (Source: Wegener 2010, p. 22, figures in percent, basis: all respondents, n = 198)

20

2  The Children’s Film and Its Definition

Table 2.1  Theme preferences for films among children and adolescents by age

Animal stories Violence Disadvantage Love Erotic Problems of children and young people

Children (7–9 years) 56.8 2.7 2.7 18.9 16.2

Pre-teens (10–12 years) 34.4 23.3 17.8 32.2 1.1 41.1

Teenagers (13–17 years) 15.7 34.3 24.3 44.3 37.1 40

Source: Wegener 2010, p. 2; figures in percent, basis: all respondents, n = 198 “What don’t you want to see in a movie?” naked people Violence/War cruel things that really happened dying/dead people Ghosts/Monsters/Aliens kissing 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fig. 2.2  What children and young people do not want to see in films. (Source: Wegener 2010, p. 24; figures in percent, basis: all respondents, n = 198)

relevant, only 14.7% of boys do. The preferences for the topic “problems of children and adolescents” are not quite as extreme. For 46.6% of the girls this topic is important, but only for 27.5% of the boys. Age also reflects different preferences. Animal stories are most popular with over half of 7–9 year olds. Among 10–12 year olds, only a third can still warm to it and teenagers hardly at all (Table 2.1). Conversely, the negative list of rejected topics gives the following picture (Fig. 2.2). Wegener also clarifies the question of the genre function of children’s films (cf. in the following Wegener 2011, p. 125 f.). For her, the children’s film as a genre on the one hand ties in with the child audience’s knowledge of the world and picks up on its themes, but on the other hand it also takes into account the narrative competencies of children and uses cinematic stylistic devices that correspond to the cog-

2.4 Discussion and Own Definition of Children’s Film

21

nitive prerequisites of the target group, whereby the author emphasises that narrative competence and cognitive abilities are subject to a developmental process. In this context, she points out that it is a challenge for younger children to decipher2 camera angles, montages and shot sizes in terms of their film-specific meanings. In the course of their development, children are increasingly able to understand a complex dramaturgy. The fact that children’s films today also adopt patterns of classical genre cinema, i.e. offer comedies and thrillers for children, but also adventure stories, fairy tales, dramas, action cinema and horror films, ultimately makes it a meta-genre for the author, open to further narrative and dramaturgical developments. According to Wegener’s study, theme and an age-appropriate implementation are thus the defining characteristics of a children’s film, taking into account the statements of the target group itself.3

2.4 Discussion and Own Definition of Children’s Film The attempts at definition presented here have some similarities, but also differences. For example, both Kurwinkel/Schmerheim (2013) and Kümmerling-­ Meibauer (2010) list as a category those films that have been produced for children and young people (“original” children’s film in Kurwinkel/Schmerheim, “specific” children’s film in Kümmerling-Meibauer). This definition reaches its limits, however, when a film was intended for a children’s target group, but fails to reach this target group due to incorrect content. The mere desire to make a children’s film does not make it so. I have already explained elsewhere how difficult it is to address children appropriately, especially for the age group of 6–9-year-olds, using the example of the book adaptation “Das Haus der Krokodile” (2011) (cf. Nebe 2016, pp. 152–177), in which elements of the horror genre are artfully used. Furthermore, pragmatic considerations also affect the decision to produce a film aimed at children. For example, it may be easier for producers to line up financing for a film that features a child protagonist and it is therefore announced as a children’s film. However, a film with children is not necessarily a film for children, even if it is financed as such. The concept of an original or specific children’s film therefore needs to be supplemented.  A fact that Pittorf et al. (2010, p. 103) also address.  The themes preferred by children are also the subject of the qualitative film analyses in this thesis, and their influence becomes particularly clear in the comparison of the film “Paula’s Secret” with adapted films (cf. e.g. Sect. 4.4.11.11, there p. 373). 2 3

22

2  The Children’s Film and Its Definition

The same concerns justify the characteristic of recommendation (in Kurwinkel/ Schmerheim the so-called “intended children’s and youth film”, in Kümmerling-­ Meibauer subsumed under the “intentional children’s and youth film”). The recommendation alone may say which film children should see because it is considered suitable for them, but whether they want to see it remains an open question. However, it will be difficult to associate a film with the recommended target group if this target group distances itself from the film. Moreover, it is questionable how to decide when one and the same film is recommended as a children’s film by some of the adult educators, parents, teachers, filmmakers and critics who are considered authoritative, but rejected by others. The definition of “factual children’s film” listed by Kurwinkel/Schmerheim (2013) has the charm of focusing entirely on the unforced resonance with the target group. Here, only what children actually see voluntarily is recorded, without their having been manipulated to do so under any circumstances. However, it is virtually immanent to the target group that children’s films are not consumed without, but in most cases only with adult accompaniment, whether for financial, supervisory, organisational or educational reasons. The case of the 8-year-old who freely decides which children’s film he wants to watch at the cinema and then organises this independently is probably very rare. It is also conceivable that the initiative to see the film comes from adults against the initial resistance of the children, but in the end the film is evaluated positively by the children. The human behaviour of changing one’s mind cannot be denied to children, but in this case it collides with the required initial willingness. For the so-called factual children’s film in Kurwinkel/Schmerheim, as well as for the totality of films received by children and adolescents in Kümmerling-­ Meibauer, it must also be noted that reception alone does not permit classification. Just because a child consumes a film voluntarily does not mean that it can be described as a children’s film. Here one thinks of receptions that are designed as a test of courage, for example, when a film is watched that is aimed at a significantly higher age group (such as horror, violent, action films, etc.). In the study by Wegener (2010), which has already been presented in part, 20% of the children and adolescents surveyed, for example, consider this motivation to be decisive in response to the question “Why do children and adolescents watch films that are not approved for their age?” (Wegener 2010, p. 30). However, just because a minority watches films that are not appropriate for their age, these films do not yet become children’s films. Children, on the other hand, see films at children’s film festivals predominantly of their own free will. The participation of children not only in film criticism, but at best already in project development, is absolutely worthy of support and still

2.4 Discussion and Own Definition of Children’s Film

23

happens far too rarely.4 Modern festivals such as the Golden Sparrow in Erfurt or the Lucas in Frankfurt a.M. attach great importance to the participation of children in the awarding of prizes. However, a typical festival effect can also be observed here: Not all films that are honoured at a festival are successful at the box office. Neither the factual characteristic of reception, nor that of subsequent recommendation, nor the intended target group at the time of production are therefore suitable as the sole criteria for defining a film as a children’s film, quite apart from their difficult verifiability. The definition of a children’s film offered by Bazalgette/Staples (1995), according to which the focus is primarily on child protagonists and their problems with the adult world, is also unconvincing when one considers the large number of films that are seen by children but in which children do not appear at all. As Parry (2013) correctly notes, films such as Robin Hood (1938, directed by Michael Curtiz), Star Wars (1977, George Lucas), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981, Steven Spielberg), and Shrek (2001, Andrew Adamson, Vicky Jenson) would not be considered children’s films, despite being included by the British Film Institute in the list of 50 films that children should see before the age of 14 (see Parry 2013, p. 16). Culturally pessimistic observations that may well apply to American films, and such as those made by Cornell (2015), can at best be applied analogously to German children’s films. But even where one might assume an abusive influence, it is not helpful to make a selection criterion out of it. Ultimately, such a film selection would be based on an attitude test, which may be able to draw attention to dangers through influence and manipulation that may exist from an adult point of view, but is still far from appreciating the needs of the child target group. The preparatory question posed in the introduction about the usability of a children’s film definition from the state of research can therefore be answered in the negative at this point, since suitable definitions for the selection of children’s films cannot be derived from the work presented. Instead of using monocausal justifications or multi-perspective approaches, which, however, disregard the statements of the child target group itself, I would like to choose a more comprehensive approach here, which also takes into account the needs of the target group itself. In this respect, Wojcik-Andrews (2000), rejecting even the existence of definable children’s films (cf. Wojcik-Andrews 2000, pp. 6–7), is not followed here, failing also to evaluate what children themselves expect from films.  In 2013, the “Film Financing Forum” in Malmö had a children’s jury judge the projects presented by adult filmmakers and award a prize. In this case, children were involved even before a project was implemented. 4

24

2  The Children’s Film and Its Definition

For me, the decisive characteristic of a children’s film lies in the mature, child-­ oriented realisation of a film subject, namely when intention, realisation and reception (resonance) are in an appropriate relationship to each other. In this way, films can be considered quite organically that were not intended as children’s films at all, for example, but whose realisation was appropriate for children and therefore achieved a strong resonance with child viewers. The criteria in detail: The realisation of a film can be called suitable for children if it deals adequately with a topic that is adapted to the needs of children, i.e. age-appropriate, which corresponds to the developmental psychological horizon of experience, the cognitive abilities and the resilience of children, which applies in particular to the explicit depiction of violence or the staging of shock and fright scenes, in order to avoid the negative consequences in development that are otherwise undisputed in research (cf. with further evidence Buijzen/Valkenburg 2008, p.  334). However, this also applies to the implementation of humorous content. A film that incessantly relies on degrading humour or the misadventures of others, which are only acceptable to children under certain conditions, can hardly be described as appropriate for children (cf. inter alia Sect. 4.2.7.1, p. 174 ff.). Topics that address children’s needs have been elaborated by Wegener, as shown (Wegener 2010, pp. 2, 22). Here, a distinction must be made according to age and gender: Girls are more interested in the topic “love” than boys, “animal stories” are more interesting for younger children than for 10–12 year olds. A look at the negative list of Wegener’s study shows themes that children reject in films: “naked people”, “violence” and “war” as well as “cruel things that really happened” (Wegener 2010, p. 23). Incidentally, what is (still) to be regarded as appropriate for children will always be the subject of contemporary debate and social development, but above all it should be determined by the statements of the target group itself, which are also subject to change, and this is often misunderstood. Thus, for example, “animal stories” may appeal thematically to children, but only if they are also implemented in an age-appropriate manner. Brutal injuries and misfortunes of the animal protagonists will no longer be part of the story for certain younger age groups. Family (entertainment) films are also appropriate for children, provided that they offer sufficient interpretive contexts that correspond to children’s horizons of experience, without the content that goes beyond this being an obstacle to reception. However, an appropriate response from the target audience should also occur or be expected in the case of child-oriented implementation, for which a distinction must be made between original and adapted children’s films, their respective production costs and the associated, different advertising measures and the expected audience figures. In general, the figure of 100,000 viewers is often mentioned in the

2.4 Discussion and Own Definition of Children’s Film

25

industry when talking about the audience success of an original children’s film (cf. Hoffmann 2012, p.  33). This corresponds to the statement made by ZDF editor Dagmar Ungureit about the film “Paulas Geheimnis” in the same publication: PAULAS GEHEIMNIS (Gernot Krää, 2007), for example, barely made it to 60,000 in the cinema, which disappoints us as a broadcaster who co-produced with a substantial contribution. (quoted in Hoffmann 2012, p. 33)

For adapted children’s material, producer Uschi Reich’s statement from February 2012 may be helpful in terms of expected attendance figures: You once said that 400,000 viewers for “Here Comes Lola” (2010) would be too few for a sequel. Reich: I can’t find any more distribution partners for it. I would have liked to have continued “Hier kommt Lola” as a good comedy; there are examples where the first film set a mark and the second ran more successfully. But “Here Comes Lola!” also cost four million euros. (from: film-dienst 2/2012, p. 22)

Production and advertising costs are therefore always a factor in determining economic success. In this respect, it is not possible to make a general statement about how many viewers a film needs to be a success. In addition to economic success, there is also cultural success, such as when a film participates in many festivals, receives good reviews and possibly even significant prizes. An original children’s film with few advertising opportunities can therefore be assumed to have an adequate response from the target group even with an audience of less than 100,000, whereas a film based on a well-known book, which is launched with a much larger marketing campaign, will probably have missed its audience with an audience of 150,000 and cannot be considered a children’s film if it is not made in a way that is suitable for children, no matter how strong the intention of the filmmakers may have been to make a children’s film. The extent to which one can speak of an appropriate response must therefore be determined on a case-by-case basis. In retrospect, this will always be possible. But even in the prognosis about the expected resonance of a children’s film that has not yet premiered, the filmmakers’ intention to produce a children’s film as well as the existence of a child-oriented implementation make at least a certain resonance probable, regardless of whether this is to be assumed in terms of an economic or cultural success (or even both). The thesis that the children’s film represents a meta-genre (Wegener 2011, p. 125 f.) or a hyper-genre (Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 23) is to be agreed with. For on the one hand, the children’s film captures the age-appropriate themes

26

2  The Children’s Film and Its Definition

expected by the audience, such as friendship, courage, the experience of adventure, unfair treatment, family, school, group cohesion and struggles, etc.; on the other hand, it is free to choose those from the existing genres and to adopt conventions, satisfy viewing habits and use stylistics that correspond to child-oriented storytelling. Where this is disregarded, for example in the case of the non-child-friendly adoption of horror and erotic genres, but also in the case of one-sided thematic focuses in film, such as first experiences of love, there is regular rejection on the part of the child audience, or else the transition to a youth film is marked, which – depending on the stage of development – leads to a shift in the interests of children in everyday life and thus also in film reception between the ages of about twelve and thirteen. In the context of this work, a children’s film is therefore considered to be one in which the subject matter is appropriate for children and resonates with the target audience, i.e. in which the intention of the filmmakers on the one hand and the realisation and reception on the other are in an appropriate relationship to one another. In the following, “children” as recipients are understood as adolescents under the age of twelve (also Bazalgette/Staples 1995, p. 92).

3

Humor in Science and Practice

Now that a definition of the term “children’s film” is available, which will determine the canon of films to be selected for further examination, an initial colloquial overview of the most common terms in the context of humour will be compiled. Subsequently, the state of research on the subject of humour in will be presented, the aim of which is to provide a scientific definition of the subject of the investigation, “humour”, which will be decisive for our own analyses. The question is simply what humour actually is and how it can be made measurable in order to be able to apply it to films and children’s verbal expressions. The conception of group interviews in which children are to have their own say on the subject of humour, as well as the subsequent film analyses, will thus be draw on by the state of research on the subject presented here. A wide arc is thus deliberately drawn from everyday language usage (Sect. 3.1), the philosophical discourse (Sect. 3.2), sociological and medical research practice (Sects. 3.3.1 and 3.3.2), the media-scientific examination of the topic of humour (Sect. 3.3.3) to research on children’s everyday and television humour (Sect. 3.4), as all disciplines can contribute to the question of how to measure and evaluate children’s preferences in cinematic rences.

3.1 Humour and Related Terms in Current Linguistic Usage In the following, the concept of humour will first be examined with regard to its current colloquial understanding, which also affects scientific discourse, because in the academic-philosophical debate on the subject of humour, terms such as joke, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. F. Nebe, Humour and successful children’s films, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40323-2_3

27

28

3  Humor in Science and Practice

comedy, laughter, humour and stylistic devices such as irony, parody and satire are often used side by side and synonymously, which leads to an inconsistent terminology (so also: Knop 2007, p. 71; Lambernd 1998, p. 26). In the following, it must therefore also be clarified whether this imprecise usage can be avoided at all. The purpose of this section, then, before entering into the philosophical-­ scientific survey of Sects. 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 is to reflect on the terms as they are used today: It will be shown how it came to have its current meaning in the first place, for instance through the adoption of the English word “humour” into German by Lessing and Herder in the eighteenth century. Concise entries from dictionaries such as the Duden or etymological lexicons will therefore predominantly be used. For stylistic devices in the field of humour, attempts at definitions by individual representatives of literary and media studies will also be consulted, provided they are brief and concise. The Kluge etymological dictionary (1995, p. 387) derives humour from Latin humour, which means ‘moisture’, but in medieval medicine also includes the humours, the mixture of which causes the temperaments (choleric, phlegmatic, sanguine and melancholic). … In English the word (actually. good humour ‘good mixture of juices’) becomes the designation for a certain temperament radiating cheerfulness and good humour, i.e. a specialisation of meaning which is also adopted into German in the 18th century and displaces the old meaning …

The Duden (2007, p. 855) defines humour as: ability and willingness to face the inadequacy of the world and of people, the difficulties and misfortunes of everyday life with cheerful composure … good humour, cheerful mood.

In Kluge (1995, p. 895) one can read about the joke: Initial meaning is ‘knowledge, cleverness’, also in the sense of ‘mother [i.e. native] wit’. The meaning is narrowed in the 17th century (under the influence of French esprit) to ‘witty formulation’ and finally in the 18th century a word for joke.

This correlates with the Duden’s (2007, p. 1941) definition of a joke: [concisely worded] short story that provokes laughter with an unexpected twist, a surprising effect, a punchline at the end.

3.1  Humour and Related Terms in Current Linguistic Usage

29

As “not seriously meant [witty] utterance, action, which aims to excite merriment” the joke is defined in the Duden, thus confirming its function as a means of comedy in the understanding of today’s colloquial language (Duden 2007, p. 1455). “Witz” as a term thus underwent a change of meaning in the German-speaking world in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, equating it with the joke. But also the term “humour,” taken from English, changed in intent. Through English playwrights such as Ben Jonson (1572–1637) Thomas Shadwell (c. 1642–1692) or even John Dryden (1631–1700), characters in Elizabethan drama were called humours “fated by deviations from reality” (Hartung 2008, p. 39). However, these quirky characters were only humorous when they were unaware of their effect. In this respect, “humour” did not denote an active action, but only the object of amusement, a person. It was also concerned with harmless deviations from the norm, such as women in men’s clothing. According to Schütz (1963, p. 178), therefore, a man disfigured in war could not be comical. Involuntary harmless comedy was thus the focus. Lessing and Herder then introduced the term “humour” into German in the eighteenth century, where in the meantime wit no longer denoted an intellectual disposition but was also associated with the comic (cf. Schütz 1963, p.  242). Lessing initially translated the English “humour” as whimsy, but later refrained from doing so, since in English it did not mean something temporary, but a permanent attitude (cf. Schmidt-Hidding 1963, p. 184 f.).1 The semantic development of the term humour thus proceeded from the designation of a passive object of involuntary comedy to an active, comedy-producing subject whose basic attitude was humour in its new meaning, which it has retained in German colloquial language to this day. The joke originally denoted an intellectual gift forcombination and was only later equated with the joke. Another term that is often mentioned alongside humour is comedy. The Duden Fremdwörterbuch (2010, p. 553) defines comedy as “the inherent or the exhilarating, amusing effect of a situation or action”. Comic derives from the Greek komos and originally referred to a procession in honour of Dionysus, for which the participants masked themselves as animals (cf. Blume 1991, p. 88). Laughter and humour are also often used synonymously, although they can actually be clearly separated. Laughter is the result of successful comedy:

 According to Schütz (1963, p. 161), the terms wit and humour were henceforth frequently combined, since they “had the same effect, namely laughter, in their wake”, although, like the English words “wit” (originally: understanding, astuteness) and “humour”, they initially had nothing in common. 1

30

3  Humor in Science and Practice by a facial expression in which the mouth is drawn wide, the teeth become visible and wrinkles appear around the eyes, [at the same time by a sequence of inarticulate sounds produced intermittently] joy, exhilaration, amusement, or the like may be recognised. (Duden 2007, p. 1039)

In German, then, the terms humour, comedy and laughter can be used to distinguish between attitude, cause and effect.2 The following formula, established by Robert Gernhardt, reflects the German-language distinction between the terms humour and comedy: “Humour is something one has, comedy is something one makes or discovers” (Gernhardt 1988, p.  10; quoted from Heller/Steinle 2005, p. 20). Following from the term humour, New German speaks of “gags”. The gag is described in the online3 dictionary as follows: (a) (theatre, film, cabaret) [caused by technical tricks] comical situation, funny idea. (b) something which has a surprise effect; particularity.

Film scholars Neale/Krutnik (1994, 1990, p.  51) similarly define gag as “non-­ linguistic comic action.” In the “Encyclopedia of Humor Studies”, Mellor (2014) points out for the American region that the term “gag” is nowadays often associated only with visual jokes due to a popular Canadian series (“Just for Laughs: Gags”) (cf. Mellor 2014, p. 253). In films, television and stage plays, we also often speak of a running gag, which according to the online4 dictionary is “a gag that is always repeated, that is often used”. Since the running gag is a phenomenon that occurs primarily in dramatised media texts, it is worth taking an excursion into film and media studies at this point in order to clarify the current understanding of the term: Brock (2004), for ­example,  In English, on the other hand, this distinction between humour, comedy and laughter is not so clearly drawn. Thus, Martin (2001, p. 505) assigns three possible functions to humour, whereby the distinctions that can be drawn between humour and comedy in German are mixed in the English “humour”: On the one hand, according to Martin, “humour” can describe a stimulus, such as a humorous film, which in German would correspond more to the effect of a film, namely its comedy. On the other hand, “humour” for Martin is also the ability to perceive or produce, for example, amusing inconsistencies, which comes closest to the Duden’s definition. And finally, “humour” can also describe a reaction, such as laughter or exhilaration. 3  http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Gag, retrieved 01/28/15. 4  http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Running_Gag, retrieved 01/28/15. 2

3.1  Humour and Related Terms in Current Linguistic Usage

31

assumes a familiar pattern in a new situation or a surprising variation (cf. Brock 2004, p. 180). Türschmann (2008, p. 221) also succinctly sums it up in the context of a film-analytical work, for which a running gag is to be described as “a series of narrative elements which, because of their varied occurrence, illustrate a comic inexorable mechanic”. Thus, the running gag is not about mere repetition, but about the variation of a gag or its context. In summary, it can be said that in today’s understanding of language, joke, gag and jest are regarded as tools of comedy, as it were, or as the media scholars Prommer et al. (2003, p. 59) put it: as “comic devices”. Their successful use results in laughter. In colloquial language, humour, on the other hand, tends to denote a cheerful basic human attitude. However, a forcible separation of the termsrather obstructs understanding, in view of the mixing established in everyday language. Moreover, as Lambernd (1998) correctly notes, comedy can also be understood, for example, as applied humour (cf. Lambernd 1998, p. 36). Dicta such as that of Otto Julius Bierbaum (1909/1984, p. 124) then summarise the term in a shortened way again quite differently and are nevertheless often quoted in everyday life: “Humour is when you laugh anyway”. Humorous Style Elements In today’s linguistic usage, the humorous stylistic elements of mockery, irony, sarcasm, cynicism, satire, caricature and parody can be distinguished from one another. According to the Duden,5 mockery can be generally described as: Expression or behavior by which someone makes fun of someone, someone’s feelings, or the like; expresses gloating; gloats over someone, something […]

Irony, which can be traced back to the Greek eironeía, originally meant dissimulation, lack of seriousness (cf. Gemoll 1988, p.  247). The definition according to which irony is present when what is meant is expressed by its opposite is probably close to everyday life (cf. Müller 2007, p. 187; Knop 2007. p. 81 f.). By contrast, the definition of the online dictionary6 seems imprecise, if irony is understood as: subtle, covert mockery by which someone seeks to hit something by ridiculing it under the ocular appearance of their own approval

 http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Spott, retrieved 01/28/15.  http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Ironie, retrieved 01/28/15.

5 6

32

3  Humor in Science and Practice

This definition undercuts the possibility that, in addition to one’s own, other people’s opinions, attitudes, and supposed approvals can also be ironised. Sarcasm is usually described as a heightened, biting form of irony or even scathing mockery (cf. Online-Duden),7 which is only surpassed by cynicism. The Online-Duden8 equates cynicism with sarcasm, or rather does without a definition and only offers synonyms such as malice, mockery, malice and scorn. However, cynicism should be understood as much more in everyday life, namely something like an attitude, which is well expressed in the following derivation: Cynicism is an outlook on life that disparages all existing values out of consummate skepticism, contempt for life and humanity. This cynicism, based on radical skepticism and hurtful apparent superiority, is thus one of the sharpest forms of ridicule. Cynical mockery is destructively directed against the values and truths represented by others, whereby the latter are ruthlessly disparaged and exposed. (with further references: Knop 2007, p. 82)

Attardo/Giora (2014) draw attention to a change in meaning in American usage for the terms irony and sarcasm, for which it is not yet clear whether it will also influence European usage: To complicate matters, in contemporary American usage, among young speakers, sarcasm has taken over the meaning of irony, which is now used to mean something upsetting (in a sense unrelated to humour). (Attardo/Giora 2014, p. 398)

Here, then, a development seems to be emerging according to which irony in everyday American language is no longer associated with humorous elements at all, but with outrageous, unpleasant events. According to the Online-Duden,9 satire is not so much a stylistic device as an “artistic genre (literature, caricature, film) that criticises people and events through exaggeration, irony and [biting] ridicule, makes them ridiculous, denounces conditions, scourges them with sharp wit”. The authors of Metzler’s cabaret lexicon Budzinski/Hippen (1996) describe it similarly, but again more precisely and more accurately capturing today’s use of the term, when they assume a form of presentation that serves this purpose,

 http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Sarkasmus, retrieved 01/29/15.  http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Zynismus, retrieved 01/29/15. 9  http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Satire, retrieved 01/29/15. 7 8

3.1  Humour and Related Terms in Current Linguistic Usage

33

[…] to aggressively and ironically exaggerate social and political conditions and conventions as well as individual actions and ideas that are perceived as negative by means of comedy, in order to highlight their inadequacy, reprehensibility and/or punishability. (Budzinski/Hippen 1996, p. 344)

Another humorous stylistic device that is also frequently used in film is the caricature. The word is borrowed from the it. caricatura and actually means overloading, going back to the Latin carus = the chariot. It means the exaggeratedly funny, the overloaded representation (cf. Kluge 1995, p. 428). Henningsen (1967, p. 44) considers the “exaggerated distortion of an (essential) individual feature” to be decisive, and the Online-Duden10 defines caricature as a drawing or the like that exposes a person, thing or event to ridicule by satirically emphasising certain characteristic features. According to Lambernd, parody is a term taken from literary studies, which was only later used for audiovisual media, for example in the term film parody (cf. Lambernd 1998, p. 34). It can be described in everyday terms as a “distorted and exaggerated imitation of something existing” (Müller 1973, p.  66). Like other comic devices, parody can make use of irony, but it is essential that the underlying original remains recognisable (cf. Lambernd 1998, p. 34). Much narrower is the explanation of the online11 dictionary, which sees parody as a “comic-satirical imitation or remodelling of a [famous, well-known] usually artistic, often literary work or the style of a [famous] artist”. While it may be possible to distinguish basic humorous concepts, this is rarely done in everyday language for reasons of comprehensibility. As we have seen, humorous stylistic elements and forms of expression can be separated from one another abstractly by definition, but in everyday language this will also lead to blurring, borderlines and overlaps. This is ultimately also due to the fact that the underlying humour differs from person to person (cf. Lambernd 1998, p. 36). Thus, what sounds cynical to one person may only be irony to another. The definitions presented here were primarily intended as an introduction to reflect their current colloquial understanding. It has become clear that the development of everyday language stands in the way of a clear separation of the terms, if only because the meanings are constantly shifting. Whether the scientific examination of the phenomenon can determine the essence, tasks and functions of humour will be examined in the following chapters when reviewing the state of research. 10 11

 http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Karikatur, retrieved 01/29/15.  http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Parodie, retrieved 01/29/15.

34

3  Humor in Science and Practice

3.2 Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology The nature, effects, functions and forms of humour have occupied philosophers, thinkers, theologians and scientists throughout the centuries. Later disciplines and specialised fields of research, moreover, almost always build on the historical-­ philosophical and refer to them, which is why these will now also be initially examined here. The following overview of the predominantly philosophical theories of humour and their cultural-historical background is selective and partly also aphoristic: the most prominent theories will be outlined in each case. Their classification follows the categorisation commonly made in the literature, accounts of which may differ in detail from author to author in terms of nature, scope and evaluation, but share a predominantly common basic canon (for a detailed overview, see: Caroll 2014, p. 7 ff.; Martin 2007, p. 33 ff.; Attardo 1994, p. 18 ff.; Hartung 2005; p. 29 ff.; more briefly: Titze 1988, p. 4 ff.; for philosophical approaches: Morreall 2014, pp. 566– 570).

3.2.1 Superiority and Degradation Theories Representatives of the theories of superiority and degradation (sometimes also treated under theories of aggression and superiority) assume a relationship of superiority and subordination between sender and receiver and/or object of humorous content. In Philebos Plato (o.J./1991b) gives probably the earliest definition of the ridiculous (cf. Mader 1977, p. 80), according to which, in inversion of the Delphic saying “Know thyself” (=forget thyself), this is to be found in judging the fortune, appearance and soul of others with jocular envy. Insofar as their conceited wisdom and conceited beauty is weak, since they cannot take revenge for lack of strength and power, it is ridiculous (cf. Plato o.J./1991b, Philebos, pp. 139 f., 49c+e). Thus, for Plato, only people who are harmless on the one hand, but on the other hand have faults that can become the object of ridicule, are exposed to comedy. Both tragedy and comedy have their origins in the cult of Dionysus, and yet Plato evaluates them differently. Plato is critical of poetry in general and comedy in particular. This may be surprising because of the popularity of comedies in ancient times. Comedies always formed the conclusion of the performance of a tragedy tetralogy, and on the fourth day of the Athenian Dionysia, which arose from the

3.2  Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology

35

carnivalistic worship of the god Dionysus, only comedies were performed, and five in a row at that, resulting in a thoroughly exhausting total performance time of ten hours (cf. Blume 1991, pp. 6, 24). Estimates assume that between the fifth and third century BC more than 1600 comedies were performed (cf. Blume 1991, p. 7 f.). Plato’s negative attitude is based on an elitist view of art (cf. on this in the following: Plato o.J./1991c, Politeia, 604e–605c, pp. 745 and 746). Thus he implies that poetry must ultimately ingratiate itself, for the sake of fame, with the unintelligent public, to whom a “reasonable and calm conception of mind” is alien. For Plato, poetry in this case inevitably evokes “irritable and changeable moods”. In this way, however, the poet “sets up a bad condition in everyone’s soul…” by “proving agreeable to the unreasonable […] and evoking shadow images for him, [which], however, remain quite far removed from the truth”. For Plato, this applies not only to comedy, but also to tragedy, because “when one has nourished and strengthened the gloomy from the latter, it will not be easy to keep it in check in the case of one’s own accidents” (Plato o.J./1991c, Politeia, 606b, p. 749). Poetry “nourishes and waters all this which ought to be dried up, and makes it reign in us, since it ought to be controlled if we are to become better and more blissful instead of worse and more miserable” (Plato o.J./1991c, Politeia, 606d, p. 749). In his Nomoi, the dialogically negotiated draft of a right constitution of the state, Plato then degrades comedy in particular as an art form that is only appreciated by older children (cf. Plato o.J./1991a, Nomoi, 658c, p. 131). Accordingly, for him only the judgement of the elders is authoritative. A musical art is to be valued according to the pleasure it affords, but only if it pleases the “noblest and most educated, and above all he who excels in virtue and education above all” (Plato o.J./1991a, Nomoi, 658e, p. 133). Plato, however, is not completely humourless. The right measure is important to him: “One should refrain from excessive laughter as well as from crying, and also each should urge the other to repress any excess in joy and pain and to try to maintain a dignified attitude […]” (Plato o.J./1991a, Nomoi, 732c, p. 345). Ultimately, however, knowledge of the comic is justifiable for Plato for only two reasons: First, to recognize the opposite, namely the serious. “[…] for without the ridiculous one cannot comprehend the serious either […]” (Plato o.J./1991a, Nomoi, 816d, p. 581). On the other hand, however, in order “not to commit something ridiculous oneself out of ignorance in speech or deed, where it would not be necessary at all […]” (Plato o.J./1991a, Nomoi, 816e, p. 583). But this should then only be done by slaves and strangers, by no means by free citizens. Hartung (2008, p. 33 f.) attempts to uncover the dichotomy of this attitude, rejection on the one hand and moderate permission on the other, believing that Plato cer-

36

3  Humor in Science and Practice

tainly ascribes a didactic quality to comedy. For the serious and the good, as a contrast to the ugly and to the “figures presented in comedy”, which are far from wisdom and virtue, are recognisable by the audience, even if they are presented laughably. It is precisely this understanding, however, that Plato denies to the masses, for they lack the “reasonable conception of mind” (see above), and so for him the preoccupation with the ugly, as in tragedy, and the ridiculous in comedy, “is intended only for the sake of the serious, the good” (Mader 1977, p. 49). In the Politeia, in which Plato has his protagonists negotiate the right form of state, it is then said about the right poetry: “[…] that only that part of poetry is to be included in the state which produces songs to the gods and praises to excellent men. But if you take up the sweet Muse, whether she composes songs or spoken verses, then pleasure and displeasure will govern you in the state…” (Plato o.J./1991c, Politeia, 607a, p. 751).12 Plato lets the Symposion end – against the background of his outlined negative attitude towards poetry often described as a riddle (cf. Mader 1977, p. 58) – with the following postulate: “[…] it belongs to one and the same to be able to write comedies and tragedies, and the artistic tragedian is also the comedian” (Plato o.J./1991d, Symposion, 223d, pp. 181, 183). The statement in the Symposion seems strange at first, because it seems to contradict Plato’s negative attitude towards poetry, especially towards comedy. But why does Plato equate the ability to write tragedy with the ability to write comedy? Only Shakespeare has mastered comedy and tragedy to the same extent. However, it is probably not meant here that only the true poet can master these two genres, but rather Mader (1977) is right, who, in agreement with the above-­ mentioned evidence for Plato’s attitude to poetry, draws attention to a self-­ referential moment. For the author, it is Plato himself who unites both genres in his Socratic dialogues and thus claims productively to suspend comedy and tragedy in a philosophically legitimized poetry. Plato’s aim was to overcome the valid literary forms together with their contents out of philosophical intention and with a political-­pedagogical objective (cf. Mader 1977, p. 82). To the poets of his time, as whose target he served as a person in comedies (cf. Mader 1977, p. 50), Plato thus opposes a philosophical poetry that is ethically, pedagogically and philosophically legitimised in accordance with his own world of ideas. One might call this attitude – freed from the incense of the sublime that rightly surrounds Plato, mindful of his importance for Western cultural history – almost defiant. Yet it reflects what  It should be mentioned in passing that Plato’s practical attempts to implement his radically aristocratic ideal concepts of state and society in Syracuse under Dionysius II failed miserably in 366 and 361 BC (cf. Kraus 1979, p. 895). 12

3.2  Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology

37

is still the subject of debate today, not only in the feuilleton, namely the question of what may and should be laughed at. If the questioning of target groups or the analysis of films were based on Platonic standards, the first step would be to define superior comedy. What the respondents themselves find funny would take a back seat to this evaluation. The same would apply to film analyses, which would concentrate on “valuable” humorous content. For Plato’s student Aristotle, comedy is “imitation of worse people” (Aristoteles o.J./2001, Poetics, p. 17). Unlike tragedy, it causes no pain and no ruin and therefore no cathartic moment as a tragic release. According to Aristotle, tragedy purifies precisely these emotional states through “lamentation” and “shudder” (Aristoteles o.J./2001, Poetics, p. 33). For Aristotle, tragedy thus brings about exactly what his teacher Plato denied it: relief. Aristotle dealt with comedy in the lost second book of the Poetics, but already the sparse hints in the 6th chapter of the preserved first book reveal a basic theoretical attitude according to which one laughs at morally inferior or clumsily acting persons. In the Nicomachean Ethics, we find an early interpersonal view of the use of humour. Here, Aristotle describes the social consequences of an excessive use of humour, a complete lack of use of humour, and a humour-free reception: He who oversteps the bounds of the funny is considered a buffoon and as coarse. He hunts for the ridiculous at any cost. It is more important to him to provoke people to laugh than to present a joke in a nice way and to prevent the person concerned feeling offended. […] The contrast is formed by those who are incapable of making a joke and who pull a sour face when a joke is made. These are wooden blocks and stiff figures. (Aristoteles o.J./1969, Nicomachean Ethics, Book IV, Chapter 14, p. 115)

Cicero (106-43 BC) was more pragmatically concerned with forms of humour and comedy as a rhetorical device. He is not so much concerned with the nature of laughter, but rather examines what inspires laughter and whether the speaker should make use of humour. On the former, he summarizes in his book “On the Speaker” (Cicero o.J./1976): […] one excites laughter by deceiving expectations, by mocking other people’s idiosyncrasies and making fun of one’s own, by similarity to something uglier, by irony, and by saying inconsistent things and rebuking stupidity. (Cicero o.J./1976, 2, 289, p. 393)

Elsewhere, he previously remarked: Ugliness and physical defects also provide enough suitable material for the joke. (Cicero o.J./1976, p. 361)

38

3  Humor in Science and Practice

Cicero thus goes beyond the attitude of the representatives of pure theories of superiority. Ugliness may be the occasion, but not the sole purpose of humour. Especially not when it comes to the question of how far an orator may go in the use of humorous rhetorical devices. Cicero attaches importance to moderation. Therefore neither “a conspicuous, criminal nefariousness, nor an extraordinary misery” are suitable for wit (Cicero o.J./1976, 2, 237, p. 361). Mockery can therefore be applied especially to that which deserves neither special hatred nor extraordinary pity. If necessary, the speaker has to renounce a joke (cf. Cicero o.J./1976., 2, 244, p. 365).13 For exaggerated imitation, like foul language, is the business of buffoons and ham actors. The speaker must only hint at imitation, so that the listener suspects more than he sees. (Cicero o.J./1976, 2, 242, p. 363)

There is no question about the usefulness of comedy for Cicero. For him, it is above all a matter of differentiation from inappropriate jokes, “grimacing” and “obscenities”, which also did not belong in a banquet of free men (cf. Cicero o.J./1976, 2, 252, p. 371). It must also be noted that not all comic effects are witty. What can be more comical than a buffoon? But one laughs at him because of his face, his mien, because of the type he embodies, his voice, yes, already because of his figure. Funny I can call him, but only in the sense that one such is not to be an orator, but only a comedian. Therefore this first sort, which excites mirth in a special degree, cannot be ours: the morose, superstitious, suspicious, vain, dull-witted. (Cicero o.J./1976, 2, 251, p. 369)

One can ultimately see in this utterance the definition and demarcation of appropriate upper-class behaviour from other social classes, which would describe Cicero’s superior character (cf. Hartung 2008, p. 37). Since Cicero, as we have seen, also names incongruities as moments that trigger mirth, he is at least as much a representative of this theory of14 humour.  Where Reiser (2012, p. 23) laconically notes that Cicero himself could not have done this.  The topicality of Cicero’s reflections can also be seen in recent studies dealing with the use and effect of humour in political speech: In their evaluation, Führer/Matthes (2014) shed light on studies on the topic of ridicule and irony and come to the conclusion that self-irony can enable political opponents to be less critical and more benevolent (cf. on this and in the following Führer/Matthes 2014, p. 38 f.). According to the authors, self-irony creates a positive mood that increases the credibility, sympathy and persuasiveness of the speaker, whereas ridicule provokes more critical processing among opponents and it can be assumed that the opponents who are attacked react with defensiveness, while group cohesion among the supporters of the speaker’s party is strengthened. 13 14

3.2  Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology

39

Thus, clear definitions of humour cannot be found in Aristotle and Cicero either. For them, it is above all a question of the right use of humour rather than a description of its essence. From the Christian point of view, laughter, on the other hand, was of “devilish origin” (Hartung 2008, p. 37), and this attitude determined the maxims of renunciation and austerity that prevailed in the Middle Ages, which seems like an extremist form of Plato’s aversion. One origin of this attitude is in the interpretation of an apocryphal gospel, the Epistle of Lentulus, in which statements are made about the alleged outward appearance of Jesus. In this letter, a certain Lentulus, procurator of Judea, writes to the Senate of Rome in the time of the Emperor Tiberius: There appeared at that time a man of great efficacy (magnae virtutis), who is also still alive, named Jesus Christ, of whom the Gentiles say that he is the prophet of truth, and whom his own disciples call the Son of God, who raises the dead, and heals all manner of diseases. … He is joyful, but preserves his dignity. Sometimes he has been seen to weep, but never to laugh. (quoted from the translation by Pérès 2000, p. 63)

According to Le Goff (2004, p. 47), this image of Jesus found its way into the medieval conception of Jesus through translations of this letter in the ninth and twelfth centuries. However, the origin and authenticity of the Lentulus letter is doubtful. Pérès (2000), for example, considers it highly probable that the letter is spurious, due to the unusual Latin for the time of Tiberius but also due to the fact that an official named Lentulus is completely unknown to historiography. He suspects an author in the fourteenth century AD (cf. Pérès 2000, p. 61 f.). Also v. Dobschütz (1899) speaks of a forgery (cf. v. Dobschütz 1899, Supplements VIII, p. 325) and regards the letter as “a product of occidental monastic literature of the thirteenth or early fourteenth century …” (v. Dobschütz 1899, Supplements VIII, p. 330). But even if one wants to assume an earlier time of origin, the letter is probably no more than an expression of the instrumentalisation of images of Jesus typical for the Middle Ages, which indirectly also throws a spotlight on the relationship of this epoch to humour. Thus the Lentulus letter goes on to read: His hair is of a light hazel, straight almost to the ears, but from the ears down in wavy curls, which fall shining and bright to below the shoulders…. … He has a straight and very even forehead, and the face without wrinkles or spots…… The full beard is of the same colour as the hair, not very long, but parted at the chin. His expression is simple and mature. His expressive eyes are sea-green and bright. In disapproval he is fearful; in exhortation he is gentle and amiable. He is cheerful, but retains his dignity.

40

3  Humor in Science and Practice … The form of the body is slender and straight. He has hands and arms pleasant to look upon. He is serious in conversation, reserved and modest. So he deserves to be called, according to the prophet, “the fairest of the sons of men. (quoted from Pérès 2000, p. 63 f.)”

In connection with the Lentulus letter, Pérès draws attention to a phenomenon in Christian iconography, namely the change in the depiction of Jesus depending on the themes of Christian sermons. According to this, the oldest representations depict Jesus rather young, around 15 or 20 years old, and often beardless. Jesus is endowed by Christian artists with the features of a young shepherd or of Orpheus or Apollo, which, according to Pérès, suited the miracles, healings and resurrection described. Even in the scenes of the crucifixion, the youthful expression had been retained. From the tenth century onwards a change takes place: It is remarkable that the miracle-performing Christ, just like the lovable good shepherd, disappears from works of art. One rather finds pleasure in depicting Christ suffering the punishment of man’s sins on the cross and Christ the judge demanding an account from the sinner before his judgment. (Pérès 2000, p. 73)

Pérès also refers to the Crusades in this context, and one will have to agree with him here, for the portrayal of Jesus as a stern judge fits in with the emerging warlike church politics in the Middle Ages. Regardless of when the putative genuine letter of Lentulus was actually written and published, the attitude of renunciation and austerity is also reflected in pictorial art. The image of Jesus thus has more than an artistic and informative function. It is given a task. This becomes all the more clear when one considers, as Pérès does, the portraits that have been made of the Antichrist in art throughout the ages: all pictorial representations asserted that the Antichrist was a monster who would bring ruin upon men. “The Antichrist was depicted either without hair, or with a more or less poor, irregular hair growth, generally of a reddish or even red colour, and with a markedly hairy body” (Pérès 2000, p. 75). Here it becomes obvious what the devilish origin of laughter in the Christian Middle Ages described above actually was, namely a stigmatisation of those who were infidels from the point of view of the church, motivated by religious policy. A laughing Jesus did not fit the strict image of the judge, which was helpful to contextualise the Crusades, nor was he suitable as a counterpoint to the Dionysian image of the Antichrist, for which the Son of God now had to serve in visual art as well. Consequently, the true Christian also had to abstain from laughter (cf. Amir 2014a, p. 14).

3.2  Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology

41

Religious and monastic rules radicalised this supposed characteristic of Jesus early on to prohibitions of laughter. In the so-called Shorter Rules of St. Basil, which he established between 357 and 359, it says in response to the question whether it is not permitted to laugh in principle: “The Lord has condemned all who laugh in this life. It is therefore evident that a Christian will never have the opportunity to laugh…” (quoted from Le Goff 2004, p. 51). Here, then, it is not the object of comedy and humour that is degraded, but the subject, the person producing humour. In the sixth century Benedict of Nursia expressed in the regula benedicti, which since then have been the basis of the order of the Benedictines, the following prohibition of laughter: “But silliness, idle and laughable talk we ban and forbid forever and everywhere. We do not permit the disciple to open his mouth to such talk” (Benedict n.d./1990, 6, 8, p. 49). Under the heading “The Tools of the Spiritual Art” we read: “Avoid empty words or those that provoke laughter. Do not love frequent or unbridled laughter” (Benedict o.J./1990, 4, 53  f., p.  44). And in the chapter “Humility” it is decreed: “… The monk is not easily and quickly given to laughter”, yet it is written, “The fool bursts into resounding laughter” (Benedict n.d./1990, 59, p. 57). Humour and its form of expression, laughter, were thus mostly viewed negatively by the Church in the Middle Ages. However, the thesis of Aristotle stands in contradiction to the Jesus model for man designed by Christianity: “But that only man is ticklish is caused by the thinness of his skin and the fact that of all living creatures man alone laughs” (Aristoteles, On the Parts of Living Creatures, n.d./2007, p.  81). According to Aristotle, then, it is a privilege of man that he can laugh. This dilemma was thematized in Umberto Eco’s novel “The Name of the Rose”, in which the radical monk Jorge de Burgos seeks to prevent the publication of a manuscript of Aristotle on comedy and does not even shy away from murder. Aristotle’s remarks on comedy are in fact lost to this day. In the Middle Ages, therefore, disapproval was expressed above all of comic theatre, travelling actors, mimes and jesters, because on the one hand they had pagan origins, but also because they disputed the privilege of the church, as the authority controlling public life, to instrumentalise art solely for the purpose of conveying the faith (cf. Hartung 2008, p. 38). Here it becomes clear that humour is always also a testimony of a certain zeitgeist and of power interests. Not only in terms of its use, but also in terms of its ostracism. According to Curtius (1948, 1993), however, comic elements can also be found in the liturgies of the saints, for example in that of Martin. As when the saint commands pagans to stop and they can henceforth only move in circles. In another

42

3  Humor in Science and Practice

example, a pagan wants to slay Martin with a sword, but his arm remains stretched up immovably. “The pagans, the devils, the bad people, no matter how wildly they behave: they are the stupid ones and are led ad absurdum by the saints, unmasked, duped. … Humorous elements are thus part of the style of the medieval saint’s vita” (Curtius 1948, 1993, p. 428). The image of the Middle Ages as being hostile to humour under the influence of the Church is therefore only partially verifiable. According to recent research, the positive evaluation of humour and laughter experienced at least a brief upswing in the High Middle Ages, even among church representatives (cf. Bayless 2014, p. 301). Here, according to Wilhelmy (2012a), it is above all Albertus Magnus (c. 1200–1280) and Thomas Aquinas (1224/25–1274) who are open to laughter and also certain types of jokes in their writings. Albertus Magnus explicitly refers to Aristotle, criticising an “excess” of “eutrapelia”, the tactful ability for casual joking entertainment, but also a lack of the same by “sourpusses” (quoted after Wilhelmy 2012a, p. 46 f.). Thomas Aquinas goes one step further and denies the sinfulness of joking in certain cases: Thus a silly word is a venial sin if said without benefit. But if it is uttered for a more reasonable reason, it is not silly and is not a sin. (quoted from Wilhelmy 2012a, p. 48)

Even for the sermon jokes were recommended, as by Jacob of Vitry (1160/70– 1240), the bishop of Acre at the time of the Crusades: Who doubts that the listeners must be stimulated to sorrow? But in order that those who begin to grow weary from too great exhaustion may not be overcome by too great melancholy, they must at times be cheered up again by certain amusing examples,… (quoted from Wilhelmy 2012a, p. 49)

But also in the secular sphere, people took up traditions that clashed with the Christian attitude towards inappropriate humour and changed them according to their own ideas. Wilhelmy (2012b, p. 226) cites as an example the crude comedies of the ancient poet Publius Terentius Afer (c. 195/190–159 BC), which were also popular school reading in the Middle Ages. The nun Hrotsvit von Gandersheim (c. 935–975 AD) had taken them as an opportunity to compose six reading dramas, which were explicitly introduced as an imitation of Terence. Hrotsvit’s aim was to replace the crude humour and his “fornication of voluptuous women” with the “praiseworthy purity of holy virgins.” These dramas are also about seduction, unchastity and venal love, but seducers and prostitutes are converted in the course of the action and in the end abandon their lewd activities.

3.2  Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology

43

Despite the church’s attempts at to regulation, people laughed in the Middle Ages as at all times. The aforementioned comedies of Terence with their coarse humour were very popular, but also in book painting a mostly fabulous-moralising humour expressed itself in margin decorations. These so-called drolleries were populated with mixed and fabulous creatures, “grimacing and grotesquely contorted bodies” (Wilhelmy 2012b, p.  214). In them, human characteristics were transferred to animals and humorously caricatured. Thus monkeys appear as teachers, preachers, clerics, and musicians, among others, and hares as jugglers, thus caricaturing the representatives of the estates (cf. Plotzek 2003, p. 1406 f.). In the late Middle Ages, according to Wilhelmy (2012b), the carnival laughter of Shrovetide was regulated but not forbidden; on the contrary, it was justified by the theological faculty of Paris in 1444: The wine barrels would burst if one did not sometimes open the bunghole and give them air. … We therefore engage in antics for several days, so that afterwards we can return to the service with all the greater zeal. (quoted from Wilhelmy 2012b, p. 238)

The burlesque carnival plays, whose tradition cannot be attested for all cities, can be documented for Nuremberg from about 1440 onwards and address human misconduct in a crude and satirical manner (cf. Müller 2003, p.  315). The carnival gradually lost its religious character, was given a fixed schedule and was controlled by the authorities in order to avoid excesses and excessive permissiveness (cf. Heers 2003, p. 404). The Fastnachtspiele were performed at inns or private houses and were oriented to the following framework: greeting the guests, request for attention, introduction to the play and recommitment (cf. Müller 2003, p. 315). The fact that some of these traditions have survived to the present day shows that the church did not seek to determine all areas of life in which laughter took place, but rather left room for manoeuvre or, as in the case of carnival customs, used its “valve function” (Wilhelmy 2012b, p. 238). In this context, Fahl-Dreger (2014) points to the ecclesiastical tradition of “Easter laughter” (risus paschalis), in which Christ’s resurrection and the overcoming of death were conveyed to the faithful by preachers between the thirteenth and nineteenth centuries with performative comedy (cf. Fahl-Dreger 2014, p. 126 f.; so also Joeckel 2014, p. 129). The author elaborates on the Church’s relationship to humour and laughter: In the culture of laughter that it wanted, the church rather created – whether in the realm of the playful, textual or artistic – a kind of situational comedy that was to serve to clarify the contents and insights of faith as well as its moral consolidation. The place “church” made use of laughter. Whoever wanted to make a fool of himself was

44

3  Humor in Science and Practice immediately made aware of the resulting consequences. Sinful life, folly and foolishness were (sic!) punished with the journey to hell and purgatory. (Fahl-Dreger 2014, p. 139)

In addition to the secular and ecclesiastical festivals, customs, theatrical performance and book arts, so-called kitchen humour was widespread in everyday life and enjoyed great popularity in poems and jokes. Everything that had to do with food (wild cooks, digestive problems such as stomach upsets, arguments between cook and baker) was reproduced with relish (cf. Curtius 1948/1993, p. 433). In addition, bodily exposure has always provoked merriment and also served as a humorous accusation, for example in the pamphlet literature of the Benedictines in Cluny against the Cistercians in Cîteaux with the argument “that they wore no trousers in order to be all the more ready for fornication” (quoted from Curtius 1948/1993, p. 433). Schneider (2004, p. 85 f.) notes the dawning resolution of the dilemma between the Christian and Aristotelian conception of man, i.e. between unseemly laughter and laughter that is considered natural for humans, from around the twelfth century. Decisive for the gradual transition of the church from a strict prohibition to a regulating attitude were, according to this, above all changed courtly mores, through which the Dionysian laughter culture of Hellenistic rulers now revived in the Middle Ages. Thus the French king Louis IX (1224–1270) is said to have set times for laughter and to have decided not to laugh only on Fridays. For Le Goff (2004), laughter thus became “almost an instrument of domination … but in any case an attribute of power” (Le Goff 2004, p. 21). Temporally, this emerging change coincides with the above-mentioned writings of Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas. According to Wilhelmy (2012), however, the fourteenth century, which was marked by the great plague of 1348/49 and the four-decade-long Western schism beginning in 1378, during which up to three popes reigned simultaneously, once again marked a caesura. Clerics and laity alike meditated on the wounds of Christ and visionarily immersed themselves in every phase of His Passion. Truly not a century of laughter!. (Wilhelmy 2012a, p. 49)

Pérès (2000) points out that with the disappearance of the specter of the Antichrist in modern times, the image of Jesus has also changed again. Christ is “only a man” (Pérès 2000, p. 75). Nevertheless, he is hardly ever depicted laughing. The Church in the Middle Ages thus essentially condemned humour and laughter as sinful and thereby degraded not only humour as such, but in particular those

3.2  Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology

45

who disregarded the commandment of renunciation, which was expressed, as shown, among other things in the monastic and religious rules. Although Christianity was basically critical of laughter and humour, it nevertheless adopted pragmatic practices in individual cases where it served its cause, for example to attract attention in sermons or to spread a certain image of morality and morals by reworking popular humorous plays from antiquity or by allowing customs such as carnival games to continue. But even in modern times, the influence of the church was still so great that, for example, in France between 1664 and 1669, it banned the performance of Molière’s “Tartuffe” as morally dangerous, which prompted Molière to write a preface in the new edition of 1669 in which it says: “The usefulness of comedy is that it corrects the vices of men” (Molière quoted after Berger, P. 2014, p. 23). The Christian relationship to humour was thus essentially shaped by ideological power relations and their preservation. Free of religious contexts, a psychological effect of humour is crucial in the Enlightenment for Hobbes (1658/1959) and he summarizes this in a short formula: In general, laughter is the sudden feeling of one’s own superiority in the face of another’s faults. Here the suddenness is probably necessary; for one does not laugh repeatedly at the same things or jokes. Mistakes in friends and relatives do not provoke laughter, since here the mistakes are not perceived as foreign. For laughter to arise, then, three things are necessary: that a fault be felt at all, that it be a foreign one, and that the sensation be sudden. (Hobbes 1658/1959, p. 33)

More recent research (Amir 2014b, p. 67) points out for the much-cited Hobbes that he elsewhere includes jokes about his own person in his theory and describes humour that refers to objects as preferable sociable humour (cf. with further evidence: Amir 2014b, p. 66 f.). This takes some of the edge off Hobbes’ oft-cited theory of superiority. The approaches of Aristotle and Hobbes have in common alterity: above all, the Other or Stranger is the object of laughter. Hobbes, however, goes one step further and adds the elements of suddenness and the effect on the recipient of humour. The Christian moral condemnation of the laughing or humour-producing human being, who stands in contradiction to a stylised model of Jesus, is, on the other hand, completely absent in the Age of Enlightenment and no longer plays a role. One can follow Caroll (2014) when she says about representatives of the superiority theory that for them laughter has something aggressive about it (cf. Caroll 2014, p. 10). For Gruner (1997), then, every form of humour and comedy can ultimately be traced back to aggression:

46

3  Humor in Science and Practice I wish for the reader to think of all humour as a succession of games. The very idea of a game implies fun, leisure, entertainment, recreation, affable human interaction; but it also implies competition, keeping “score” and a winner and a loser. (1997, p. 2)

Considered under this premise, it also becomes understandable why, for the author, there can be no such thing as innocent or neutral humour and even riddle jokes offer the narrator a feeling of superiority because he hopes and expects that the listener will not be able to solve the riddle and that he can thus win the unspoken intelligence contest (cf. Gruner 1997, p. 150). For Gruner, the laughter of a tickled baby is therefore only evidence of an attack perceived as mild, in which a caress perceived as pleasant is expressed, which is always expected by a baby in different forms, because a baby does not react to an unfulfilled wish with laughter, but with crying (cf. Gruner 1997, p. 151). With the short formula “laughter = winning” (Gruner 1997, p. 176) Gruner rejects all other theories and elevates his to the only valid one. How vulnerable this position is will be explained later (cf. e.g. Sect. 3.3.3, p. 71). Representatives of the theories of superiority, degradation and aggression thus focus primarily on the moment of superiority through the use of humour. In a humorous way, one’s own actions or thoughts are supposed to appear in a better light than those of supposedly inferior or less talented people by exposing them to derogatory laughter. The Church in the Middle Ages, on the other hand, ostracised – with exceptions – not so much the object of humour as the subject, since it contradicted the Christian view of man. By the standards of the Church in the Middle Ages, an analysis of humour would amount to a test of character, since humour must be used, if at all, only for the right purpose. An analysis of media content based on the theories of superiority, degradation and aggression would primarily look for those phenotypes of humour that use comedy for the purpose of establishing or cementing a hierarchical relationship. Accordingly, in the analysis, degrading humour in its forms would play a major, if not the only, role. What meaning degrading humour has for children and how it is ­implemented in films will have to be examined (cf. inter alia Sects. 4.2.7.1, p. 174 and 4.4.11.1, p. 343).

3.2.2 Incongruence and Discrepancy Theories By contrast, representatives of theories that can be summarized under the term incongruence theory or discrepancy theory have a different emphasis. In some cases, they are decidedly contradictory to the theory of superiority presented at the begin-

3.2  Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology

47

ning, as will be seen, for example, in the case of Jean Paul (1763–1825), who criticises Hobbes (1588–1679). The difference between what is thought and what is seen or revealed is the essential feature of these theorems. This also results in different weightings for any media analyses. Kant (1790/1963) focuses his investigation of the comic on the characteristic of deceived expectation and, like Schopenhauer, who speaks of the sudden perception of an incongruity (cf. Schopenhauer 1844/1987, p. 124 f.), is a popular representative of differently weighted incongruity theories. Kant (1790/1963, p. 276) formulates, “Laughter is an affect arising from the sudden transformation of a tense expectation into nothing.” To illustrate this, Kant reproduces a joke: When any one tells: that an Indian, who, at the table of an Englishman, saw a boule of ale open, and all this beer, turned into foam, come out, indicates his great astonishment with many exclamations, and answers the Englishman’s question, What is there here to be so much astonished at? ‘Nor am I astonished that it goes out, but how you have been able to get it in; so we laugh, and it gives us a hearty pleasure: not because we find ourselves any wiser than this ignorant man, or else about anything that the understanding would let us notice in this in a pleasing way; but our expectation was strained, and suddenly disappears into nothing’. (Kant 1790/1963, p. 277)

Kant gives another example, borrowed from an everyday language metaphor, which emphasizes the element of surprise. A story about people who have grown grey hair overnight from grief “displeases … us”, whereas “we laugh” at the story of a merchant who, coming from India “and returning to Europe, was forced to throw everything overboard in a heavy storm, and was so grief-stricken that his wig turned grey that very night; …” (Kant 1790/1963, p. 278). Kant states that in all such cases the fun must always contain something that can deceive for a moment. For him, laughter psychosomatically evokes the balance of the vital forces and he attributes to it a beneficial influence on health (cf. Kant 1790/1963, p. 279). The expectability and absurdity of the comic is thus an essential characteristic for Kant, whereas the elevation of oneself above someone else does not play a role for him, as it was decisive for Aristotle and Hobbes (and later also for Bergson, see below p. 82). The development of the concept of humour in Romanticism was then shaped in Germany above all by Jean Paul (1812/1973). Similarly – but in detail contradicting Kant – he emphasises the contrast between ideal and subject in his pre-school of aesthetics. Influenced by the Romantic spirit, in which compassion and love

48

3  Humor in Science and Practice

determined the idea of humanity, he transforms the concept of humour from a passive to an active one, however, in that – in contrast to the thinkers of antiquity and also to Hobbes – he does not want to abandon the non-conformism of contemptuous ridicule as an object, but rather emphasises the discrepancy between appearance and reality (or between the ideal idea and the all-too-finite world), which applies to all people, as the defining characteristic of humour: For the sake of brevity, allow me in the future investigation to call the three constituents of the ridiculous as a sensuously viewed infinite incomprehension simply as follows: the contradiction in which the aspiration or being of the ridiculous being stands in relation to the sensuously viewed one, I call the objective contrast; this relation the sensuous one; and the contradiction of both, which we impose on it by lending it our soul and view as the second, I call the subjective contrast. (Paul 1812/1973, p. 114)

Jean Paul also emphasizes the subjective and active character elsewhere: For if the comic consists in the confusing contrast of the subjective and objective maxims; then, since according to the above the objective is supposed to be a demanded infinity, I cannot think and set this outside of me, but only in me, where I subordinate the subjective to it. Consequently, I place myself in this dichotomy – … Therefore, in every humourist, the ego plays the first role; where he can, he even draws his personal circumstances into his comic theatre, albeit only in order to destroy them poetically. (Paul 1812/1973, p. 133)

Hobbes, and also Kant, explicitly contradict Jean Paul: Most insistent among the derivations of comic pleasure from the spiritual is that of Hobbes from pride. First, the sensation of pride is very serious, and not at all related to the comic, …. Under laughter one feels less elevated (often perhaps the opposite) than deepened by the other. … Laughing people are good-natured and often line up with the laughed at. (Paul 1812/1973, p. 121)

And about Kant’s observations he remarks: The new Kantian one, too, that the ridiculous arises from the sudden dissolution of an expectation into nothing, has much against it. First, not every nothing does, …. Second, one often laughs when the expectation of nothing dissolves into something. … Finally, the explanation is as indefinite and thus as true as if I said: the ridiculous consists in the sudden dissolution of the expectation of something serious into a ridiculous nothing. (Jean Paul 1812/1973, p. 102)

3.2  Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology

49

Thus, it is not superiority that ridicules individuals in hurtful satirical observation, not apparent uselessness of non-conformists, but deviation as an expression of the general imperfection of the world that moves to the centre of the comic in Jean Paul. “The personal, rather, always appears against the background of the general; in the individual, the accidental individual, is general human nature reflected” (Schütz 1963, p. 209). Following the semantic shifts in the meaning of the term “humour” described at the beginning of this essay, which were introduced into German by Lessing from the English-speaking world, Paul (1812/1973) also creates the image of an active humorist who – in contrast to the involuntarily funny oddballs of the English playwrights Dryden, Shadwell and Johnson – is fully aware of his effect and likes to make himself the object of his jokes. Paul was in turn influenced by the English author Laurence Sterne (1713–1768), who emphasized precisely the deviation from the norm in his characters as the essential feature of their character. The hobby-horse and the character “are thus intimately connected” (Schmidt-Hidding 1963, p. 129). In Sterne’s Tristram, for example, it is the amiable parish priest Yorick who rides an old nag like Don Quixote. “He feels himself ridiculous, and would rather join in the laughter at himself than admit the real cause” (Schmidt-Hidding 1963, p. 130). Here, then, the work with its characters by an English author has had an influence on the transformation of the concept of humour through the reception of Jean Paul (Schütz 1963, p. 199). From the victim of ridicule, then, a change takes place to the active producer of humour. Due to the comedy-inducing juxtaposition and the discrepancy between idea and reality, Jean Paul can nevertheless be seen as a representative of the incongruity theory, which does not contradict his romantic view of man. With reservations, the comic is also built on contradictions for Hegel (1838, 1986), when he writes, “… the comic in general is inherently based on contradictory contrasts both of the ends in themselves and of the content of the same …” (Hegel 1838, 1986, p. 530). Hegel distinguishes the ridiculous, which can in principle have any contradiction as its object, from the comic. Human vices, for ­example, are not comic, of which satire is proof. For Hegel it is only the contradiction of habit and the laughter about it which is “an expression of well-disposed prudence, a sign that they [human beings] are also wise enough to recognize such a contrast and to know themselves about it” (Hegel 1838, 1986, p. 528). To the comic, on the other hand, belongs “infinite good humour and confidence, to be thoroughly elevated above one’s own contradiction and not to be bitter and unhappy in it, …” (Hegel 1838, 1986, p. 528). For Hegel, comic actions result from essentially two constellations. On the one hand, from a clash of contradictory (sub-

50

3  Humor in Science and Practice

lime or void) purposes and characters and, on the other hand, from external coincidences and the resulting situations through which the characters and the external circumstances contrastingly clash (cf. Hegel 1838, 1986, p. 530 f.). Hegel thus contradicts the core of degradation theories in a judgmental way by defining the mere elevation of oneself above others, mockery and Schadenfreude as belonging to the ridiculous but not to the comic. The contrast, however, is an essential feature of his explanations of the comic, which justifies seeing him as a representative of incongruity theories with different grounds. For Schopenhauer (1844/1987), laughter represents the sudden perception of an incongruity. Accordingly, the greater and more unexpected this incongruity is, the more violent the laughter will be (cf. Schopenhauer 1844/1987, p. 124 f.). For him, then, the discrepancy between what is looked at and what is thought is the source of the comic. For Schopenhauer, the opposite of laughing and joking, and thus the correspondence of thought with reality, is seriousness (cf. Schopenhauer 1844/1987, p. 134). Irony, for Schopenhauer, is therefore the combination of jest and seriousness, when the deliberately ridiculous hides behind the serious. “The reverse of irony would thus be the seriousness hidden behind the joke, and this is humour. … Irony is objective, namely, calculated on the other; humour, however, is subjective; namely, there at first only for one’s own self. … If irony begins with a serious face and ends with a smiling one, humour keeps it the other way round” (Schopenhauer 1844/1987, p. 136). For Bergson (1900/1921), the condition that triggers laughter is the “mechanical encrustation” of the living (cf. Bergson 1900/1921, p. 29). For him, it is the contrast between man and machine that constitutes laughter and which identifies him as a representative of the incongruity theory (so also Davis 2014, p. 78): Postures, gestures, and movements of the human body are comic to the extent that this body thereby reminds us of a mere mechanism. (Bergson 1900/1921, p. 23)

For him, this includes any kind of repetition in speeches as well as the accompanying physical gestures. According to this, a speaker who, for example, uses the same phrases over and over again makes himself just as ridiculous as one who punctuates his delivery quasi-mechanically with the same movements of the head and hands (cf. Bergson 1900/1921, p. 25). Furthermore, Bergson (1900/1921, p. 131) sees the function of laughter as, among other things, a sociogenic means of education through which society takes revenge for the liberties that have been taken against it. The aim of laughter would also be missed if sympathy and kindness were its dominant traits.

3.2  Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology

51

For the philologist Gelfert (1998), incongruity represents the decisive characteristic of the comic: “The common factor consists of the discrepancy between what one perceives and what one has expected. What is expected is always what is familiar. It is, as it were, the zero level from which the comic deviates” (Gelfert 1998, p. 17). In literary studies, incongruity is found to be the defining characteristic of comedy as a text type. According to Koestler’s (1966) theory of bisociation, comedy occurs when one context of association is broken by an unexpected second, so that an event is “bisociated” with two contexts (Koestler 1966, p. 25): “… by this we mean the perception of a situation or event in two usually incompatible contexts of association” (Koestler 1966, p. 93). Koestler gives the following example, among others: In the happy days of Schnitzler’s ‘Reigen’ a dashing but anaemic young officer sought the favour of a much wooed courtesan. To get rid of the undesirable suitor, she told him that her heart was unfortunately no longer free. ‘My dear Fräulein,’ he replied politely, ‘I had not actually aimed so high’. (Koestler 1966, p. 26)

Here, “high” is bisociated with a metaphorical and a topographical context (Koestler 1966, p.  26). However, for Koestler, comedy only arises from the implicit, rather than an explicit, execution of the rules and terms. The ambiguity of the punchlines may not be explained, just like the underlying conflicting meanings. Two further prominent representatives of linguistics should be listed, who with their so-called script-semantic theory of humour (SSTH) attempt to come closer to a general theory of textual humour (cf. Raskin 1985, p. VIII). Raskin and his student Attardo argue that a text is funny if it is wholly or partially compatible with two semantic scripts that overlap in opposing ways (cf. Raskin 2012, p. 49; Attardo 2001, p. 1; 1994, p. 220). Raskin (1985) defines a script as the semantic information that exists around a word, referring to verbal word utterances (cf. Raskin 1985, p. 81). As an example, consider the following joke, which must be resolved by the listener in its oppositional overlap: “Is the doctor at home?” the patient asked in his bronchial whisper. “No,” the doctor’s young and pretty wife whispered in reply. “Come right in”. (Raskin 1985, p. 100)

Here, the doctor’s script and the seduction script or even the doctor’s visit overlap with adultery, linked by the ambiguity of the word “whisper” (cf. Schubert 2014, p. 20; Kotthoff 1998, pp. 49 f.). The interlocking of opposing expectations can – as shown – be found in many humour theories and the theory put forward by Raskin (2012, 1985) and Attardo (2001, 1994) most closely resembles that of Koestler (1966; see above), according to which two circumstances that do not actually fit together are “bisociated” (cf.

52

3  Humor in Science and Practice

Kotthoff 1998, p. 51). Attardo then also openly admits to the incongruence theory (cf. Attardo 1994, p. 332). In a further development of the script semantic theory to the so-called GTVH (general theory of verbal humour), Raskin and Attardo add five further parameters in addition to the script position: logical mechanism, target/victim (of the joke), narrative strategy, language use and situation (cf. with further evidence Attardo 2001, p. 22). Further discussion of this special incongruence theory will be dispensed with here. Kotthoff (1998) rightly points out that this linguistic theory, as well as its further development by Raskin and Attardo in the so-called GTVH, deals only with verbal humour and leaves out all “metacommunication” (cf. Kotthoff 1998, pp. 52, 54).15 Representatives of the incongruity and discrepancy theories from various disciplines and eras emphasise the cognitive and logical prerequisites of humour by seeing the decisive characteristic of the comic in the discrepancy between the percipient’s imagination and reality; the unexpectedness and suddenness of the true meaning also play a role. This way of looking at things thus differs from the ancient thinkers, who evaluated comedy and its effects primarily in ethical terms. The greater this discrepancy in the perceiver, the greater the effect of the comic. An analysis of media content that follows this theory would therefore examine humour content whose essential characteristic lies in the discrepancy between imagination and reality. Irrespective of the possible need to supplement such an approach, it will be necessary to ask in our own empirical investigation, as we have already done for degradations, what role incongruities play for children (cf. among other things Sect. 4.2.8, p. 203 f.).

3.2.3 Theories of Relief, Relaxation and Liberation With the emergence of partial and sub-disciplines in the field of science at the beginning of the twentieth century, the concept of humour was also re-evaluated and existing theories were again criticised. No longer were its essence, preconditions or even moral justifiability discussed, but above all its physiological and psychological effects.

 This area of word semantics, which is often perceived as too narrow, has encouraged communication researchers in particular to view joke communication in terms of its social function and not to limit it to the spoken word (more on this in the Sect. 3.3.1, p. 58). 15

3.2  Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology

53

Freud (1905/1992), for example, approaches the concept of humour in an energetic way and, remaining true to his own theorising in the field of psychology, assumes that humour is a gain in pleasure from saved emotional expenditure (cf. Freud 1905/1992, p. 249). Freud distinguishes between wit, humour and comedy. For Freud, comparison plays an important role in the comic, for example, when movements of other people inspire laughter that we have recognized as excessive or inexpedient and relate them to the movement that one would have performed oneself, but which is only acted out in the imagination, for example, when a child learns to write by imitating the movements of the pen shaft with its tongue (cf. Freud 1905/1992, p. 202 f., p. 208 f.). For Freud, then, the specific character of the comic lies in the arousal of the infantile. The comic is: the regained ‘lost child’s laughter’ … Or to put it more precisely, the complete comparison that leads to the comic would be: This is how he does it – I do it differently – he does it the way I did it as a child. This laughter is thus always directed at the comparison between the adult ego and the ego as a child. (Freud 1905/1992, p. 237)

Freud counters the reduction to alterity of superiority theories: One can make a person funny in order to make him contemptible, to deprive him of his claim to dignity and authority. But even if such an intention were regularly at the basis of comic rendition, this need not be the meaning of the spontaneously comic. (Freud 1905/1992 p. 202)

In humour, on the other hand, Freud starts from the expectation of a situation that is regularly associated with a strong emotional excitement. However, this expected emotional excitation is disappointed and replaced by a joke. Freud distinguishes here between humour and the comic, in that in the case of the latter he assumes two ways of imagining the same content, which in the case of humour, on the other hand, are precisely not present due to the undifferentiated expectation of a merely habitual emotional excitation in the situation in question (cf. Freud 1905/1992, p. 248). In his later essay on humour, Freud constructs humour as “contributing to comedy through the mediation of the superego” (Freud 1927/1992, p. 257). The location of this function under the moral instance of the “superego” seems surprising, if not arbitrary, within Freud’s structural model of the psyche between the decisive instance of the “ego” and the libidinous demands of the “id”. This probably did not go unnoticed by Freud himself, for in his later essay “Humour” he has to admit, with qualification: “If it is really the superego that speaks so lovingly and consolingly to the intimidated ego in humour, let us be reminded that we still have all

54

3  Humor in Science and Practice

kinds of things to learn about the nature of the superego” (Freud 1927/1992, p. 258). At the same time, Freud emphasises the consoling function of humour: It [the humour, author’s note] wants to say, Look here, this is now the world that looks so dangerous. A child’s game, just right to make a joke about it!. (Freud 1927/1992, p. 258)

For Freud (1905/1992), the joke finally overcomes a taboo or a convention or an inner resistance, which can be socially and educationally conditioned. The joke allows one to free oneself for a moment from this pressure (cf. Freud 1905/1992, p. 147 f., p. 151). For Freud, comedy, humour and wit thus have in common, in each case, the saving of psychic energy, namely in the case of wit a saved expenditure of inhibition, in the case of comedy a saved expenditure of imagination and in the case of humour a saved expenditure of emotion (cf. Freud 1905/1992, p. 249; Berger, A. 2014, p. 634). The importance of childhood, which Freud repeatedly mentions in this context, becomes clear once again in the concluding reflections of his essay “The Joke and the Types of the Comic” on the use of wit, comedy, and humour, in which he defines the actual purpose of these three “ways of working.” For the euphoria which we strive to achieve in these ways is nothing other than the mood of a period of life in which we used to do our psychic work with little overall effort, the mood of our childhood in which we did not know the comic, were incapable of wit, and did not need humour to feel happy in life. (Freud 1905/1992 p. 249)

Nietzsche (1886/1990) points to the connection between the feeling of fear and the transition to relieving exuberance in his definition of the comic: If one considers that for many hundreds of thousands of years man was in the highest degree an animal amenable to fear, and that everything sudden and unexpected meant that he was ready to fight, perhaps ready to die, indeed that even later, in social circumstances, all security was based on the expected, on tradition in opinion and activity, then one must not be surprised that with everything sudden and unexpected, in word and deed, when it breaks in without danger and harm, man is left out, passes over into the opposite of fear: the huddled being, trembling with fear, springs up, unfolds wide – man laughs. This transition from momentary fear into brief exuberance is called the comic. (Nietzsche 1886/1990, p. 152)

As different as Freud’s approach may sound, there are also points of contact with Nietzsche’s repression of fear, for both assume an emotional state from which humour relieves and thus assign it a psychological purpose or function, thus setting

3.2  Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology

55

themselves apart from Aristotle, Hobbes, Bergson, Kant, and Schopenhauer, who did not seek to fathom the function, but rather the essence, the precondition, and the value of humour. Gelfert (1998), on the other hand, once again deals with the conditions that must be present for a “laughing tension resolution” to occur. He speaks of three conditions that must be fulfilled: “… first, the resolution must be sudden, second, the expected or feared must be something merely imagined, and third, the built-up energy of expectation or fear must really be released, i.e. it must not be needed to process a real gain in security, pleasure, or status” (Gelfert 1998, p. 15 f.). Gelfert attests that all situations that can be simulated are suitable for laughter, including murder and manslaughter, which can lead to macabre jokes. By contrast, according to Gelfert pornographic content is not suitable, since, for example, the visible erection of the penis cannot be simulated and cannot be perceived by the viewer as a sham, and consequently he cannot distance himself from it by laughing (cf. Gelfert 1998, p. 16). The English psychologist Sully (1902) also attributes to laughter a function of liberating from pressure: It has shown us, further, that this joy of laughter is, in many, if not in all cases, conditioned by a sudden relaxation of mental strain, and may, indeed, be described by reference to this condition as a sense of relief from pressure. (Sully 1902, p. 145)

Common to all the approaches presented in this section is the notion of the function of the comic as relief, its underlying humour and the laughter that results from it. It is the transition of a situation of tense pressure to a relaxed serenity or even e­ xuberance, as Nietzsche describes it. By contrast, feelings of superiority play no role here. If one takes these considerations as the basis for a survey of target groups or a media analysis, content would come into focus that produces infantile or tension-­ relieving effects in a comical way. These can then also be incongruities or forms of degradation, but do not necessarily have to be. One can see here how decisive the definition of the nature of humour followed is for the content-related components of an analysis, if this is to be possible.

3.2.4 Game Theories The playful element is emphasised by many authors as an essential component of the phenomenon of humour. Sully (1902), for example, concludes that the basic mental attitude in play and humour is identical: “Our comparison justifies us in identifying play and mirth, so far as to say that when we play and when we laugh our mood is substantially the same” (Sully 1902, p. 149).

56

3  Humor in Science and Practice

The American writer Eastman (1936/2009) also equates humour and play. For him, humour is only possible if there is a degree of playfulness and it is the problem of adults that they have often lost this ability (cf. Eastman 1936/2009, p. 10). For him, playfulness is therefore a prerequisite, but also an attitude: Play is a socio-physiological state or posture of instinctive life. It is not only something that we do, but something that we are while we do it. (Eastman 1936/2009, p. 16)

Similarly, playfulness is also defined in the Encyclopedia of Humour Research by Shephard (2014), who quotes the Dutch cultural historian Huizinga, who assumed that humans develop their skills through play: Summing up the formal characteristics of play we might call it a free activity standing quite consciously outside the ordinary life as being “not serious”, but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. (Huizinga 1938/1950, p.  13, quoted in Shephard 2014, p. 577)

The English psychologist Apter (1991) distinguishes between two states, the goaloriented, future-oriented (“telic”) and the playful, present-oriented (“paratelic”, cf. Apter 1991, p. 15), between which we oscillate, hence the derived name: “reversal theory” (cf. Apter 1991, pp. 17–18). In the playful, present-tense state, actions are performed for their own sake, leading at best to positive arousal and at worst to boredom. In the goal-directed state, anxiety at worst and relaxation at best are to be expected (cf. Martin 2007, p. 76; Murgatroyd 1991, p. 121; Apter 1982, pp. 186, 189). The playful state is described by Apter (1991) thus: In play, we seem to create a small and manageable private world which we may, of course, share with others; and this world is one in which, temporarily at least, nothing outside has any significance, and into which the outside world of real problems cannot properly impinge. (Apter 1991, p. 14)

According to the author, humour is now the expression of a playful, present-tense state that has less to do with the more serious implementation of plans. McGhee (1979) takes a similar view: Humour is the logical result of an extension of playful forms of behaviour to the more abstract intellectual sphere of ideas. (McGhee 1979, p. 103)

3.2  Humour in the Theories of Philosophy and Psychology

57

Incongruity, or as Apter (1982) puts it “synergy,” is another cognitive moment of in the comprehension of humour (cf. Coulson 1991, p.  71; Apter/Desselles 2014, p. 641; Apter 1982, p. 177). There are many different opposites which may enter into the real/apparent synergy of humour. […] In general, it would appear that the more exaggerated the contrast between opposites, the more humorous the result. A big masculine man, e.g. a boxer or wrestler, dressed in a flouncy feminine dress, is likely to be funnier than a more normal sized man dressed in a woman’s trousers suit. (Apter 1982, p. 182)

The author admits that his “reversal theory” is thus in part also an incongruence theory. However, not the cognitive but the emotional and motivational considerations play a stronger role in it and therefore distinguish it from the common incongruence theories (cf. Apter 1982, p. 194). In the game theories of the twentieth century, then, the preconditions for comedy and humour are again in the foreground. The exuberant mood or the creative potential are understood here as the basis for making humour possible in the first place, unlike, for example, the previous theories, through which not its premise, but the essence or function and its psychological impact were fathomed. Media content or statements made in the context of interviews analysed according to game theory would therefore have to be discussed in the light of the accompanying circumstances of media reception in order to be able to provide evidence of the required relaxed mood in which this is to take place. For our own empirical investigation, this should be taken into account insofar as the place where children are interviewed makes a positive evaluation by them likely, which can probably be assumed less for a school building than for typical places of leisure such as a cinema (see below Sect. 4.2.4, p. 156). Interim Result on the Theories of Humour in Philosophy and Psychology The substantive discussion of the individual theories and their deficits will take place after the presentation of the research practice has been completed (see below Sect. 3.5, p. 135). At this point, however, the interim statement can already be made that humour theories in philosophy lack clear definitions and contradict each other. A finae concept for questioning children can therefore not be derived from these theories, just as individual theories are not able to provide components for a film analysis, because the different philosophical approaches also lead to different emphases in an analogously applied media and film analysis, depending on which theory is followed. According to the theories of superiority, degradation and aggression, humour in media form would only be assumed to exist where, for example, a hierarchy of competence is to be emphasised with the help of disparaging

58

3  Humor in Science and Practice

comedy. Bn contrast, the corresponding application of incongruity theories would focus on surprises and deviations from the norm when examining children’s statements and analysing films. According to the game theories, the relaxing accompanying circumstances would have to be addressed decisively. Despite these deficits, philosophical theories are also repeatedly used in media studies, as will be seen in the following chapter. Individual elements of humour theory will nevertheless be considered in the empirical part. For example, the significance for children of incongruities and degradations will be examined, and the aim of questioning children about their cinematic humour preferences will be to create a relaxed mood. After examining the philosophically oriented observations on humour, it remains to be asked in the following to what extent the research practice emancipates itself from philosophical theories of humour and thereby possibly arrives at clearer attempts at definitions and ways of looking at humour, which can help to derive the components for one’s own film analyses and to outline the questioning of children more clearly in terms of content and concept.

3.3 Humour in Research Practice The more recent research practice on humour reveals aspects of it that have remained unnoticed in philosophical discourse. Here, humour experiences both partly different evaluations and attempts at definitions. In the following, the focus is again on the applicability for our own investigations.

3.3.1 Sociological Research Humour as a means of coping with life plays a role, for example, in Valliant’s (1977) life course research. In the 35-year long-term study of a group of healthy men, he found that humour was one of five highly developed coping mechanisms that occurred in these men, along with sublimation, altruistic action, anticipation of possible dangers, and suppression of negative or uncomfortable feelings (Valliant 1977, pp. 110, 116 f.). Kotthoff (1998), among others, examines the function of joke communication in social interaction and the mechanisms by which it takes place. She criticises existing theories of humour and advocates a separation of the terms humour and laughter. Among other things, “amused laughter is to be distinguished from social laughter” (Kotthoff 1998, p. 105), insofar as laughter is not a reliable indicator for the degree

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

59

of funniness. Laughter is also used as an invitation to laugh along, for example by the narrator himself during the telling of jokes. “Laughter marks the funny parts and identifies them as such” (Kotthoff 1998, p. 107). At the same time, laughter is also engaged in as a reaction to this indexing (Kotthoff 1998, p. 109).16 The author objects to the script-semantic theory of Raskin (1985, 2012) and Attardo (1994) presented above, according to which a text is funny if it is wholly or partially compatible with two semantic scripts that overlap in opposite ways (cf. Raskin 2012, p. 49; Attardo 1994, p. 220). She criticises this theory for considering only the spoken word, disregarding gestures and intonation and thus ignoring the co-occurring metacommunication in SSTH (cf. Kotthoff 1998, pp. 48, 54; ­similarly critical of the incongruity theory presupposed as relevant by Raskin and Attardo: Hartung 2008, p. 53). Kotthoff distinguishes between various “joking activities” such as teasing, plots, riddle jokes, and absurd theories, among others, which followed genre rules that signaled to recipients whether what was being said was meant seriously or not. Joking activities have four functions according to Kotthoff: The emotive function seeks to trigger amusement or exhilaration and addresses the recipient’s emotional range (Kotthoff 1998, p. 354). The phatic function serves to establish contact depending on cultural conventions (1998, p. 355 ff.): “Relationships are virtually deformalised by jesting and joking; therein lies a social-diagnostic potency” (Kotthoff 1998, p. 357). The referential function appeals to the recipient’s cognitive abilities, because even funny grimaces and clowning denote something (cf. Kotthoff 1998, p. 357). Kotthoff, on the other hand, sees the conative (socio-cultural) function as instructions for the recipient to act and behave, for example to laugh along at a certain point. In humour, (sub)cultural normality is negotiated (cf. Kotthoff 1998, p. 359). Kotthoff also sees this aspect confirmed in other studies on joke communication, from which it emerges for groups that joking reinforces cohesion through shared knowledge and is therefore suitable for “demarcating the in-group from the out-group” (Kotthoff 2003, p. 49). In addition, joking activities serve moral debate. “Humour is highly suitable for implicit moral negotiation, for signaling that I assess the world and the people around us similarly to YOU” (Kotthoff 2003, p. 49). Joking communication is also of interest in other sociological studies when it comes to establishing or defending hierarchies. For example, Coser (1960/1996)  This fits with considerations by Jefferson (1989, p. 33), who states in the context of a transcription study that laughter can also be interpreted merely as a sign of understanding – but not necessarily of agreement – or of a presumed common thought, for example in the case of expressed obscenities and ambiguities. According to this, too, the degree of mirth is therefore not marked by laughter, because it has a different function and serves as a signal of comprehension. 16

60

3  Humor in Science and Practice

studied faculty meetings at a psychiatric hospital and found that joking was exclusively to the detriment of lower-ranking employees. Herein lies the aggressive moment of the joke. One takes the situation control out of the hands of those high up in the hierarchy for a moment. It also follows that the joking of the powerful, which after all also draws attention away from the daily business, is always an accommodating act. (Coser 1960/1996, p. 105)

This phenomenon has also been observed in other studies. Status-lower recipients behave in the expected way towards status-higher joke performers. Pizzine (1991/1996) was able to establish, regarding the joking activities in a maternity ward: A person low on the hierarchical ladder “may” make a joke if he or she makes himself or someone even lower a target, as Coser has already pointed out. In fact, the jokes of expectant mothers were directed at themselves, those of midwives at patients, nurses, and junior midwives, etc. (Pizzine 1991/1996 p. 209)

In relation to gender differences, cultural expectations play a role. Coser (1960/1996, p. 102) states: “A woman with a sense of humour laughs (but not too loudly) when a man makes a joke. A man with a sense of humour is witty in his remarks and tells good jokes. The man gives, the woman receives” (similarly McGhee 1979, p. 201). In this context, it is noteworthy that women prefer jokes in which other women are victims. They even rate these as funnier than men do: “… men show the greatest enjoyment of jokes in which women are put down, but women seem to enjoy them even more” (McGhee 1979, p. 205). A connection exists with self-mocking jokes, which are preferred by women – regardless of the gender of the mockery’s victim. While men see their status endangered by this, women seem to care less about making fallibilities and assertive weaknesses the subject of jokes, which is reflected, among other things, in the jokes presented by female comedians (McGhee 1979, p. 206). However, against the background of social changes, especially the emancipation of women and the shedding of the old role models of the 1950s, a change can be observed in the humour behaviour of the sexes, despite all the fundamental differences, which Kotthoff sees, for example, in the spread of sitcoms such as the Golden Girls (Kotthoff 1996, p. 27 ff.) or in the fact that there are also more and more female comedians on television, such as in Misfits, Blond am Freitag, Ladykracher, in sketches by Maren Kroymann, Hella von Sinnen, Sissi Perlinger and Gaby Köster (Kotthoff 2003, p. 59). This change can be understood if we consider what McGhee notes just 24 years earlier:

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

61

Women do seem to lose their capacity to laugh at themselves as they become more deeply involved in the feminist movement. And yet their sense of humour is approaching that of males in this respect. (McGhee 1979, p. 208)

McGhee goes on to cite studies according to which women often laughed out of politeness, even if they did not find a joke funny at all, for example in order to present a charming image of themselves in public, and the author speculates that it could be that women – freed from artificial laughter – could now discover and develop their own sense of humour (cf. McGhee 1979, p. 209). From today’s perspective, this statement may seem patriarchal and, at least in view of developments in the entertainment sector, which Kotthoff already pointed out (cf. Kotthoff 2003, p. 59) and which has continued in recent years, may be considered outdated. Schütte (1991) proves the conflict-avoiding or conflict-mitigating character of joke communication in the highly regulated working environment of orchestra musicians, which serves to prevent threats and tensions, for example, when a musician disturbs a conversation with colleagues by playing his instrument and subsequently becomes the object of jokes (cf. Schütte 1991, p.  258  f.), or when a musician “fluffs” in a rehearsal (cf. Schütte 1991, p. 354). Joking avoids an explicit and serious discussion of relationship problems and communication crises. This is avoided “because it could be interpreted as a violation of overarching norms of action (e.g. “collegiality”)” (Schütte 1991, p. 354 f.). To sum up, we can say with Weinrebe (1979, p. 17): “The respective social and power relations (sic!) set the conditions for who may tell which joke to whom and when, and how they may or even must react to a joke”. More recently, social exclusion and inclusion have also been investigated by Grimm (2014) with the so-called Humour Disposition Test. The author’s goal is to create an empirical measure of the universalisation of humour. He aims to prove that humour has not only an exclusionary but also an inclusive function. The social dynamics of humour extend not only to the cementing of group boundaries, but also to their relativisation and partial permeability (cf. Grimm 2014, p. 15). The author carried out his test on the basis of questionnaires with 1395 test persons in Vienna, whereby the proportion of women was 62.5%, just under 50% had an educational qualification of the school leaving examination, the age distribution ranged from 14 to 70 years and the majority (around 65%) were between 18 and 25 years old (cf. Grimm 2014, p. 19). The test was divided into three parts, in which humour style, humour ability and humour control were to be made empirically ascertainable through categorisation (however, the author only gives a very cursory account of the methodology in part; cf. on this and in the following Grimm 2014, p. 16 ff.).

62

3  Humor in Science and Practice

In the case of humour style, for example, the question was asked how funny a mishap was felt to be for one of the groups of people listed (e.g. politicians, beggars, foreigners, heads of state, school teachers). From this, an index was created for so-called “superiority laughter” (top-down; e.g., laughing at beggars, disabled people, foreigners, homeless people) or “carnivalesque inversion” (bottom-up, e.g., laughing at politicians, school teachers, head of state). Furthermore, it was similarly classified whether the subject laughed more at his peers or at others, whether he could laugh at anything and everything or whether he wanted to exclude certain groups from jokes, whether he showed a preference for more vulgar or more subtle humour. With regard to humour ability, the subject’s proximal relationship to the object of humour was investigated, i.e. whether it was possible to laugh at one’s own misfortunes and how misfortunes in the family and among acquaintances were assessed. The humour control examined how and under which circumstances humour was avoided (e.g. towards superiors) or which groups and contents should not be the object of humour (e.g. the sick and the dead). The results of the test’s evaluation show, among other things, that the test persons claim to laugh primarily at higher personalities; claim to be able to laugh at themselves as well; welcome it when everyone can laugh at everyone and find it wrong when only others are laughed at (cf. Grimm 2014, p. 21). Limits to humour arise from the rejection of jokes about the weak and disabled and strict believers as well as Muslims (cf. Grimm 2014, p. 22). Grimm summarises his results by stating for humour culture in Austria that it “pays more attention to the liberating and universal moment than to exclusionary, aggressive or degrading forms” (Grimm 2014, p. 23). As a result, he also considers the superiority theory to be empirically refuted. Finally, the author hypothesizes that a prognostic profile of the respondent can be created from certain answers regarding his or her humorous attitudes and opinions, which the respondent prefers based on his or her humour disposition. Thus, a highly superiority-oriented humour style could refer to prejudices against minorities and/or to the use of prejudice-congruent media offerings (cf. Grimm 2014, p. 23). Representatives of sociological research practice thus ask, similarly to Nietzsche and Freud, about the function and purpose of the comic, but arrive at different results. The focus here is not on an emotional state from which relief is given, but on the description of a survival or participation stratagem in the community. Here, laughter is a means of pacification, but also of defending hierarchies, of maintaining the group, belonging to the same, or a means of coping with one’s own life. Instead of theoretical drafts, these studies prove the deficiencies of previous theorems, which first dealt with humour in an abstract philosophical, philological and psychological way, through a multitude of individual results.

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

63

The nature of humour is thus significantly dependent on the age, gender and social function of its producers and recipients. A survey concept and a film analysis that takes these aspects into account would therefore not only have to address humour content, but also the socio-biographical details of the producers and consumers of media, as well as the social space. A distinction should therefore be made according to age and gender in our own surveys of children (cf. Sect. 4.2.2, p. 154).

3.3.2 Humour in Medical and Psychological Research Probably the most fruitful but also most contradictory recent research results on the effects and functions of humour come from medicine and psychology, and here above all from the Anglo-Saxon world. Of interest here for our own analyses and their components is whether certain types of humour have psychological or even physical effects, for example in that humour in children’s films can possibly also do harm or, on the contrary, is beneficial to health. From this point of view, a film analysis would take possible medically relevant effects into account. Many authors focus on the positive effects of humour on health, with different emphases in the studies. Four research approaches can be distinguished here: On the one hand, laughter as a physical act is attributed a positive influence on health. Secondly, humour is seen above all as a suitable means of coping with stress. A third approach considers humour, in the form of a positive basic attitude, to have a stabilising effect on health, and finally the socially relevant function of humour is considered by some researchers to be decisive for good health. As a representative of the first research approach, Titze (1988) refers to the effect of so-called catecholamines during laughter. These hormones have been shown to effectively inhibit inflammation, especially in rheumatic joint inflammation (cf. Titze 1988, p. 4). In this context, he reports the case of Norman Cousins, well-known in gelotology (laughter research), who suffered from a collagen disease in the USA at the end of the 1960s, which resulted in severe joint pain. Cousins (1979/1996) himself describes his cure through humour therapy. In the 1960s he had suffered from a painful bone degeneration, ankylosing spondylitis, which, with very little chance of cure, causes gradual stiffening of the spine with increasing immobility. With the help of a nurse and in a hotel room equipped with a film projector for episodes of the US series “Candid Camera” and old Marx Brothers films, he began his self-medication: It worked. I made the joyful discovery that ten minutes of genuine diaphragm-shaking laughter had an anaesthetic effect and gave me at least two hours of pain-free sleep. When the analgesic effect wore off, we would turn the movie projector back on, and

64

3  Humor in Science and Practice not infrequently I managed to fall asleep a second time. Sometimes the nurse also read to me from joke books. (Cousins 1979/1996 p. 32)

Cousins also had high doses of up to 25 grams of vitamin C administered daily through a drip. However, he freely admits that it is possible that his kind of treatment was nothing but a proof of the effectiveness of the placebo effect (cf. Cousins 1979/1996, p.  40), underlining its recognised therapeutic effect in medicine (cf. p.  43  ff.). Cousins was probably also inspired and influenced by his encounters with personalities of the twentieth century in the course of his journalistic work. About Albert Schweitzer, for example, Cousins writes: “… Schweitzer always believed that the best medicine was the knowledge that he had a job to do, plus a healthy sense of humour” (p. 75). Fry (1986) reports on investigations in which reactions of the autonomic nervous system to stimuli by humour could be demonstrated by urine and blood samples (cf. Fry 1986, p. 85). Among other things, a connection between the increase of adrenaline, noradrenaline, dopamine and previous humour reception is recognizable. Fry quotes from his own studies, according to which the blood pressure rises through laughter, but after the laughter falls for a short time below the blood pressure value that prevailed before the triggering event (cf. Fry 1986, p. 86). In further studies, according to Fry, connections between improved learning behavior, higher memory performance, increase in creative thinking and humour have been established (cf. Fry 1986, p. 95). Representatives of the first group of medical humour research thus primarily attribute a health-promoting effect to laughter per se. A different approach is taken, for example, by Lefcourt/Martin (1986, pp. 62 f.), who examined the effectiveness of humour as a stress management tool and came to the conclusion that the mere ability to be aware of a potentially humorous situation is not sufficient to cope with stress. Rather, the person concerned must attach a high value to humour per se and, in addition, “produce” humour himself, especially in the relevant stress situations of everyday life (cf. Lefcourt/Martin 1986, pp. 62 f.). Lefcourt (2001) points to a significant difference in the effectiveness of applied humour between men and women, in addition to the need for further research in this still relatively sparsely researched area: While women with a habit of humour seem to17 improve their coping with stressful situations, this is less clear for men with the same habit (Lefcourt 2001, p. 150). Cann/Etzel (2008), on the other hand, were able to identify stress-reducing effects in a study of 124 participating women and 52 men (average age 19.9 years)  Optimism and humour also lead to higher resilience to burn-out and stress in women in leadership positions, according to Fry (1995, p. 239), women in leadership positions have a higher resilience to burn-out and stress. 17

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

65

only if the persons concerned, irrespective of gender (cf. Cann/Etzel 2008, p. 174), on the one hand have a positive basic attitude and on the other hand avoid self-­ deprecating humour and instead produce self-enhancing humour (cf. Cann/Etzel 2008, p. 173). According to this view of humour as a stress management tool, laughter in stress-free situations is less relevant to health. Rather, what matters is a humorous attitude and humour production in problematic life situations, which then leads to reduced stress symptoms and thus to more robust health. A third group of researchers considers humour to be health-promoting, especially in connection with a positive basic attitude. Fredrickson (1998), for example, reports on two studies in which a positive mood led to a direct or indirect health-­ promoting effect. On the one hand, he names relaxation therapies that have successfully treated heart rhythm disorders by imagining positive events (e.g. sunbathing on the beach) or by using pictures. On the other hand, he cites two studies according to which a connection between positive mood and the immune system of test subjects could be established. According to Fredrickson, there is therefore the theoretical possibility that people could control their health by influencing their mood (cf. Fredrickson 1998, pp. 314–315). McGhee (1999) summarizes recent findings. According to this, humour not only causes a reduction of stress hormones (epinephrine, cortisol, dopac), but also muscle relaxation and an increase in immunity, among others of immunoglobulin A, which is held responsible for resistance against colds and coughs. In turn, negative emotions were shown to lead to a reduction of antibodies and natural defence cells (cf. McGhee 1999, pp. 46 f., 58). According to a study by Mossey/Shapiro from 1982, among 65-year-olds, those who, in contrast to their pessimistic peers, were nevertheless confident about their future, despite known negative medical findings, had a lower mortality rate (Mossey/Shapiro cited after McGhee 1999, p. 61). For representatives of this direction of humour research, laughter as a health-­ promoting means is not necessarily important, because a general optimism, a playful approach to life or even amusement can be sufficient for health benefits. A fourth school of thought is concerned with the health-promoting effects of socially relevant humour. People who are able to use humour to eliminate interpersonal conflicts and resolve tensions have, among other things, greater social assertiveness than others and thus gain greater social self-confidence (Bell et  al. 1986, pp.  53–54). Higher social competence then also has positive effects on health, be it that social integration has an influence on mortality, that talking to people about problems contributes to stress reduction – especially in extreme life situations  – or that community counteracts loneliness, which otherwise leads to increased viral infections (cf. Cohen 1988, pp. 275, 282, 285 f.).

66

3  Humor in Science and Practice

According to this fourth approach, humour has a health-promoting effect above all when it is understood as a social skill and taught as such. It is therefore important to train people in the use of humour in interpersonal relationships in order to achieve an indirect positive effect on health. By contrast, the importance of laughter recedes into the background. All four approaches have in common that they see humour as a health-­promoting instrument in different ways, be it through the physical act of laughing, through humour as a stress management tool, as a means to a positive attitude towards life or as a component that strengthens social bonds. Against this background, humour is evaluated in a completely different way than, for example, by philosophers and sociologists. In their own survey concept for children, it could therefore be taken into account whether children might also prefer certain types of humour for health reasons, or at least for reasons that influence their mood, or whether they reject certain types of humour. A film analysis would then be able to name the types of humour in question. However, health functions of humour are questioned with weighty arguments. Criticism of the methodology, reproducibility and reliability of most theories, regardless of the school of thought, comes from Martin (2001). He examined 42 studies that can be counted among the above-mentioned research directions and comes to a sobering conclusion. With regard to the popularised case of Norman Cousins, he notes at the outset that it remains open to what extent Cousins’ recovery can be attributed to his laughter therapy, the administration of vitamin C, personal dispositions such as optimism or the will to live, a completely different factor or, for example, an initial misdiagnosis (Martin 2001, p. 504). In his summary assessment of the studies reviewed, Martin subsequently reveals numerous omissions and contradictions. For example, he criticises the frequent lack of adequate control groups, e.g. in studies that confirm that humour strengthens the immune system (cf. Martin 2001, p.  509). Control groups would, of course, have to show all non-­ humour effects (Martin 2001, p. 516). Martin accuses studies that show a correlation between self-evaluated sense of humour and disease symptoms of lacking reproducibility, because other studies have partly shown the opposite correlation or none at all between these two parameters (cf. Martin 2001, pp. 513 f.). For him, studies that tried to prove a positive effect of humour on a long life are also ambiguous. These would have had either no connection or an exactly opposite effect contrary to the assumption of the result (see Martin 2001, p. 513). In general, he criticises the often small test groups, the lack of measurement of the frequency and type of laughter of the test subjects, and especially the absence of categorisation of different types of humour, especially positive and negative humour. Martin grants some resilience to studies that looked at the effects of humour on pain sensitivity.

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

67

But even here he emphasises that a higher insensitivity to pain during humorous situations was also found during sad, disgusting or frightening events and in this respect it remains unclear whether the effects found were specific to humorous or generally emotional situations (Martin 2001, p. 514). Martin’s (2001) critical evaluation is tantamount to a reformatory earthquake, as it shatters the thesis, held above all in popular literature, that “funny” is synonymous with “healthy”. Kuiper/Nicholl (2004) are similarly critical in their evaluation of previous findings on the health-promoting effects of humour, which they counter with contradictory results from other researchers. For example, they criticise Fry (1994), who sees humour as a genetic and biological characteristic of the human race (cf. Fry 1994, p. 111) and had compiled results of many studies according to which humour leads to a reduction of physical complaints and a low susceptibility to colds and respiratory problems (cf. Fry 1994, p. 117). Fry (1994) argues that the health benefits of laughter accrue to the entire body, even if in individual cases this defies logic. As an example, he cites, among other things, that the incidence of heart attacks in heart-damaged persons is alarmingly high during snow shoveling, but surprisingly low during a fit of laughter, contrary to logic, because the heart rate skyrockets here just as it does during physical exertion (cf. Fry 1994, p. 116). Kuiper/ Nicholl counter Fry’s findings with results of other researchers who could not find any evidence for this connection (Kuiper/Nicholl 2004, p.  39). They also cite Rotton (1992), who was able to prove that comedians, comedy poets and writers did not live longer than other famous serious authors.18 With Friedman et al. (1993), Kuiper/Nicholl (2004) even go one step further. This examined people with pronounced humour on their mortality rate and certified them a higher one than occurs in “normal” people. According to this, humour would have almost lethal effects. Here too, however, attention must be drawn to a peculiarity: the study by Friedman et al. (1993) evaluated data material of American  On closer examination, two results from Rotton’s study are in my opinion noteworthy: First, the life expectancy for the entertainers studied was generally below the life expectancy of Americans in 1986 of 74.8  years, regardless of whether they were serious or comedic (Rotton 1992, p. 264), so that it may be the profession as such that already leads to a lower life expectancy. On the other hand, Rotton himself refers to studies according to which a distinction has to be made between comedians with hostile humour and those with friendly humour (Rotton 1992, p. 265). The latter do in fact live longer than the former, which is consistent with the results of a study by Carroll (1990), according to which the type of (positive) humour is decisive for its possible health consequences (cf. Carroll 1990, p. 35; similarly also Kuiper 2014, p. 283; sceptical: Martin 2007, p. 333). 18

68

3  Humor in Science and Practice

children from the year 1922, it is thus the study of a study and Friedman et  al. (1993) themselves concede that, for example, causes of death have not been investigated (cf. Friedman et al. 1993, p. 178). Conclusions about the causality of humour and lifespan can therefore only be drawn to a limited extent. Kuiper/Nicholl (2004) nevertheless state that the explanation given by Friedman et al. for the phenomenon of a shorter life span in people with a pronounced sense of humour is also confirmed by other studies: humorous people tend to lead a more careless lifestyle and take less care of their health than less humorous people (cf. with further evidence: Kuiper/Nicholl 2004, p.  39; Friedman et al. 1993, p. 181). They therefore formulate the thesis that humorous people do not actually have better health than less humorous people, but they differ from other people in the perception of their state of health and speak in this context of the illusion of better health through humour (cf. Kuiper/Nicholl 2004, p. 40). The above contradictions in research are not only addressed theoretically by Kuiper/Nicholl, but also in their own study, in which they investigate the question of whether, and if so, what connection exists between humour and health, although they do not differentiate between positive and negative humour. In their study, Kuiper/Nicholl (2004) examined 132 participants (84 female, 48 male, average age 19.65 on a scale of 17 years to 35) for their humorousness, using three measurement procedures and categorisations by other researchers, all based on test questions and descriptions by the participants: humour as a coping strategy, the ability to recognise one’s own situational humour in everyday life, and the ability to recognise comedy and humour (Kuiper/Nicholl 2004, p. 47). In correlation to this, the frequency of subjectively perceived symptoms of illness, health-­promoting behaviour and general attitudes and fears regarding one’s own health were investigated. This was again done by interviewing the candidates. There were no objective examinations by outsiders. The results of this study highlight the need for more sophisticated measures for future research. For example, Kuiper/Nicholl (2004) found that the mere presence of one of the humour components in candidates led to a reduction in the use of physical complaints. On the other hand, candidates with high levels of “coping humour” or high levels of laughing did not show higher levels of composure regarding physical pain. Nor did humorous candidates have a healthier or poorer diet than the others. Nor was any correlation found between health behaviours and any form of humour. A higher level of humour also did not lead to a more frequent or lower use of medical care. Consequently, no evidence could be found for the indications found in other studies that humorous people lead a more carefree and therefore riskier life (cf. Kuiper/Nicholl 2004, pp. 53–55).

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

69

Thus, no correlation could be found between better health and a higher level of humour. However, Kuiper/Nicholl (2004) themselves refer to results of Carroll (1990), who distinguishes between positive and negative or derogatory humour. Thus, in the context of a study of 79 college students, Carroll (1990) found that in men passive resignation to life’s problems and its expression in appropriate humour lead to lower physical well-being, whereas in women it is primarily self-­ critical and self-injurious forms of humour as well as guilt-distorting and self-­ referential analyses toward people and life itself. In contrast, men with subtle dry humour enjoyed good health, unlike men who used hostile humour toward authority. Physical well-being correlated in women with flirty playful humour as well as humour without nonsense, humour with self-affirming attitudes toward deception, fibbing, and sentimentality, and humour that targeted male idiocy and ineffectiveness. By contrast, a hard attitude or restraint and rejection of embarrassment and responsibility, in their humorous form, were associated with high rates of illness among women (see Carroll 1990, pp. 35–36). This distinction between positive and negative humour had not taken place in the self-evaluation of the subjects under Kuiper/Nicholl (2004). However, only for positive humour can a connection be drawn with more stable health (Carroll 1990, p. 35; Kuiper/Nicholl 2004, p. 61). One flaw of the study by Kuiper/Nicholl (2004) is certainly the lack of neutral measurement methods, which the researchers also name (Kuiper/Nicholl 2004, p. 56), because the actual condition of the candidates can only be determined to a limited extent by interviewing them. If the Kuiper/Nicholl study provides at least an inconclusive picture, subsequent studies deal with the different effects of positive and negative humour, as already called for by Martin (2001). As far as can be seen, the findings of these latest studies have so far largely spared the German-speaking world. Kuiper et al. (2004) apply new methods of measuring and categorising humour and examine the effects of these different positive and negative types of humour on the psychological well-being of 137 test subjects. They conclude that, for example, self-esteem is higher and the expression of depression traits is very low in individuals who use humour as a stress reliever or who prefer sociable humour (laughing with friends) and who use euphemistic and/or self-supportive humour. By contrast, depression rates and the likelihood of lower self-esteem increased among those who used self-defeating humour (cf. Kuiper et  al. 2004, pp.  161–162). Aggressive humour directed at others revealed decreased competence in providing emotional support to others and the ability to deal effectively with interpersonal problems (cf. Kuiper et al. 2004, p. 160).

70

3  Humor in Science and Practice

According to this study, which distinguishes between positive and negative humour, a differentiated picture of the psychological effects of humour emerges. Only for positive humour can advantages be identified; negative humour, on the other hand, is even associated with disadvantages for the psyche and socialisation. While the focus of the study by Kuiper et al. (2004) focused on the psychological effects of different types of humour, a later investigation in this field dealt with the effects of humour on physical health in a long-term study and represents the most extensive research work on this topic to date: Svebak et al. (2010) examined data from over 50,000 residents aged 20 years and older in a Norwegian municipality over a 7-year period. Part of this study was also to explore a possible relationship between humour and mortality rates. Over a period of 2  years (1995–1997), objective health data of the participants such as BMI (Body Mass Index), blood pressure and kidney function by means of a creatinine blood test were taken into account, as well as health-related factors such as education, sports, tobacco consumption, number of friends, heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Data from self-evaluation were also taken into account. The respondents’ sense of humour was classified via three questions, each representing a sub-­ aspect of humour: “Do you remember a humorous situation?” (cognitive aspect), “Are people who act funny actually irresponsible and untrustworthy?” (social aspect), “Would you describe yourself as a cheerful person?” (behavioral aspect) (see Svebak et  al. 2010, pp.  131–132). The survival rate was then recorded over the following 7 years. Among the more familiar findings of the study is that mortality rates increase with existing heart disease, diabetes, diagnosed cancer, subjective perceived health status, education, lack of exercise, and smoking (in that order). However, it could also be shown that increased humour values, regardless of the category, reduced the risk of death by an average of 30% in the 7  years subsequently studied (cf. Svebak et al. 2010, p. 134). It is interesting to note here that the risk of death was reduced by 9–29% in young people with a good sense of humour, irrespective of their basic health constitution, whereas it was only optimised by 1–5% in older people. One possible explanation is that genetic predispositions are more decisive for people over 65 than the degree of their sense of humour; in any case, no effect of humour on the mortality rate of people over 65 could be detected (cf. Svebak et al. 2010, p. 138). Although this study did not distinguish between positive and negative humour (see above), there is some evidence to suggest that positive humour, especially sociable and self-sparinging humour, has a positive impact on longer life. Svebak et al. (2010) note that subsequent studies will have to examine the effects of positive and negative humour on the one hand, but on the other hand they do not hide

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

71

the fact that their study did not differentiate between causes of death. Accidents or infections, for example, that led to death may thus have nothing to do with the measured state of health, lifestyle or psychological circumstances (cf. Svebak et al. 2010, p. 144). Despite the need for future research in the medical-psychological field of humour research, it remains to be stated that there are now strong indications that positive humour has a health-promoting effect and negative humour a rather health-­ damaging effect (cf. Kuiper 2014, p. 283). A survey of children on the subject of humour would be able to take into account possible consequences for health or mood by investigating what children think of negative humour and how they would define it in the first place. A film analysis would therefore also examine, for example, which positive and thus possibly health-promoting, or at least mood-influencing, humorous elements there are in a film and which negative, possibly even health-endangering content. Later on in this thesis, this will be discussed in the context of the humour category “Bad and non-jokes” (Sect. 4.2.7.1, p. 174) as well as in the comparative film analyses (Sect. 4.4.11.1, p. 349). What the analysis of films looks like in concrete terms when it follows philosophical theories of humour, for example, will be shown in the next chapter, in which media studies approaches to the phenomenon of humour will be examined, some of which are characterised by the fact that in many cases uncritical recourse is made to philosophical theories of humour. In addition to these rather subsuming approaches, it will be necessary to examine what new impulses media studies can provide for their own analytical components.

3.3.3 Humour in the Context of Media Studies Humour is also the subject of research in numerous publications in media studies. In the following, the focus will be on answering the preparatory questions (cf. Chap. 1, p. 28). As in the previous chapters, it will thus be worked out, among other things, how humour can be defined and how this definition would19 affect the conception of group discussions and the analysis of films. The question of what role humour plays in the media, how and for what purposes humour is used in different  Since the aim of this work is to uncover humour phenomena in finished films in comparison to empirically established children’s humour preferences, i.e. it is not about an evaluation or further development of screenplay theory or an investigation of pre-existing screenplays, corresponding non-scientific dramaturgical advice literature is not dealt with here. 19

72

3  Humor in Science and Practice

media and whether there is a specific “media humour” will also be answered. The focus here is on the audio-visual media of film, television and the Internet. The selected works can be divided into six different categories according to their media studies perspective on the phenomenon of humour, depending on where the focus is20 to be located. A distinction will therefore be made on the one hand between works that make traditional classifications without questioning or expanding existing theories, and in this way subsume media content primarily under existing theories of humour. On the other hand, multi-perspective approaches will be presented, which take different theoretical, analytical and practical approaches to film analysis. More narrowly defined, on the other hand, are works that examine media humour purely thematically. Categorical approaches are also widespread, which divide humour into its forms and examine humorous content from this point of view. This approach essentially corresponds to that of a qualitative content analysis, even if the authors do not explicitly refer to it, because content is assigned to certain categories beforehand here (cf. Mayring/Hurst 2005, p. 438 f.). The term qualitative content analysis, however, is not defined with clear boundaries and must rather be understood as a “collective term for different approaches to text interpretation, which vary depending on the intention and context of the analysis” (Wegener 2005, p. 202). For classification in the context of humour research in media studies, the term categorical humour research is therefore used here. Recipient research is another field of its own, in which humour is studied, among other things, taking into account audience preferences. Finally, a number of works will be presented that deal monothematically with humour in the media, for example through historical developments. This classification and also the chosen designations are not inevitable, but prove to be useful for the present work for reasons of clarity, as the diverse approaches can thus be precisely classified and distinguished (a less diversified type of classification is chosen by, for example, Prommer 2012, p.  124  ff., who only distinguishes between text-oriented and audience-oriented media and humour studies).

3.3.3.1 Subsuming Analyses Many works use existing humour theories individually or in combination to analyse humorous audiovisual media content and are therefore largely determined by them. A comparison with jurisprudence suggests itself: if there a fact is subsumed

 Studies that focus on children’s TV humour are dealt with in a separate chapter (cf. Sect. 3.4.2, p. 123). 20

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

73

under a law (cf. Köbler 1995, p. 371), here it is film content that is subsumed under humour theories. Humour theories are also applied in the film analyses in the publication by Glasenapp/Lillge (2008), three of which are discussed here, for which a certain degree of familiarity with the content can be assumed: Fahle (2008), for example, recognizes Bergson’s approach in Alain Resnais’ film “Same Old Song” (1997), according to which the mechanical, which runs counter to the living, as well as the heteronomy here justify the comedy, when the protagonists of the film (can) only reproduce their true thoughts in the form of well-known and French chansons, which they intone as playback (cf. Fahle 2008, p.  42  f.) and “haunt the protagonists” (Fahle 2008, p.  44). Bergson’s quotation should be seen in this context: “One will always achieve a comic effect if one transposes a thought from its original version into a different tone” (Bergson quoted in Fahle 2008, p. 43). In the same publication, Klepper (2008, p. 121 f.) elaborates three humour theories that are responsible for the humour in “The Big Lebowski” (1998) by directors Ethan and Joel Coen, namely schadenfreude (degradation theory), relief (relief theory) and “laughter as a moment of precisely that which simply does not want to fit together and is nevertheless brought into relationship …” (incongruity theory). So we’re amused by a Walter… who pontificates non-stop about being a tough and uncompromising Vietnam vet, but can’t handle a ninth grader. We are amused by the Dude who wants to play the cool detective, like a kid who’s seen too many movies but keeps giving himself away; who conducts a phalanx of women in his dreams but is plagued by castration anxiety right after … (Klepper 2008, pp. 121 f.)

Finally, Türschmann (2008) analyses the comedy of the film “ Amélie” (2001, directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet) by applying Bergson’s assumption that laughter is triggered by repetition, inversion and interference (cf. Türschmann 2008, p. 219). This explains the comedy of the scene in which Amélie goes to the same greengrocer in her neighbourhood every day and witnesses the abuse that his amiable employee has to endure. Narration offers a solution to the conflict when it is said that the shy ones need a prompter, who then also appears to Amélie in the guise of her father and whispers the appropriate words, which she then addresses to the greengrocer: ‘In any case, you are not a vegetable, as far as I can gather, because even an artichoke has a heart’ (Türschmann 2008, p. 218). For Türschmann, the comedy here, according to Bergson, is to be seen on the one hand in the situation that always plays out in everyday life and also in the wording of Amélie’s answer, which is a play on words (cf. Türschmann 2008, p. 219). On the other hand, Türschmann also follows Bergson’s consideration that laughter is a matter of the intellect and not of emotion:

74

3  Humor in Science and Practice He who pities cannot laugh, for the comic has, in the Frenchman’s famous phrase, “something like a temporary anaesthesia of the heart” as its premise. “It addresses itself to the pure intellect”. (Türschmann 2008, p. 221)

Thus, the defenseless employee of the greengrocer is not laughed at, but the pranks that Amélie plays on her tormentor in his apartment are, for example, when he is awakened by an alarm clock in her absence during the night or when he unsuspectingly smears foot cream on his toothbrush (cf. Türschmann 2008, p. 221). For Türschmann, a comic inversion in Bergson’s sense is also present, for example, in the scene in which a neighbour of Amélie’s films a wall clock on the house opposite in order to project the image onto his own television and thus have his own clock at his disposal (cf. Türschmann 2008, p. 219). Türschmann counts paintings and images that come to life in the film as well as clouds that look like cuddly toys, i.e. the animation of the inanimate, as interference. Türschmann’s reflections, however, go even further than Bergson’s, in that he locates the film’s comedy against the background of suspected, mysterious connections. Here the author quotes Umberto Eco, who in turn quotes the cultural philosopher Georg Simmel, according to whom the typical aberration is: “everything mysterious is something essential and significant” (Türschmann 2008, p. 224). On the one hand, this explains the increased attention that is to be achieved in the viewer through connections that are initially not transparent; on the other hand, the character of Amélie is herself mysterious for the author, since she has supernatural powers in the plot (cf. Türschmann 2008, p. 224). A juxtaposition of comedy and mystery can thus be discerned for the author where the law of series prevails, whereby he explicitly refers to Paul Kammerer’s attempt to systematise seriality (cf. Türschmann 2008, p. 226). Based on the observation of a flat pebble touching the surface of water in a repetitive manner, which in turn generates series of circular water waves, Kammerer (1919) claimed that a natural law is reflected in coincidences: As a method of gaining scientific insight, of recognising the philosophical conception of the world, of predicting with mathematical certainty what is most probable; as a way of acquiring reliable everyday experience; as a method of medical science and technology; as a guide to our moral action; as a means of controlling and consciously shaping our personal lives as well as those of our relatives, our subordinates, of administering the whole of human society, henceforth one will no longer be able to do without series and periods. (Paul Kammerer 1919, p. 455)

For Türschmann (2008), a comic effect both in the reading of Kammerer’s work and in the film “Amélie” now arises from the repetitive mention of dates and names:

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

75

As in AMÈLIE, Kammerer’s observations are disconcerting, not to say ‘comical’. It is not only surprising that someone would scan his everyday life for occurrences that could be interpreted as repetitions. What is particularly strange is the meticulousness and seriousness with which the events are recorded. (Türschmann 2008, p. 227)

“In the film Amélie, events and thoughts would be moved together again and again in order to create relationships between them due to their mere proximity to each other. … The arbitrariness of this act is… amusing” (Türschmann 2008, p. 231). The author cites as examples the beginning of the film, in which off-screen narration is seemingly rambling and overly precise, and the end of the film, in which information about air pressure and temperature is also given. In his analysis of comedy in the film “Amélie,” Türschmann thus interdisciplinarily links Bergson’s philosophical reflections with those of the cultural philosopher Georg Simmel and those of the natural scientist and biologist Paul Kammerer, for whom repetition or running gags are the main comedic triggers. The views of the latter two authors, however, are considered more in the light of Bergson, without any new insights for a theory of humour or comedy being derived from them. Schramm (2012) provides a monograph on the cinematic comedy of selected films by Charlie Chaplin. She, too, first examines comedy on the basis of existing theories of humour and refers above all to the incongruity, superiority and relief theory. In line with Bergson, she analyses Chaplin’s film comedy as follows: The subtle pantomimic articulation of serious feelings is one of the most important aspects of Chaplinesque comedy. Thanks to its credibility, the spectator can hardly resist sympathy for the Tramp and identification with him.… The pathetic expressiveness of the pantomime is broken by the character of the mechanical, which is inherent in Chaplin’s movements… It gives the movements a comic mechanics, like that of a marionette or an automaton.… The impression of the mechanical is also given by the fact that Chaplin exhibits the physical forces acting on a body in motion. (Schramm 2012, p. 56)

For the author, however, the portrayal of the Tramp also offers potential for relief in the sense of Freud, since as a symbolic figure of humanity he allows all social classes and generations to identify with him, which lends Chaplin’s comedy a temporally and culturally independent topicality in terms of its relief function. For Chaplin, comedy, similar to Freud’s humour, was a defence strategy against the tragic and threatening in life (cf. Schramm 2012, p. 99). However, besides this pure subsumation of Chaplin’s comedy under existing humour theorems, Schramm (2012) points out right at the beginning a circumstance that is often disregarded in humour research: comedy research that focuses primarily on the verbal joke, as is done in the linguistic field, for example (cf. Attardo 1994), cannot capture the visual comedy of silent film (cf. Schramm 2012, p. 12). While this insight does not

76

3  Humor in Science and Practice

lead Schramm to the formation of a visual comedy theory, it does reveal cinematic features of Chaplin’s comedy that are relevant to the genre as a whole. The predominant use of certain shot sizes such as long shots or semi-long shots, which aesthetically make it possible to capture the entire space as if on a stage, owe much to the conventions of the silent film era and Chaplin’s origins in the theatre (cf. Schramm 2012, p. 21). In detailing his performance, Schramm also notes Chaplin’s “extensive repertoire of gestures, facial expressions, and body language” (Schramm 2012, p.  52). Thus, the posture of his shoulders, chest, and stomach indicate Charlie’s emotional status: “If he takes courage, he straightens up, he pulls his shoulders back. If he hesitates, he sinks into himself” (Schramm 2012, p. 55; and so on with further evidence: Baron/Carnicke 2008, p. 103 f.). Schramm (2012) identifies various forms of visual gags in Chaplin such as slapstick, which she defines as “physical comedy in which objects, people and laws of physics inflict themselves on the hero and vice versa” (Schramm 2012, p.  70). Elsewhere, she21 then also defines slapstick as “physical comedy based on mishaps, violence, falls and blows” (Schramm 2012, p. 74). For the author, another characteristic of Chaplin’s visual gags is the transformation of one impression into another in the sense of Koestler (cf. Schramm 2012, p. 70; on Koestler’s theory of bisociation see above p. 84). Thus, Charlie Chaplin in the film “The Immigrant” plays dice in a scene by lunging as if with a baseball or covers his original intention in front of his antagonists with a deceptive substitute action when, in the same film, he lays claim to a found coin in a restaurant by rising and wanting to go to the neighbouring table, but is prevented from doing so by the waiter who stands up in front of him. The Chaplin character in the film now pretends to want to sweep crumbs off the seat (cf. Schramm 2012, p. 81). The author also recognizes a transformation with symbolic value in a scene of the film “Modern Times” (1936, directed by Charles Chaplin), in which Chaplin plays a factory worker who cannot stop the mechanical repetition of his movements on the assembly line even during a break (cf. Schramm 2012, p. 83). For Schramm, Chaplin’s comedy can be traced back to his representation as a comic figure in Bergson’s sense. Bergson speaks of the dispersed as the prototype of the comic figure (cf. Schramm 2012, p. 14) and the Tramp corresponds to him in that his whole manner takes him away from the world (cf. Schramm 2012, p. 84).  “Slapstick” is, according to Marshall (2014), a translation of the Ital. “batocchino,” which refers to a stage prop used in sixteenth-century commedia dell’arte and associated with, among others, the character of Harlequin (Italian: “Alecchino”), a sly acrobatic servant: Two thin wooden slats are tied together at the bottom and make a popping sound when moved, announcing performances or punctuating blows (see Marshall 2014, p. 701). 21

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

77

Thus, for the author, Chaplin’s comedy is ultimately due to an incongruity, namely “the contrast between Charlie and the world” (Schramm 2012, p.  84). Through the combination of tragedy and comedy and the accompanying potential for the spectator to identify with the figure of the Tramp, comedy first becomes an art form for the author through Chaplin and is no longer a “leisure attraction” (cf. Schramm 2012, p. 148). She sees modern successors in this tragicomic tradition in Benigni’s film “Life is Beautiful” (1997) and Zemeckis’ “Forrest Gump” (1994). Schramm (2012), like other authors, thus applies existing humour theories to her field of study, but extends them to include concrete cinematic devices such as shot sizes, acting gestures, facial expressions and body language, comic elements such as slapstick, and the highlighting of the comic figure as an essential feature of Chaplin’s films. Following Freud, King (2002) considers various film comedies as an expression of pre-oedipal and oedipal behaviour. He assumes that the former aims at childish, playful behaviour and the latter at the striving for integration into the adult world (cf. on this and in the following King 2002, p. 78 ff.). The childish behaviour of adults but also the reverse image of the child who unexpectedly asserts himself in the adult world is reflected for the author in characters and films by Jerry Lewis, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy and Robin Williams, among others, but also in productions such as “Freaky Friday” (1977), in which mother and daughter slip into each other’s bodies, or in films such as “Home Alone,” in which little Kevin, forgotten at home by his family, imaginatively fights off two clumsy burglars. According to the author, comedy arises from the struggle against the social, adult order, which is ultimately confirmed by partial integration while retaining some nonconformist behaviours (cf. King 2002, pp. 87, 92). Elsewhere, however, King (2002) makes use of Bergson, according to whom humour also always establishes a complicity of those who laugh and thus contributes to group integrity, which is significant for films about certain social groups, as in the films of Woody Allen, which cast a Jewish but also metropolitan perspective on life (cf. King 2002, pp. 154–155). This eclectic behaviour of the author, demonstrated by two theoretical examples, is already addressed by the author himself in the preface: There is no single adequate theory of comedy, despite various efforts to produce an allembracing account. Various different theoretical approaches are available and of differing degrees of use, depending on the precise nature of the comedy involved in any individual case and the different questions we might seek to answer. (King 2002, p. 5)

Thus, King then goes on to let Kant (cf. King 2002, p. 14) and Koestler (cf. King 2002, p. 15), among others, have their say. As the lowest common denominator for comedy, however, the author identifies the deviation from the normal, which in

78

3  Humor in Science and Practice

various forms leads to incongruities (cf. King 2002, p. 5). King does not assume that comedy has its own genre, but speaks of its own kind (“mode”), as opposed to relatively fixed sizes, although it is not clear in what way “mode” and genre should ultimately differ from each other (cf. King 2002, p. 2). As one of the few representatives of film studies, King draws attention to the comic potential of non-musical sounds, which he ultimately traces back to an incongruity, such as when an unexpected sound is heard or sound and true meaning diverge (cf. King 2002, pp. 13–14). King, like other authors, ultimately uses a (different) corresponding humour-­ theoretical explanation for each cinematic comic phenomenon. According to the subsuming procedure presented in these media studies works, the philosophical theories of humour are thus applied to media content analogously, mostly also in combination, but above all without criticism and almost in accordance with the law. However, concrete cinematic and audiovisual techniques and forms of expression such as the use of certain shot sizes, gestures, facial expressions, body language, slapstick, the appearance of comic figures and the humour resulting from non-musical sounds are also accessible to analysis and complement humour theories with concrete components of investigation. A group discussion or a film analysis that followed this conceptually would thus, on the one hand, draw on existing humour theories as well as their concrete cinematic techniques to explain cinematic humouristic phenomena. On the other hand, age and gender, among other things, as well as thematic, genre, category and humour preferences of the target groups would play no role or only a subordinate one.

3.3.3.2 Multi-Perspective Approaches A number of works encounter humour in the audiovisual media on several levels, of which the humour-theoretical is often only one. As quasi-pre-media studies, because it was before the discipline took shape as an institutionalised branch of research in the 1980s (cf. Schröter 2014, p. 21) and therefore is only briefly mentioned here, the theatre scholar Müller (1964) devotes a chapter to comedy in film in his publication. Here, many film techniques of comedy can already be found which later authors also discuss. The author distinguishes between content-related, optical and acoustic gags, which he describes in more detail later on, including types of fading, lighting effects, the “art of make-up” and “contrast images,” which stand in contrast to a linguistic statement (cf. Müller 1964, p. 161 ff.): Above all, the camera and the lighting are capable of making clear the comic effect of the body and of objects which the mind had not hitherto noticed. For in all the ­definitions and theories of comedy which have been quoted, we have seen that almost all of them wished to recognize only a comedy according to the measure of man. The close-­up is the true discoverer of the comedy of the body and the comedy of objects.

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

79

Without it, perhaps no one would have thought of finding a voluptuous woman’s bosom, a protruding buttock, a breaking chair, a wobbly car comic. (Müller 1964, p. 163)

Müller (1964) also lists so-called “comic attributes” that evoke comic memories of situations seen in the past and cites film characters and actors such as Harold Lloyd (with his horn-rimmed glasses) and Charlie Chaplin (bowler hat, big shoes, etc.) as examples (cf. Müller 1964, p. 164). The author avoids a film-specific discussion of traditional philosophical theories, although he does offer an entertainingly humorous exegesis on “Philosophical Theories of Comedy” (cf. Müller 1964, p. 9 ff.). For the film-analytical field within media studies, Mikos (2008) is particularly noteworthy. Although he explicitly names only incongruity and, in the sense of Wuss, alienation (cf. Wuss 1993, p. 359) as moments that trigger comedy in the sense of humour theory, film-specific manifestations of humour and comedy can be found systematised in his work as hardly anywhere else in film studies (cf. on this and in the following Mikos 2008, p. 147 ff.). Above all, the author elaborates four aspects of film comedy: comic plots, variations of gags, playing with the viewer’s knowledge, and comic characters. For Mikos, comic plots are those elaborated by Mast (1979, p. 4 ff.), namely: 1. Lovers and the difficulties of getting together, with a particular focus on overcoming absurd situations; 2. Parodies of other films and genres; 3. A character’s flaws, which is especially showcased in slapstick movies; 4. The coming together of different social groups and their different reactions to an event; 5. the comic protagonist who has to cope with various situations (Otto Waalkes or Mr. Bean are mentioned as examples); 6. a situation, place or object around which a series of gags is placed; 7. the accomplishment of a difficult task by the protagonist, which, in contrast to melodrama, has a comic effect by creating a comic climate (cf. Mast 1979, p. 9); and finally, comedy which 8. is created by a protagonist who wants to fix a mistake he has made in the course of his life.22  Mast (1979), to whom Mikos refers here, adds that the comic climate can be triggered by various phenomena and gives six examples: (1) the title of the film, which can sometimes provide a clue to a comic background, (2) the characters of the film, which can be stereotypical or multi-layered and give the impression of comedy, (3) the theme of the film, (4) the dialogue of the film (and here especially those of the opening scenes), (5) cues such as parodies of other films or typical cinematic tricks that remind the audience it iswitnessing an unreal production, (6) cinematographic tools such as lighting, editing, music, shot size, and camera perspective that can create a comic effect (cf. Mast 1979, p. 9 ff.). 22

80

3  Humor in Science and Practice

In addition to these eight forms of comic plots, however, for Mikos it is above all variants of gags, namely linguistic, acoustic, musical and visual or optical, that can create comedy in film. Mikos elaborates on linguistic gags: A dialogue becomes funny by not meeting the audience’s expectations of what would be appropriate in a situation. Comedy can also result from involuntarily uttered words or phrases that are ambiguous. However, it can also be a matter of deliberate puns (cf. Palmer 1994, p. 104). (Mikos 2008, p. 149)

As an example of an acoustic gag, Mikos cites a chain reaction by which several objects are made to fall over by the protagonist, ultimately setting off a radio that sounds inappropriate music or commentary (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 149). On the musical level, actions can be counteracted by again using inappropriate music. In addition to incongruities in the plot that express themselves visually, Mikos cites various examples of withholding plot information. In this case, information is kept hidden from the viewer and only provided in a later shot, thus making the plot appear in a different light. For example, when the protagonists appear to be moving away in a car and it only becomes clear in another shot that they are being pushed by police officers. Caroll (1991) uses the term “switch image” for these dissolving shots, which open up a completely new meaning (cf. Caroll 1991, p.  33). In German, the term “Bildpointe” probably corresponds to this. For Mikos, a visual gag also occurs when objects are misappropriated or used metaphorically, e.g. when an expensive Chinese vase is used as a drinking glass or umbrella stand. Visual comedy includes, among other things, the deformation of objects or figures, especially in animated films. On the cognitive level, Mikos distinguishes between suspense and tension for the implementation of cinematic comedy, i.e. according to whether the audience knows less (suspense) or more than the protagonist (tension). For the films of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, among others, this is also mentioned by King (2002), for example, as a determining comic device (cf. King 2002, p. 49). Mikos states: Because the spectators are informed about the meaning of a scene, they can laugh at the character who behaves inappropriately due to their ignorance. The comedy arises from the different definitions of the plot situation by the character and the spectator. However, the spectator may also know less than the character. This is the case, for example, when he sees a character from behind and infers certain activities from the character’s movements, but these turn out to be completely different when the character turns around. (Mikos 2008, p. 151)

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

81

Finally, Mikos points out that comedy in film and television was often linked to comic characters who acted contrary to the norms and values of both the world being narrated and the world in which the audience lived (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 151). They defy the norms, caricature them through exaggeration or take them quite literally. The comic figure highlights the fictionality of the film or television programme through its exaggerated portrayal and staging. (Mikos 2008, p. 151)

According to the author, comic characters can appear as an ensemble or also as individual characters (mentioned here are, among others: Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Heinz Erhardt, Otto Waalkes and Mr. Bean; cf. Mikos 2008, p. 151). Cinematic expressions and forms of humour are thus interpreted by the author primarily against the background of the incongruity theory considered to be determinant for comedy. Despite the monocausal theoretical underpinning, Mikos elaborates one of the few film-specific forms and means of expression of comedy that will also be considered in selected form for the present work. These include the presence of comic characters, accompanied by a discussion of various types of acting performance, and the adoption of auditory elements of comedy in diverse categories (cf. Sects. 4.2.6, p. 167 and 4.4.4, p. 232). However, Mast’s comic plots adopted by Mikos are criticised by Horton (1991). He denies the existence of comic plots and points out that, for example, the tragedy of Oedipus fulfils the criteria of Mast’s comic plots no. 3 and 4 (mistakes of a character and the encounter of different social groups and their different reactions to an event), but no one therefore sees a comedy in Oedipus (cf. Horton 1991, pp. 1–2). Palmer’s (1987) criticism is along the same lines when he states: … the weak point in Mast’s theory is that the plot structures either are not specifically funny, not specific to comedy in any sense of the word, or they are not in fact plot structures, but refer to the minimum unit of comic plot, the individual joke or gag. (Palmer 1987, p. 28)

Neale/Krutnik (1994, 1990) also miss evidence of comedy-specific humour in Mast (1979) (cf. Neale 1994, 1990, p. 63) and point to the difficulty of a cinematic definition of comedy, which is that comedy can make use of all other genres and thus ultimately any genre can become comedy through parody (cf. Neale/Krutnik 1994, 1990, p. 101 f.). Notwithstanding this criticism, the comic plot structures according to Mast (1979) are also adopted in more recent research in Alic (2014). She contrasts Mast’s plot structures with those narrative structures and patterns of Voytilla/Petri (2003); however, this work is not a scholarly publication but a guidebook for

82

3  Humor in Science and Practice

screenwriters. Voytilla/Petri (2003) list the following comedy patterns according to Alic (cf. on this and in the following Alic 2014, p. 83 ff.): 1. Fish-out-of-water comedies where a character is placed in an unfamiliar environment; 2. the romantic comedy in which love is sought or rediscovered; 3. the sports comedy in which a team fails or threatens to fail in a comical way due to a lack of skills; 4. the crime comedy, in which a crime is to be solved or committed with moral entanglements; 5. the military comedy, which, like the fish-out-of-water comedies, are about the struggle against unfamiliar or inappropriate environments, like the struggle with authority; 6. the teen/coming-of-age comedy that deals with the problems of growing up; 7. the ensemble comedy, in which a theme is examined from the different perspectives of different characters; 8. the farce, in which strong exaggerations and improbabilities are used and the resulting chaos leads to truth and liberation; 9. black comedy, in which humour is used propagandistically to effect social change; 10. Satire, parody and mockumentary, in which, similar to black comedy, mockery is a means of humour to attack social grievances, whereby in parody the medium of film or one of its genres is itself the object of mockery and in mockumentary the work is done with the appearance of a serious documentary, which ultimately turns out to be a staging and makes clear the manipulability through the medium. Finally, the author outlines so-called macro and micro elements of film comedy. With reference to Bergson, she now counts movement, situation, word, character and image comedy as well as comedy of actions and the acoustic among the superordinate elements of film comedy (cf. Alic 2014, pp.  92, 139). For her, ­micro-­elements for creating a comic climate include inappropriateness, exaggeration, association, repetition and contradiction to the norm. However, the definition of these elements is not always clear. For example, the author states about situation comedy: “Situation comedy can thus be described as a causal arrangement of actions and events that generates comedy” (Alic 2014, p. 99). Even if examples follow this attempted definition, it remains the case that here a concept, namely comedy, is explained by means of itself. Similarly fuzzy explanations are given for character and strong comedy: “The comedy here often

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

83

arises from the alienation, or the momentary exit of the spectator from the diegetic world and through the perception of the representation as a comic spectacle” (cf. Alic 2014, p. 103). Ultimately, Alic describes more manifestations of film comedy and groups them under terms with reference to Bergson than she approaches a definition of film comedy. In this she resembles Mast (1979) in her approach and is therefore also subject to the same complaint, namely that all these manifestations can also occur in tragedy and are therefore not specific to comedy (see above). Multi-perspective approaches to analysis in media studies thus refer to existing philosophical theories of humour on the one hand, but expand them to include numerous film-specific forms of expression that help to determine the content and components of an analysis. In addition to the aforementioned comic characters, these include the controversial comic plots, linguistic, acoustic, musical and visual gags, as well as cognitive-dramatic elements such as suspense and tension. With these components, an analysis of media and talk content would cover a broad theoretical and subject-specific spectrum. However, according to the work presented, humour preferences according to the age and gender of recipients were left out.

3.3.3.3 Thematic and Genre Theoretical Approaches Some authors approach humour in the audiovisual media primarily with thematic or genre-theoretical approaches. In the analyses concerned, great importance is therefore attached to the theme of a film and its genre affiliation for humour. Thus, for Faulstich (2013), the film comedy as a genre is characterised above all by the fact that it reflects the everyday life of bourgeois society “with its repulsiveness and small humanities” (cf. on this and in the following Faulstich 2013, pp. 52– 54). For the author, the “happy ending” is another defining characteristic in which good is allowed to triumph (also: Alic 2014, p.  71; Wuss 1993, p.  419; Neale/ Krutnik 1994, 1990, p. 12; Charney 2005/1987, pp. 88, 94). For Faulstich, the basic configuration of a comedy is the disturbance of peace in the community with its stereotypical characters (the coward, the lovable dreamer, the young man in love, the tramp, etc.). The author distinguishes two basic types of film comedy, satirical and romantic. The former, which often does without language, results in schadenfreude when a small, inferior character ultimately wins against a superior force. For the author, the second type of film comedy represents the talkie comedy, which is dialogue-­ heavy and deals with other issues: family, friendship and gender issues. Laughter and pleasure are the intended modes of reception for the author in both forms of comedy:

84

3  Humor in Science and Practice Laughter (as in slapstick comedy) expresses superiority, a superior perspective, a distance from the person being ridiculed. Pleasure (as in screwball comedy) is based on empathy, one empathizes with human weaknesses, identifies with the protagonists and rejoices with them in the happy outcome. … Laughter means liberation – a coming to terms with social upheavals, the victory of anarchy over hollow formulas, the victory of the small over the sublime and the pose, against all odds the fulfilment of love in marriage. (Faulstich 2013, p. 54)

Faulstich thus indirectly addresses the theory of superiority as well as Freud’s theory of relief. He does not mention film-specific means of comedy. According to Schramm’s (2012) research, his assumption that slapstick films derive comedy mainly from a feeling of superiority cannot be readily agreed with, at least for the films of Charlie Chaplin (see above), because the reverse conclusion would be that slapstick and silent films do not (or do not primarily) contribute to empathy and identification with their protagonists, since they derive their comedy mainly from distancing Schadenfreude. However, according to Schramm (2012), it is precisely the pantomimic portrayal of emotions that Chaplin employs to elicit sympathy and closeness from the audience. Slapstick and empathy are thus very much in harmony with each other, which does not deny that Schadenfreude contributes to comedy in slapstick scenes. In Anglo-American research, sitcoms are a frequent object of study, through which the focus is thematically on social currents and developments through the representation of people of colour, women, and minorities. The study of the reception of these shows is usually left out. At this point, we will refrain from a detailed presentation of these rather specifically U.S. phenomena and indicate the references in Prommer 2012, p. 125 f. for further reading. Describing topics and forms, Wehn (2010) approaches the phenomenon of humour on the Internet without making any references to existing theories of humour or merely mentioning the theories of superiority, incongruence and liberation in an earlier publication (cf. Wehn 2003, p. 116). Thus, the author is convinced that new media only become established through certain forms of entertainment such as humour or sex and not through news and information (cf. Wehn 2010, p.  39). For Internet humour, Wehn distinguishes between humour content that the Internet has adopted from other media, such as caricatures and cartoons from newspapers, and those that have been developed specifically for the Internet, such as webtoons, ASCII art (images programmed with 256 characters of the character set of the same name), animated and live action short films. Since there are no filtering gatekeepers on the Internet to sift out material and decide on its distribution, as is done by editors at broadcasters, for example, the Internet stands for democracy on the one hand, but also for “anarchy,” “average goods and rubbish” on the other (Wehn 2010, p. 35).

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

85

According to Wehn, caricatures, parodies, black humour and trash are particularly widespread. Parodies that refer to a template and repeat it, but also change it, can thus be found, for example, in parodies of certain genres, programmes, films, stars and politicians, but also of the Net itself, such as the scandal surrounding the Napster download platform (cf. on this and in the following Wehn 2010, p. 36). Similar to caricatures, which for the author involve a distorting and exaggerated portrayal of people and facts in order to expose them to ridicule, these varieties of Internet humour are usually characterised by a very short-term significance and dissemination, as in the case of parodies of the 2004 American election campaign between candidates Bush and Kerry. According to the author, this humour therefore tends to appeal to the short-term memory of the Internet user, and functions by appealing to schematised generic knowledge or current topics. Wehn sees a “deconstruction of value standards” in the varieties of black humour and trash, through which faeces, vomit, sex and violence acquire a high status (cf. Wehn 2010, p. 37). Starting with the interactive animation “Frog in the Mixer” created by Joe Shields at the beginning of the millennium, in which the user can determine by clicking on which level a frog in a mixer meets its end and which, thanks to its small memory size of 378 KB, found its distribution through email attachments, to series that touch on taboo areas, such as about a Jesus as a drug dealer (“Jesus and His Brothers”) or animations in which celebrities can be tortured and killed, often choosing the device of collage by inserting oversized heads into the animation to enhance the caricaturing effect, a wide range of black humour can be found, working with “absurd horror, gruesome comedy, macabre ridiculousness or crass cynicism [that] does not dissolve into the benign worldly wisdom of humour, but still creates comedy out of horror and horror by exaggerating into the grotesque” (Wehn 2010, p. 37). Another field of Internet humour is the ordering of amateur videos of mishaps, misappropriated computer games for the production of short videos (so-called “machinima”) as well as false reports and rumours spread through email ­attachments, in which, for example, warnings of dangerous viruses are given (cf. Wehn 2010, p. 38). Many forms of Internet humour, such as clips, are characterised by a short running time of no more than 2–5 minutes, and so Wehn (2010) concludes “that humour on the Internet is a matter of entertaining zeitgeist phenomena that (can) refer to current events, but presumably have no lasting value” (Wehn 2010, p.  39). Internet humour is particularly tailored to the reception expectations of young target groups as frequent users of the Internet, with whom nonsense humour is particularly well received.

86

3  Humor in Science and Practice

Wehn (2010) thus describes different forms and topics of Internet humour and elaborates its specific characteristics. According to this, for the medium of the Internet, humour serves only as a sensational technique that appeals to baser instincts. The author does not make a direct reference to existing humour theories, even though she notes at one point: “The comic arises from the discrepancy between form and content and from the variation of the same that can only be understood from the original” (Wehn 2010, p. 36). Although many of the forms of humour on the Internet that she refers to could easily be subsumed under the superiority theory, the author only seems to refer indirectly to the incongruity theory. Shifman (2007) also distinguishes between new and old forms and themes of humour on the Internet. She concedes that the incongruity theory has interpretive authority for all forms of Internet humour she studied (cf. Shifman 2007, p. 204 f.). The author examined 400 humorous Internet texts (jokes, cartoons, funny clips, etc.), which were filtered by means of search engines and keywords (cf. Shifman 2007, p. 192) and, in comparison with Wehn (2010), comes to partly similar, but also more differentiated findings. First of all, she also distinguishes between old and new forms of humour, but at the same time provides a ranking according to frequency (cf. on this and in the following Shifman 2007, p. 195). The most widespread forms of humour are those that were already in use before the Internet: Jokes, amateur and slapstick videos, advertising clips (“viral advertisements”), comic lists (e.g. “Top ten things men know about women”) and finally cartoons. Accordingly, new forms of humour on the Internet by frequency are: Funny photos, obviously manipulated photos (“maniphoto”), interactive humour, Ppowerpoint humour, animated manipulated photos (“phanimation” from photo and animation) and finally original sounds of celebrities (“celebrity soundboards”). The fact that interactive humour was found in only 22 cases (5.5%) is surprising (cf. Shifman 2007, p. 197). Moreover, in many cases interactivity consists only of an automated reaction on the part of the Internet offering and lacks genuine interactivity, i.e. mutual influence, for example when nonsense names are generated by typing in one’s own and the computer only acts as a mediator of a joke that someone else has determined through programming, similar to a vending machine. According to the author, the greatest difference between new and old forms of humour used on the Internet is that the old forms of humour are based on written and visual texts, whereas none of the new forms uses written language (cf. Shifman 2007, p. 199). Thematically, sex (in 114 out of 400 cases), gender (93), animals (59) and products/companies (49) are in the top four places and global events dominate over local ones (cf. Shifman 2007, pp. 199–200). Globally oriented is defined by Shifman as an event based on characteristics or categories shared by all societies worldwide. Local is an event that draws on local or national categories and cultural

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

87

patterns (cf. Shifman 2007, p. 194). In total, 214 texts were based on old forms of humour and 138 on new ones. While the appeal of sex as a subject can be explained by the anonymity of the Internet and the possibility of surreptitious reception, animals as a source of humour are a surprising phenomenon for the author. Unlike fables, which engage in value-oriented play with anthropomorphised animal characters, Internet-based animal humour is mostly about non-political issues and focuses on the fun of incongruity when animals behave or look like humans. This aspect is universal and therefore can be received all over the world as a source of humour (cf. Shifman 2007, pp. 201–202). Against this background, the author can also justify why ethnic jokes play a rather subordinate role on the Internet (31 cases): they mostly represent local humour phenomena: “‘Irish’ jokes are told in the UK and America but not in Israel, where there is no large Irish population” (Shifman 2007, p. 202). New Internet-based forms of humour are thus often thematically about computers and animals, while the traditional (adopted) forms of humour tend to be about sex and marriage (cf. Shifman 2007, p. 204). In this respect, it can be said that the new medium has, if not new, then different humour themes than previous media. Visual dominates over textual, global over local, with English-language humour predominating, which leads the author to conclude, among other things, in relation to the amateur videos, that the values and priorities of the West, and thus a capitalist youth-oriented culture, are reflected through Internet humour. Shifman (2007) thus categorises forms of Internet humour according to frequency and elaborates similarities and differences to previously existing forms of humour. She distinguishes between globally and locally oriented humour offerings and topics. For her, incongruity is the defining characteristic of Internet humour, which often serves certain humour themes visually, such as animal humour. Unlike Wehn, she refrains from making a value judgement regarding the humour topics and types found on the Internet. However, Shifman (2007) did not examine certain forms of dissemination of humour on the Internet, such as blogs, social networks or forums. The fact that certain topics of humour, especially of a personal nature, can also generate forms of solidarity on the Internet is shown by Pennington/Hall (2014) in their analysis of 100 Facebook profiles of American students (28) and other connected (probably also American) Facebook users (72) in 2010 (cf. on this and in the following Pennington/Hall 2014, p. 4 ff.). The participants were between 18 and 62 years old (mean: 32.2), the proportion of women was 57% and the majority of participants were white (88%). The authors examined status messages and comments on Facebook profiles using a humour definition from other authors:

88

3  Humor in Science and Practice Humour can be understood as the use of “intentional verbal or nonverbal messages which elicit laughter, chuckling, and other forms of spontaneous behavior taken to mean pleasure, delight, and/or surprise in the targeted receiver” (Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield 1991: 206). (Pennington/Hall 2014, p. 2)

Under this premise, the authors ultimately elaborate on three themes that are determinants of humorous content in status messages and comments: Everyday life events, pop culture-based events, and self-referential events (cf. Pennington/Hall 2014, pp. 1, 8). The events of daily life that mainly gave rise to humorous status messages and comments included, for example, clashes at work or at home, as well as leisure activities with friends and loved ones. Facebook users who stood out with such humorous messages subsequently also received more “likes” from other users compared to those who made politics or music a topic in their status messages, for example (cf. Pennington/Hall 2014, p. 13). On the contrary, political discussions or topics in status messages and comments tended to lead to a negative assessment of a person’s humour (cf. Pennington/Hall 2014, pp. 11, 1). The more such humorous status messages of everyday life a user could show, the more humorous he was subsequently also rated by the 35 paid and mostly student observers of the same university (cf. Pennington/Hall 2014, pp. 13, 7–8). The following message is taken from the study as an example of a humorous observation of an everyday situation: There is NOTHING stickier, more durable, and harder to scrape away than day-old fruity pebbles…they should build the next space shuttle out of them… (Pennington/ Hall 2014, p. 13)

Positive assessments on the part of the observers and approval by other Facebook users also received status messages and photos that referred to events in pop culture, such as comments on Charlie Sheen, who in the test period of 2010 had just become the talk of the town due to his expulsion from the series “Two and a Half Men” and his lifestyle, as well as comments on teenage stars such as Miley Cyrus and Hanna Montana (cf. Pennington/Hall 2014, p. 14). According to the authors’ analysis, self-referential humour also led to many “likes”, whether through photos with funny poses, facial expressions or costumes, although self-critical humour tended to give rise to comments rather than “likes”, which the authors explain by the fact that the “like” button is often understood as approval of a message (cf. Pennington/Hall 2014, p. 17). However, the comments on such messages were characterised by the fact that they negated the self-­ accusation of the sender, e.g. a message about one’s own excess weight was com-

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

89

mented on by other users in an appeasing manner. The authors see this as an act of support by other users, even if such comments sometimes led to witty banter (cf. Pennington/Hall 2014, pp. 14–15). The authors evaluate the reporting behaviour of Facebook users as an effort to appear as humorous and funny as possible in order to maintain social contacts. Users try to cope with stressful situations by packaging the corresponding messages in a humorous and entertaining way in order to show others that they are capable of producing humour with which they can master the situations in question (cf. Pennington/Hall 2014, p. 15). The humour of a Facebook user could be assessed by outside observers on the basis of these status messages, comments, photos and quotes within 10–15 minutes on average. Even the (failed) attempt to produce humour led to a user being seen as a humorous person (cf. Pennington/Hall 2014, p. 16).23 In addition, profile photos proved to be particularly effective for the positive assessment of a Facebook user’s humour, especially those in which the user could be seen socialising with attractive friends or drinking (cf. Pennington/Hall 2014, pp. 17–18). The authors concede that their study is not representative and the findings cannot be generalized, but they see the results of their study as confirming that online behavior merely reflects a different form of offline behaviour, humour plays a major role in everyday behaviour when it comes to social bonding, stress management, and self-presentation, and status updates on Facebook profiles serve to entertain fellow readers but also to elicit sympathy and not just to inform (cf. Pennington/ Hall 2014, pp. 18–19). In their work, the authors thus draw parallels between Internet-based humour in Facebook profiles and everyday “offline” humour. The authors avoid references to existing humour theorems, even if socially reinforcing components of humour are repeatedly underlined for use on Facebook. The authors do not identify entirely new humour themes, even though they agree with Shifman (2007) that referring to celebrities is a characteristic of online humour (cf. Pennington/Hall 2014, p. 18). In more recent times, the barely comprehensible forms of humorous content on the Internet are also treated under the term “Internet meme”, which is borrowed from a term coined by the biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976 for “small cultural units…. that are passed on from person to person by copying or imitation” (Shifman 2014, p. 9). “Mem” is in turn borrowed from the Greek mimema/mimesis, denoting the imitated (cf. Gemoll 1988, p. 506).

 This result is at odds with the conclusions of Laineste (2013, see p. 114 below), who sees unsuccessful humour as a source of increased aggression in relation to Internet comments. 23

90

3  Humor in Science and Practice

Moskopp/Heller (2013) define internet memes as “content that spreads virally on the Internet” (Moskopp/Heller 2013, p. 14). However, content does not really spread independently like a virus, but requires human action. Shifman then also defines Internet memes elsewhere as follows: (a) a group of digital entities that share characteristics in content, form, and/or attitude; (b) that have been generated in deliberate engagement with other memes; and (c) that have been disseminated, imitated, and/or transformed by many users over the Internet. (Shifman 2014, p. 44)

Through this demarcation, it becomes clear that an individual cannot create a meme, but, as Moskopp/Heller (2013) put it, only copying and redistribution make a content a meme (cf. Moskopp/Heller 2013, p. 213). Shifman (2014) also deals with Internet memes. According to the author, the difference between viral videos that spread on the Internet and memes is that the latter create a reference to something pre-existing, in which, for example, a scene from a film or video is replayed and this new video is then spread on the Internet as a meme (cf. Shifman 2014, p. 57). Memes thus have something discursive about them. Many of the Internet phenomena already presented here by other studies fall into this category, such as manipulated photos, videos, voice recordings, etc., insofar as they establish a reference to other works. They also have a mostly humorous content: “Art, humour, gimmickry and playfulness are the contents that are usually associated with the term “Internet meme”” (Moskopp/Heller 2013, p. 15). Shifman also states for memetic videos that they express playfulness, incongruity and superiority (cf. Shifman 2014, p. 77). The video clip “Star Wars Kid” mentioned by Shifman may serve as an example, in which an overweight boy rather clumsily imitates the fighting movements of a Jedi Knight from the well-known film series with a kind of mop pole. The performance is touchingly devoid of elegance. On the day it was viewed by the author (22.02.15), more than 29 million people had already clicked on the video (and other versions of the clip with alienating and commentary effects exist). For these cases, in which incongruity seems to play no role, Shifman describes the fascination with the degradation theory that they cause: Some people not only enjoy watching videos of others they perceive as inferior, but they further enjoy imitating them in a contemptuous manner, publicly demonstrating their own superiority. (Shifman 2014, p. 79)

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

91

Whether labelling and defining them as “memes” will actually produce new insights into content and forms of dissemination on the Internet remains to be seen. With regard to existing humour theories, a critical examination of them is currently still avoided in favour of their pure application. Both Shifman (2014) and Moskopp/ Heller (2013) predominantly provide an enumerative description of thematic and technical forms of expression, which will be dispensed with here (cf. with further references: Shifman 2014, p. 95 ff.; Moskopp/Heller 2013, p. 73 ff.). Representatives of thematic analyses thus examine media content primarily according to characteristics typical of action, content, category and genre, whereby individual authors explore humour on the Internet in particular, in which humour reception and production are mixed and other humour topics are more popular than in older media, such as animal humour in the form of short video clips. A mix of philosophical humour theories is usually drawn upon for theoretical underpinning. A happy ending is often considered specific to film comedies, although other genres work with it as well. Internet humour has some peculiarities, as it is largely not based on linguistic texts and increasingly uses universal animal humour (e.g. in cat videos). On social platforms, self-mockery serves to reassure people of their own status and to maintain contacts. If this thematic analysis approach were followed, the examination of children’s statements regarding humour and also children’s film content would, similar to subsumptive analyses, focus primarily on consistency with known humour themes, although content aspects would be examined in more detail.

3.3.3.4 Categorical Research Scientific studies that primarily divide forms of humour into categories and accordingly examine audiovisual media content can be found for film, television and Internet offerings alike, both for fictional and non-fictional formats such as shows. These studies, which are often conceived as qualitative content analyses, can be well summarised under the term categorical humour research for classification in the context of this thesis (see above Sect. 3.3.3). Thus Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004), drawing on A.  Berger’s (1993) 45 humour techniques, which he had designed for oral narratives among adults, use 41 of these so-called humour techniques to examine 319 advertising clips for their humour content and their appeal to viewers (cf. Buijzen/Valkenburg 2004, p. 147; Berger, A. 1993, p. 18 ff.). The advertising programming of two public and three private Dutch broadcasters served as the basis for the study in winter 1998 and spring 1999 (cf. Buijzen/Valkenburg 2004, p. 155). They adapted the number and definition of the humour techniques inspired by A. Berger to audiovisual content, so that also those which typically do not occur or only partially occur in oral narratives among

92

3  Humor in Science and Practice

adults, but play a major role in audiovisual media for children, such as “visual surprise”, which the authors define as “A sudden unexpected visual/physical change” or also the humour technique “Peculiar face”: “Making a funny face, grimace” (Buijzen/Valkenburg 2004, p.  154), were recorded.24 Since the authors’ study was not limited to the age group of children, it will be25 presented here. The commercials were coded according to the definitions of humour techniques and then assigned to different age target groups. In doing so, the study primarily drew on the humour preferences that McGhee (1979) had26 worked out for different age groups, as well as on findings by Acuff/ Reiher (1997), who dealt with the issue of successful marketing to children.27 In addition to the differentiation according to age, Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004) also differentiated according to gender. In this way, the authors extracted seven main humour techniques, namely: slapstick, clownish behaviour, surprise, misunderstanding, irony, satire and parody (cf. on this and in the following: Buijzen/ Valkenburg 2004, p. 157 ff.). The 77 clips that were assigned to the target group of 2–12 year olds by the authors were mainly characterised by slapstick and clownish behaviour, with satire and parody the least represented. Clips aimed at 12–18 year olds (64 in total) were characterised by a high use of slapstick, surprise and satire. Clownish humour, on the other hand, was used least frequently. By far the largest proportion of the advertising clips that could not be assigned to either of the two age groups (173) were characterised primarily by the use of slapstick, surprise and irony. Sexually charged or hostile humour was more likely  A complete overview of all 41 humour techniques by Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004, pp. 153 f.) is in Appendix A1 (available on Springer.com). 25  Media studies of children’s television humour are presented in a separate chapter (see below Sect. 3.4.2, p. 123) 26  McGhee’s (1976, 1979) findings, which in turn build on those of Piaget (1948/1983), are discussed in detail in Sect. 3.4, p. 113, which deals with the study of children’s everyday and television humour. 27  The authors found that 3–7 year olds prefer slapstick, action, surprises and physical forms of humour as found in series like “Bugs Bunny” and “Superman” but also in family-based formats like “Friends.” In contrast to this are heavier dramatic series (“Heavier Drama”) such as “NYPD Blue” with more adult-oriented content (cf. Acuff/Reiher 1997, pp. 78, 93 f.). For the group of 8–12 year olds, Acuff/Reiher (1997) noted a preference for mildly vulgar, violent and irreverent humour, which makes them prefer certain characters with dark sides, such as Garfield (cf. Acuff/Reiher 1997, pp. 101, 104). Film stars, action heroes and famous sportsmen become the focus of interest for this age group, which, according to Acuff/ Reiher, answer the question of who they consider to be the greatest hero: “My dad” (Acuff/ Reiher 1997, p. 104). 24

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

93

to be found in these clips, which the authors explain with the humour preferences of adult viewers (cf. Buijzen/Valkenburg 2004, p. 163). Parodies and clownish behaviour were hardly used here. Differentiated by gender, clips that, according to the authors’ assessment, were aimed at a male audience mainly featured slapstick, irony and satire, with sub-­ forms such as ridiculing, conceptual surprise, shaming/embarrassing and disrespectful behaviour ranking high here. Eccentricity, impersonation, grotesque behaviour and sexual innuendo also appeared frequently. By contrast, commercials that the authors felt were aimed at a female audience used surprise, slapstick, and irony most often. Satire and parody played only a minor role here. Clownish behaviour was slightly more present in female-oriented commercials than in the male-­ oriented ones. Prominent sub-forms of the aforementioned categories were above all puns, anthropomorphisation and peculiar voices. With the knowledge gained in this way, the authors now assign the seven mainly identified humour categories (slapstick, clowning, surprise, misunderstanding, irony, satire and parody) to the three humour theories of incongruity, degradation and relaxation theory, although more than one theory may be relevant. For the authors, the incongruity theory explains humour categories such as clownish behaviour, surprise, and misunderstanding. The degradation theory is able to account for satire and irony, and the relaxation theory for slapstick, which, according to the authors, can also be captured by the other two theories. Although the authors had abandoned the original distinction into an age group of young children (2–7 years) and medium-aged children (8–12) due to the difficulties encountered by the coders in classifying the advertising clips into the two age groups, they state that certain forms of humour popular with 8–11 year olds were not to be found in the advertising clips studied for this age group and list parodies and rebellious humour here (cf. Buijzen/Valkenburg 2004, p. 163).28 For the group of 2–12 year olds, they find that the forms of humour demonstrated could be explained mainly by the incongruity theory, whereas forms of humour in the clips of the group of adolescents up to 18 years could be explained mainly by the degradation theory. Clips that could not be assigned to any of the two age groups (“general audience”) are explained by all three humour theories, according to the authors. The authors conclude from this that the applicability of humour theories is not only dependent on certain forms of humour, but also on certain age groups (cf. Buijzen/Valkenburg 2004, p. 164).  The importance of parodies should not be underestimated, especially in the case of the film “Wicki” analyzed in this thesis (cf. Chap. 5, p. 391). 28

94

3  Humor in Science and Practice

The division into different categories of humour, however they are designated and defined, represents an interesting approach because it makes media humour content comparable, which is significant for the present work, in which children’s humour preferences are to be compared with corresponding humour offerings in films. However, this type of categorical humour research has so far lacked standardised procedures, as is also clear from the next example (the incomparability of various analysis criteria and definitions is also criticised by Prommer 2012, p. 130). Using the example of the TV medical series “House” (2004–2012), Dynel (2013) also divides audiovisual comedy into humour categories, assuming that the theory of incongruity and superiority covers all forms of humour under investigation (cf. Dynel 2013, p. 22). For the author, this presupposes a kind of “cognitive safety” on the part of the recipient, which she takes for granted in film reception (cf. Dynel 2013, p. 28), without elaborating on the basis for her assumption. On the one hand, Dynel understands conversational humour as various stylistic forms of euphemisms. For example, in the case of Dr. House using different expressions in one of the episodes to avoid the term masturbation (“Marching the penguin,” “Ya-ya-ing the sisterhood,” “Finding Nemo”) (Dynel 2013, p.  31). Paradoxes (statements with internal contradictions), metaphors and irony (incongruence between what is literally meant and what is meant) are also among the stylistic figures of conversational humour for Dynel, alongside spoken jokes with double meanings, as she demonstrates in various dialogue passages in the series (cf. Dynel 2013, p. 32 ff.). Dynel sees pragmatic categories of humour that have to fulfil a certain function within a conversation, for example, in teasing and banter. Exemplary here is a scene in which Dr. House teases an African-American colleague for advocating preferential treatment for a white politician (“Black guy campaigning for the opposition? Does Obama know about this?”) (Dynel 2013, p. 35). Under the same category, Dynel then also subsumes sarcastic humour (“Disparagement/putdown humour and sarcasm”) (Dynel 2013, p. 36). The author sees a separate category within conversational humour in parodies that aim to imitate or make fun of an individual, event or other entity (cf. Dynel 2013, p. 37). In one scene, Dr. House puts on a French accent in order to find out who broke into his apartment the night before and activated the sprinkler system, following the pronunciation of the fictional detective Hercule Poirot from Agatha Christie’s detective novels (cf. Dynel 2013, pp. 37–38.). Dynel recognizes non-linguistic humour in some scenes of the series under investigation, in which Dr. House, having just been reprimanded by his boss, makes himself understood only with gestures and facial expressions, without saying anything (cf. Dynel 2013, pp. 38–39).

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

95

Dynel does not list quirky behaviour under conversational humour, but as a category of its own (“quirky behaviour”). Thus, for her, the character of Dr. House is endowed with wit and intellectual superiority that is hardly possible for an average person (cf. Dynel 2013, p. 40). For the author, this also includes various forms of inappropriate behaviour, such as when Dr. House chooses prostitutes during working hours in his office by means of an interview (cf. Dynel 2013, pp. 40–41) or makes clear to the boyfriend of a pregnant woman who has pretended to be a virgin that he cannot be the father. In doing so, he pretends that the person concerned is not present, knowing full well that he is listening and that the real context will be revealed to him through the conversation with the pregnant woman (“quirky participatory behaviour”, cf. Dynel 2013, p. 44). Also subsumed under quirky behaviours is Dynel’s definition of rudeness as communication strategies used by the speaker to create social conflict and disharmony (cf. Dynel 2013, p. 44). For example, in a scene in which Dr. House is called to account by his superior, he behaves in a cheeky manner and precisely not in a submissive manner, but, rather, also in a witty and insubordinate manner. For Dynel, the joke here is clearly intended for the viewer, because the figure of the superior is obviously not receptive to it (cf. Dynel 2013, pp. 45–46). Not directly resulting from communication for Dynel is humour which is reflected in inappropriate behaviour, e.g. when Dr. House plays childish pranks with a colleague and vice versa (“Uncanny events”), although here the distinction from the quirky behaviours listed above is not clear (cf. Dynel 2013, p. 46). Dynel sees situational irony/irony of fate, for example, in a scene in which Dr. House discusses with a colleague the absurd situation of having to nurse a death row inmate back to health before he can leave the hospital and then be executed by the state (cf. Dynel 2013, p. 48). For her, the same category also includes dramatic irony, which creates a knowledge advantage for the viewer, for example, when Dr. House talks about the stable condition of a patient in a scene and the viewer sees how the patient is about to collapse (cf. Dynel 2013, pp. 48–49; similarly, as shown, Mikos (2008) had already elaborated the viewer’s knowledge as a prerequisite for various forms of cinematic humour, cf. Mikos 2008, p. 151). Dynel sees another form of incongruent humour in deception, the simplest form of which can be lying. For example, Dr. House prevents the discharge of a patient by secretly injecting her with a drug that causes her to collapse so that he can perform further examinations on her, which his colleagues were convinced were unnecessary (cf. Dynel 2013, pp. 50–51). Dynel thus systematises various manifestations of audiovisual humour on the basis of sample scenes from the series “House” and subsumes them all under the humour theorems of incongruity and superiority theory. Their category formations

96

3  Humor in Science and Practice

cannot always be sharply separated from one another, e.g. for the distinction between “uncanny events” and “quirky behaviours”. A critical contribution to the existing theories of humour from the perspective of media studies is missing. Parallels in Dynel’s (2013) work can be identified with Mikos’ (2008) distinction between non-linguistic and visual gags in film, in particular also with Mikos’ remarks on comic characters (see above p. 123). Albeit independently, both authors work with similar categories here, Dynel in relation to a television series, Mikos for the film genre of comedy in general. In Dynel’s work, too, categories can be found that are worthy of further attention and inclusion in one’s own analysis (e.g. for so-called inappropriate norm-­ deviating behaviour, which was already constitutive for comic characters in Mikos (2008) and Schramm (2012) above, or for the use of dramatic irony through image editing). Knop (2007) examined 129 comedy series broadcasts of a television programme week in 2002, whereby the selection was determined by the classifications of the programme magazines TV-Today, TV Movie and TV Spielfilm as comedy offerings, i.e. including both fictional and show formats (cf. Knop 2007, p. 109 f.). The author examined not only the subject matter and themes of the humour programmes, but also techniques of humour, which she divides into more than 20 different categories. For example, she distinguishes between verbal techniques, such as speaking style and voice, and visual comedy, such as facial expressions, gestures and clothing, as well as techniques that can be detected both verbally and visually, such as imitations and exaggerations (cf. Knop 2007, p. 139 ff.). In comparison to the 111 humorous programmes determined by Lambernd (1998) for the year 1996, the author notes an increase to 160 humorous programmes for the period under investigation (cf. Knop 2007, p. 111 f.). Thematically, the author diagnoses tendentious (hostile or sexually connoted) and harmless humour in equal parts and recognises more sexual humour in shows than in comedy series (cf. on this and in the following Knop 2007, p. 144 ff.). Social topics dominate the serial formats, especially sitcoms. Politics, economics and culture, on the other hand, do not represent thematic focal points. The author states that the topics of television humour are related to everyday life, such as sexuality, partnership conflicts, work and family. According to the author, men are to a greater extent actors and producers of humour, but also targets, especially celebrities and politicians. The author recognizes the breaking of taboos when foreign, religious, sick, old or homosexual people are subjected to ridicule and comedy, but she notes that in not a single programme were jokes made about disabled people. Technically, verbal means of generating comedy dominate, only one third of “comic highlights”

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

97

are generated by visual humour techniques. Here, facial expressions and gestures are predominant compared to less comical disguises, which, however, occur more frequently in shows than in serial formats (cf. Knop 2007, p. 146). Verbally, a gag is implemented on average every 24  seconds, visually only every minute. Jokes play a minimal role in the verbal performance, but much dialogue is humorously enhanced by speaking style and dialects. Despite its unpopularity, viewers of series are treated to canned laughter every 16 seconds on average, while in shows it happens every 33 seconds. As a separator and rite of passage, music is used on average every two and a half minutes. In addition to thematic and content-related criteria, Knop ultimately distinguishes between more than 20 different techniques and forms of humour in the programmes studied and thus, similar to Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004), establishes a category system for recording media humour (cf. Knop 2007, pp. 139–142). She also makes statements about the density of humour, which should also be taken into account in a similar way in her own film analyses, because in this way films can be29 compared well with each other. In 2012, Kümpel et al. (2014) selected 223 humour-relevant YouTube videos from 1099 video postings that dealt with the 16 members of the federal cabinet and the six top representatives of the opposition parties. Following the studies presented above by Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004) and Knop (2007), among others, they also set up a category system for recording humour, which contains 29 components (cf. Kümpel et al. 2014, p. 225 f.). The authors distinguish, for example, between to the tendency of humour (hostile, sexual, harmless), the audiovisual type of humour production (verbal, visual, tonal) and its content-related characteristics (e.g. appearance, age, political action). Predominant for the clips are irony/sarcasm and parody/satire, which is not surprising since 73% of the Internet clips are excerpts from TV comedy shows, first and foremost the “heute-show” and “extra 3” (cf. Kümpel et al. 2014, p. 228). In the clips, 94% of the humour is of a non-physical nature, because 60% of the focus is on the concrete political actions of the persons and not so much on personal characteristics such as voice or appearance (cf. Kümpel et al. 2014, pp. 227 and 229). The authors conclude from this that a not inconsiderable amount of political contextual knowledge is a prerequisite for recipients to understand the clips, although they are sceptical about a possible learning effect from them, as central political topics and problematic situations are hardly dealt with and therefore a profound communication of political issues cannot be expected (cf. Kümpel et al. 2014, p. 230). 29

 Cf. i.a. Table 4.18, p. 353.

98

3  Humor in Science and Practice

Even if the authors avoid a humour-theoretical discussion, their study is further evidence for the applicability of categorical procedures for logging media humour. Categorical humour research, like other approaches in media studies, is therefore based on the “classical” philosophical theories of humour. However, forms of media humour are spread out in such a way that they can be examined quantitatively and assigned to specific age and target groups. This approach is helpful for our own analysis of children’s films, since it makes it possible, among other things, to make children’s humour preferences visible according to categories and to examine the density of humour offered by films.

3.3.3.5 Recipient Research Various studies focus on the characterisation and preferences of recipients and approach humour in audiovisual media from this perspective. Corresponding analyses therefore primarily take the viewer as the yardstick for the definition of humour. For example, Lambernd (1998) interviewed a total of 160 people in 1995 and 1996, 80 of whom were from the studio audience of the RTL Saturday night show and 80 others from a control group, in order to make clear humour preferences of the viewers, whereby the male-female ratio was roughly balanced (cf. Lambernd 1998, p. 177 ff.). More than half of the respondents were between 14 and 19 years old (55%), about 40% were between 19 and 29 years old and the rest were older than 30 (cf. Lambernd 1998, p. 177). The majority of the interviewees, for example, generally missed humour programmes that met an individual quality standard (cf. Lambernd 1998, p. 200). Two thirds were of the opinion that humour is subject to fashionable influences and thus, according to Lambernd, to constant change (cf. Lambernd 1998, p. 187 f.). Breaking taboos is polarizing in its acceptance, general breaking of taboos in humour shows is rejected, especially for certain groups of people such as the disabled, the sick, victims of war and accidents. In individual cases, it must be examined to what extent the breaking of a taboo can be justified (cf. Lambernd 1998, p. 196). From the findings of his interviews, the author finally develops the seven “A’s of humorous attractiveness” (cf. on this and in the following Lambernd 1998, p. 232 f.): According to the author, authenticity is reflected above all in the humorous treatment of real events. The topicality (“Aktualität”) of the themes reinforces this effect by referring back to everyday events, which may have been experienced by the media or by the author himself. For the author, absurdity and aggressiveness are characteristics of humorous representations of the Nineties of the last millennium, which are, however, uncertain in their continued existence. Absurd are humorous performances in the absence of a context of meaning, aggression can arise from taboo violations, some of which can be rejected by the audience. Agglomeration

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

99

of humorous potentials, i.e. the concentrated encounter of ideas with humorous intent, is seen by the author as necessary in order to be able to offer the audience the required variety through diversity, alternance. After all, it is also ambiguities and uncertainties that make “humorous communications” (Lambernd 1998, p. 233) surprising. Thus, the author concludes from the results of his survey of recipients an approximation of minimum requirements for media humour content, here especially for television. Lambernd’s findings were confirmed two years later by Schumacher/Hammer (2000). The authors investigated the range of humorous TV programmes in Germany on behalf of ZDF with the aim of filtering out viewer expectations placed on comedy and sitcom programmes. Common to the formats studied is the structure of a live or musical number show, usually performed in front of a studio audience. Sixty-three people between the ages of 25 and 40 were interviewed about 20 selected humour programmes. According to the survey, viewers expect the shows to relate to everyday life in a way that enables them to identify with them. Wordplay, variety and tempo are just as important as an emotional relationship to the actors, which comes about through dialects or revealed emotions (cf. on this and in the following Schumacher/Hammer 2000, p. 571). The representation should be topical in relation to everyday problems but also in relation to daily political events. Irony, sarcasm and breaking taboos are allowed, but low-level, primitive vulgarities at the expense of others, bad performances and old jokes are rejected. The age of the actors also plays a role. Canned laughter is predominantly rejected. According to the authors, it is above all the type of humour and its themes and not so much a particular format that is decisive for viewers. The authors note a low supply of such formats for the public broadcasters compared to the private broadcasters. The humour of the public broadcasters is also described as traditional, conservative and well-behaved (cf. Schumacher/Hammer 2000, p. 572). Similar to Lambernd (1998) and referring to his results, the authors thus analyse an expectation of the viewers and derive preferences for humorous content. Gerhards/Klingler (2003) also refer to Lambernd and supplement his results with a milieu-related study in which they examined the humour offered by 20 stations during a programme week in October 2001 and compiled various ranking lists according to age, gender and education; a total of 110 programme hours and 76 titles with humorous content were included in the study (cf. Gerhards/Klingler 2003, p. 95 f.). On the basis of GfK research data, the authors distinguish, among other things, between “modern performers” (core age under 30, high level of education, many schoolchildren and students), “traditional performers” (core age 65 and older, high proportion of women, predominantly secondary school graduates)

100

3  Humor in Science and Practice

and “hedonists” (core age under 30 but also up to 50, white-collar workers, blue-­ collar workers, schoolchildren and students with an extremely educated need for entertainment) (cf. Gerhards/Klingler 2003, p. 107 ff.). Whereas among modern performers, for example, Stefan Raab’s “TV total” is represented three times in the top ten, it does not appear at all among the traditionally rooted. On the other hand, programmes such as “Scheibenwischer” are to be found here, which in turn are not to be found in the first ten places among the hedonists, who, in contrast to the first two groups mentioned, prefer the programme “Sabrina the Teenage Witch” (cf. Gerhards/Klingler 2003, p. 109 f.). The authors go on to confirm the seven A’s of Lambernd (1998), but also draw attention to the identification with the entertainers, as they are a promise of a certain quality or certain type of humour (cf. Gerhards/ Klinger 2003, p. 111 f.). The studies by the three authors mentioned above, Lambernd (1998), Schumacher/Hammer (2000) and Gerhards/Klingler (2003), thus explore the question of what ultimately makes a humour programme attractive to viewers. In doing so, the seven A’s mentioned by Lambernd are adopted in the other two studies. Knop (2007), who categorically records humour among other things (see above), has also conducted both recipient surveys and milieu classifications of viewers of the two show formats of entertainers Stefan Raab (TV total) and Harald Schmidt (The Harald Schmidt Show). In random samples, she previously examined 57 broadcasts of the two for the years 1995–2003 (Schmidt) and 1999–2003 (Raab) (cf. Knop 2007, p.  195) and points to the different means of generating comedy. In both formats, according to the author, an intermedial reference structure is used to exploit performative comic effects. Schmidt uses press reports, while Raab uses excerpts from television programmes (cf. on this and in the following Knop 2007, p. 311 f.). The author describes Raab’s humour as tendentious; comical expectations arise from the breaks in expectations regarding polite interpersonal interaction. In Schmidt’s case, aggressive attacks are reduced by the fact that he only targets celebrities who act more confidently in the media. Thematically, she locates Schmidt’s selection in high culture, while Raab prefers popular culture, which requires less prior knowledge for his viewers than for recipients of the Schmidt show, who also have to resolve the double and triple ciphers, i.e. the ambiguities of the ultimate meaning of a humorous comment. Accordingly, viewers from the upper middle class with a modern orientation are more likely to watch Schmidt’s show, while Raab’s viewership is mainly from the middle and lower middle class with a modern orientation (cf. Knop 2007, pp. 162, 184). Ultimately, the author sees television humour as a form of need satisfaction through the “acting out of aggressiveness in a socially approved form” (Knop 2007, p. 315).

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

101

The author flanks this analysis with the results of her survey of recipients. By means of questionnaires, the answers of 88 Raab fans and 96 Schmidt fans were evaluated (cf. Knop 2007, p. 261). About 70% of the respondents were between 13 and 29  years old, the male-female ratio was roughly balanced (cf. Knop 2007, p. 265 f.). The respondents were generally satisfied with the quantity of humour programmes on television, but stated that their personal humour was not always served by these programmes (cf. on this and in the following Knop 2007, p. 304 ff.). They described the presenter Schmidt as intelligent, quick-witted and intellectual, while Raab was described as relaxed, cheeky, quick-witted and spontaneous. Schmidt’s comedy is described as topical, political and intelligent, Raab’s as biting, hurtful and taboo-breaking. Almost half of the Schmidt recipients surveyed spoke out against limits and taboos for humour, while only a third of Raab fans approved of comedy without boundaries. However, the majority of both groups were in favour of excluding war and accident victims, disabled people and the subject complexes of the Holocaust and violence against women from jokes. Politicians, homosexual people, foreign citizens and church members are not exempted. The author points out that the criticisms of xenophobia and discrimination sometimes made by the press against the programmes are not shared by the interviewees. Knop sees her content and categorically designed comedy analysis (see above p. 143) is ultimately confirmed by the evaluation of the recipient study (cf. Knop 2007, p. 306). Knop thus approaches the phenomenon of humour analytically in at least two ways: firstly, through a categorical investigation of the humour on offer on television as a whole, and secondly through a specific analysis of the two broadcast formats TV-Total and the Harald Schmidt Show, supplemented by audience surveys. Prommer (2012) also deals with the two show formats of Schmidt and Raab. She tries to make humour taste measurable by assigning it to social lifestyles and forms. Through a representative survey, statements from 300 adolescents and young adults from Berlin aged 14–29 were collected in 2003. The distribution according to age, gender and education level is said to have been the same in the educated age groups (cf. Prommer 2012, p. 183 ff.). The author summarizes: The Harald Schmidt Show is funny for older and more educated people who read a lot of newspapers, like to go to pubs and are politically interested. People who like Schmidt have a liberal and left-wing set of values. They favor a society where many nations live and minorities and the disadvantaged are supported by the state. They consider homosexuality normal and have little concern for the future. Central to the Schmidt affinity is living and acting on one’s own responsibility. “TV total” is funny

102

3  Humor in Science and Practice

to younger, less educated respondents who want above all to have fun. Those aligned with “TV total” are more right-wing politically and have a conservative worldview. They are xenophobic and think less of the welfare state. At the same time, they are also a little naïve about the opportunities for advancement within society, which they think is good. (Prommer 2012, p. 236)

For the author, it has been proven that “the social situation has an influence on different aspects of lifestyle and lifestyle has a clear influence on taste in humour” (Prommer 2012, p. 263). Television taste related to comedy is therefore explained to her from a social and lifestyle perspective (cf. Prommer 2012, p. 264), and she considers it possible that the television taste thus determined also explains the use of other television content (cf. Prommer 2012, p. 252). However, the author admits that the income of the respondents was not taken into account and that it also cannot be adequately explained why 62% of those with an affinity for Raab are women (cf. Prommer 2012, p. 250 f.). An analysis that lets the recipients decide on the existence of humour would therefore use less humour-theoretical parameters or examine film-specific forms of expression, e.g. of a visual kind, but would focus solely or at least increasingly on the statements of the viewers. In this study this is taken into account through group discussions, because in this way humour preferences can be articulated by children themselves (cf. below Sect. 4.2.1, p. 152).

3.3.3.6 Monothematic and Historical Analyses Individual aspects of humour in audiovisual media are illuminated in a number of studies. Humour-theoretical considerations play a role only to a limited extent, but certain insights are not found for this purpose in the works already presented, which are certainly suitable for gaining a new facet from media humour and enriching an analysis. In their introduction to the anthology “Filmgenres. Komödie” (Film Genres. Comedy), Heller/Steinle offer a very selective view of different humour theories, in which they only allow Bergson and Freud to have their say. For them, the focus is on the moment of perception: It is not so much what we see, but how we perceive it that constitutes the effects of the comic in film… Film comedy is, in the truest sense of the word, a matter of the shot: the shot in the technical sense, namely the way in which the camera view allows us to perceive people, objects and events. The view through the lens and the perception inscribed in it are the basis for the emergence and generation of comic effects. (Heller/ Steinle 2005, p. 13 f.)

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

103

Ultimately, comedy cannot be defined in a timeless way for its authors, as it is dependent on time and context, which makes it difficult to determine the canon of films that belong to the genre of comedy and makes overlaps with other genres unavoidable (cf. Heller/Steinle 2005, p. 20). Historically, the authors identify various stages in the development of the comedy genre, starting with the early “cinema of attractions” and the first cinema screening by the Lumiére brothers in 1895, in which a blocked water hose inundates the gardener while it is being checked (a plot said to have been based on a comic strip), through the first uses of cinematic tricks such as multiple exposures (people disappear or suddenly appear) and stop-motion trickery. For the authors, the first comedies stand for transgressing boundaries and violating norms. Order is upset, destruction is staged and authority figures are exposed to ridicule (cf. on this and in the following Heller/Steinle 2005, p.  16  ff.). Wordplay became possible through the talkies, and the authors thus recognize a shift from the comic portrayal of types (e.g. of a Charlie Chaplin) to a portrayal of persons, which is made more precise in the post-war period by actors such as Jaques Tati, Jerry Lewis and Woody Allen, who usually act in the personal union of author, protagonist and director, so that subject and environment remain in an “unstable limbo.” For the authors, the originally liberating laughter becomes an oppressive30 one through this kind of representation.Heller/Steinle note the emergence in the late Sixties of an “anarchic media carnival” through groups such as Monthy Python and subsequently through Mel Brooks and productions by Zucker-Abrahams: “The self-referential and self-­ parodic play with its own media history becomes an unmistakable signature of film comedy in the last decades of the twentieth century” (Heller/Steinle 2005, p. 20). However, in addition to their historical outline of the genre, they point to a noteworthy aspect, namely the subjectivity of (filmic) comedy on the one hand, the “setting” (cf. Heller/Steinle 2005, p. 13 f.), and the objectively ascertainable use of filmic technical means on the other. For this thesis, the use of film techniques will also be examined within a framework that is economically responsible for the research. It will therefore be necessary to ask which film techniques are suitable for implementing comedy in the medium and how their use can be recorded. Bleicher (2003) also approaches the phenomenon of media humour historically, but for television, in her examination of its history. She recognises in the beginnings of television in the 1950s a strategy to make the medium of television suit Similarly, Lindvall (2014, p.  526) historicises film comedies with a particular focus on American film: “The Vietnam War also darkened the way Americans laughed, moving from the silly to the cynical, from the lighthearted to protests.” 30

104

3  Humor in Science and Practice

able for the masses through humour, in that, for example, bourgeois cultural offerings such as theatre performances could now also be experienced on television through broadcasts. In this context, the author explicitly mentions the tabloid comedies of the Millowitsch Theatr in Cologne and the Ohnsorg Theatre in Hamburg, but also the transfer of caricatures to television and humorously designed cooking shows (cf. Bleicher 2003, p. 76 f.). For the author, live broadcasts of cabaret shows, but also of satirical series produced especially for television and, above all, the broadcasting of American comedy series such as “Laurel and Hardy” characterise the further development in the 1960s, in which the public broadcasters ARD and the newly founded ZDF also entered into competition with each other in the entertainment sector. For Bleicher, the 1970s were characterised, on the one hand, by a progressive Americanisation through sitcom formats, but also by new anarchic humour in the form of entertainers such as Insterburg & Co, Otto, Gebrüder Blattschuss, Dieter Hallervorden, and Mike Krüger. The author ascribes timeless humour to the sketches of Vicco von Bülow, alias Loriot, in which – mostly in a bourgeois milieu – “the pitfalls of everyday life” are dealt with (cf. Bleicher 2003, p. 79).As a result of competition from new commercial stations (e.g. RTL, Sat1) in the E ­ ighties, the author notes a decline in the standard of the programmes, which she identifies above all in formats based on Schadenfreude such as “Pleiten, Pech und Pannen.” The author identifies self-referential comedy through the “destruction” of established forms of television entertainment in the Nineties by entertainers such as Harald Schmidt, when, for example, in programmes such as “MAZ ab,” familiar forms of game shows are broken through by the arbitrariness and ironic comments of the game moderator. Media-critical and at the same time humorous shows are also established which take up political topics such as “ZAK” with Friedrich Küppersbusch or also by a politically opposing pair of presenters in the ZDF magazine “Frontal.” (cf. Bleicher 2003, pp. 80–81). With the start of the programme “RTL Samstag Nacht” in 1993, which took over large parts of the successful American format “Saturday Night Live”, Bleicher sees a caesura: The change of term from cabaret to comedy has been accompanied by a change in humour structure. Instead of the traditionally proven joke structure, which relies on a final punchline, now deliberately meaningless shenanigans and jokes with a series of punchlines, but without the climax of the closing punchline, are in demand. (Bleicher 2003, p. 82)

In the “Harald Schmidt Show” and Stefan Raab’s shows, breaking taboos is a new source of humour for Bleicher. Excerpts from other shows become involuntary self-parodies, direct insults and negative popular clichés become the subject of TV

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

105

comedy. At the same time, according to the author’s observations, a return to traditional forms of humour is taking place when, through cabaret forms or the appearance of comedy duos, television is no longer dependent on imports from cabarets, but now functions as a stage for comedy itself (cf. Bleicher 2003, p. 83 f.). Bleicher thus sees the history of television comedy as a development determined by strategies that, on the one hand, offer the viewer the possibility of being able to laugh at someone, but also to break through the thought taboos set by the media themselves, thus freeing them not only from an external but also from an internal censor (cf. Bleicher 2003, p. 84). Bleicher’s historical review ultimately interweaves considerations of programme strategy with humour theories such as the superiority theory, but also the relief theory. What is interesting about this approach is that it sees certain forms of humour as dependent on cultural-historical and economic contexts, as was also noted earlier in the theories of humour, for example for the Middle Ages and the way the Church dealt with humour. Applied analogously, one could ask whether certain types of humour in children’s films allow conclusions to be drawn about possible adult (pedagogical) concepts. A completely different approach is taken by Brock (2007), who asks about the function of television parodies. Based on degradation theory, Brock (2007) attempts to explain the potential enlightening effect of television parodies. For this, he examines short episodes of various English sitcoms and shows such as “Blackadder” (1983, 1986–1989), “Red Dwarf” (1988–1999) and “Shooting Stars” (1993–1997, 2002). He concludes that a media-critical effect of television comedies comes about primarily through a self-aggression of the viewer (cf. Brock 2007, p. 60): “The comedian needs the recipient to actually bring a communicative aggression to the target.” The spectator who, for example, has to admit to an initial false contextualisation “thus has to state or perform a mildly face-threatening act against his own self-image as an alert, intelligent communicative participant” (Brock 2007, p. 59). For Brock, a false contextualisation is laid out, for example, in a sequence of the series Blackadder, in which an initial insult to the English queen by the main character Blackadder turns out in the following to be a quotation that was only communicated to the queen (cf. Brock 2007, p. 51 f.). Brock assumes a similar construction for the German TV show “TV total” with Stefan Raab, in which, among other things, excerpts from other shows are aggressively framed and commented on, namely “a metacommunicative alliance between viewers and comedian” through which “the visible patterns of the entertainment show and its participants become the object of disparagement comedy” (Brock 2007, p. 64).

106

3  Humor in Science and Practice

Brock himself admits that his attempt leaves various aspects open and thus hopes to have made clear the need for research (cf. Brock 2007, p. 64). The work of Vogt (2007) in the same publication, in which he examines the staging techniques of the two entertainers Stefan Raab and Harald Schmidt in their comedy shows “TV total” and the “Harald Schmidt Show,” is an enrichment and thus provides a different perspective on the phenomenon of humour from a media studies perspective. The study is particularly noteworthy in terms of the need it demonstrates to supplement previous theories of humour. Vogt (2007) rightly notes that: A glance over the relevant publications on the joke shows that the performative aspect is not considered at all: neither with the older ones (Freud and Bergson) nor with the younger ones (Marfurt and Berger) does the interactive staging of the text play a role, for even the joke, like the punchline, requires the reaction of the participants. It is part of the general experience of life that there are good and bad joke tellers. (Vogt 2007, p. 142)

In the Anglo-American literature, however, Charney (2005/1987) already points to this aspect: It is not enough just to speak lines; pace, tempo, emphasis, and an intuitive gasp of movement are needed to make the lines come alive. For the joke-teller, it is essential to master the audience. (Charney 2005/1987, p. 45)

Vogt (2007) examines the way in which the two entertainers Raab and Schmidt stage their punch lines in terms of language and staging. He classifies the two broadcast formats in the genre of comedy shows, for which it is determinative that they are usually recorded live and are intended to make both the studio audience and the viewers at the television sets laugh (cf. Vogt 2007, p. 129). For this genre, Vogt notes a framework: Anyone who watches a programme of this genre knows what to expect: for the duration of the broadcast, the appropriation instruction that Brock has described as the maxim of comedy applies: “Interpret what you receive as funny” (Brock 1996, 43). (Vogt 2007, p. 130)

Within this general framing, Vogt notes others that make up the techniques of punchline production used by the two entertainers. While Raab provides a framing by playing in excerpts from other shows, which he contrasts with his remarks, for Schmidt it is above all riddles, polysemy, allusions and the use of national stereotypes that make the latter’s textual repertoire appear more diverse to him (cf. Vogt

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

107

2007, pp. 132 f.). For both showmasters it is true that they arouse an expectation in the audience, which they then “steer in another direction with the help of an incongruent element… In a sequential view, the punchline appears as a linguistically (or mimically, gesturally) designed surprising, incongruent breaking of one established frame by another, which is followed by laughter from the audience” (Vogt 2007, p. 134). For the author, punchlines have a prelude in which the frame is established and evaluated and which is concluded by the pre-punchline. The post-run then consists of the collective laughter of the audience. Raab thus generalises the accidental, while Schmidt satirises the published image of his protagonists (cf. Vogt 2007, p. 134). The author understands staging as “… the totality of different means whose joint use constitutes a performance on the levels of scenery, movements, voice and text” (Vogt 2007 p. 134 f.).31 Referring to the staging techniques of the two entertainers Raab and Schmidt, Vogt states that both use prosodic and non-verbal means to convey punchlines. Speech-accompanying movements, such as Schmidt’s hand and arm movements or Raab’s shifting of the body axis, mark the end of the punch line preparation, the punchline prae. In this way, Raab indicates that the introduction of an excerpt is imminent, and Schmidt indicates the resolution of a situation through gestures that come to a standstill and increased speech tempo. In addition, words important for framing would be emphasised individually by accent, short hand movements or a raised eyebrow (cf. Vogt 2007, p. 141). Vogt points to different “post-run stagings” by the two showmasters. Thus, into the laughter of the audience, a new topic is prepared by Raab handling paper behind his table or shifting his body axis again, while Schmidt, standing freely in front of the audience at the beginning of the show, variably thematises his own staging, for example when he moves on to the next topic with mimetic interludes. Vogt comments dryly on this difference in a footnote: “While Schmidt’s presentation is based on training as an actor, Raab is self-taught  – he can look back on training as a butcher” (Vogt 2007, p. 142). Even though the author does not deal with theories of humour, his investigation makes it clear that a medially staged comic representation is primarily supported

 Fischer-Lichte (1998), to whom Vogt refers, defines staging itself as follows: “As an aesthetic and at the same time anthropological category, the concept of staging aims at creative processes in which something is designed and made to appear – at processes which relate the imaginary, the fictive and the real (empirical) to each other in a specific way” (Fischer-Lichte 1998, p. 88). 31

108

3  Humor in Science and Practice

by performative means. In his own study, therefore, one feature of cinematic humour to be analysed is the acting (cf. Sect. 4.4.4, “Acting Guide (i)”, p. 250). Laineste (2013) opens up a thematically completely different perspective on humour. In her study, she focuses on failed humour on the Internet and also offers a critical media-specific examination of existing humour theories. She examined a total of 18,382 comments from an Estonian news website (www.delfi.ee) between 2000 and 2007, where comments can be posted without registration or log-in (cf. Laineste 2013, p.  34  f.). According to the author, this news website is the least censored in Estonia, which is why it is also called “‘the toilet wall’ of Estonian Internet” (cf. Laineste 2013, p. 35). The focus of the research was the relationship between (failed) humour of comments and aggression. The latter, although not dominant, are in general constantly present for the Internet and computer-mediated communication, accounting for between 3% and 20% of its content, related to online comments and social networks (cf. below and with further evidence Laineste 2013, pp. 30–31). Online aggression, for the author, occurs primarily in the form of “flaming” and can be anything from rudeness and swearing to exclamations and superlatives; ultimately any negative and anti-social behaviour through words. The author points out that unlike real life, the Internet lacks the possibility to express oneself through body language and this is one reason, besides, among others, the anonymity of the net, that explains the increasing number of aggressive online comments. The author reproaches existing theories of humour for not dealing with the opposite of their investigation, namely the question of what is bad or failed humour, although it is the latter that makes it possible to understand the former in the first place (cf. for this and in the following Laineste 2013, pp. 33–34). According to the author, failed humour usually occurs in connection with anger or biting comments. In order to be able to understand humour at all, three prerequisites must then be fulfilled: the recognition, the understanding and the appreciation of humour. Since the Internet now has a much greater reach across the most diverse cultural circles and thus more different recipients can be reached than is possible through expression in normal life, complications arise at these three precondition levels, which are intensified by anonymity and disinhibitions and can lead to the failure of humour. The author describes a typical aggressive course of discussion on the website studied in the following three steps: First, a humorous or neutral comment is made on a topic. In the following, a discussion unfolds, which finally leads to an aggressive final sequence (cf. Laineste 2013, p. 38). Reasons for an increasingly aggressive or indifferent course of discussion can be misunderstandings that relate to small details (cf. on this and in the following Laineste 2013, pp. 42–43). The stylistic and human manners facilitate such misunderstandings because, according to

3.3  Humour in Research Practice

109

the author, unlike real life, Internet comments lack opening sequences that announce humorous content. Instead, there is a permanent competition for the last word, the wittiest and most quick-witted comment. Unfortunately, the author presents only two examples, one of which will be reproduced here in abbreviated form, representing a rather mild, if increasingly aggressive, course of discussion. The two commenters had previously vented about local politics: “Zebra to Mmanson: I don’t even doubt that your IQ is high. Mmanson: I know where you live! Zebra: Then come visit me someday. Mmanson: Ok, I’ll come, even if I don’t want to… Zebra: Why not? Are you afraid? Don’t be, abu. I don’t eat children. (Reps: Külalistele vaeseid ei näidata 2005)” (Laineste 2013, p. 40)

For Laineste (2013), the Internet is certainly not a place of interpersonal warmth. According to the author, Internet users are not motivated to be socially sensitive, if only because the connection between them is rather loose and arbitrary. In the end, she sums up her observations as follows: The ‘game’ of making the wittiest remark in itself seems to reward Internet commentators … It can be said that Internet humour is an expression or display of individuality and personal wit, and less, at least in the material used for this study, an indication of closeness and solidarity… (Laineste 2013, p. 42)

It is revealing that Laineste (2013) derives from her observations a direct rejection of the aggression theory, according to which aggression is the basis of all humour. In fact, for her study, the author can state that humour and aggression are mutually exclusive: We can say that some forms of humour can serve aggressive intent, but only to a certain degree… when discussion gets heated and commentators start attacking each other because of their identity or beliefs, humour (including sarcasm and irony) disappear from their comments. (Laineste 2013, p. 39)

The conclusion for the author is that humour and also its playful forms such as comparisons, metaphors and exaggerations are unsuitable for expressing anger (cf. Laineste 2013, p. 39). The results lend support to those studies that claim that humour is not a form of aggression: when humour is present, direct and targeted aggression does not occur, and vice versa. (Laineste 2013, p. 41)

110

3  Humor in Science and Practice

In her study, the author thus presents, on the one hand, reasons for aggressive discussion processes on the Internet that stem32 from unsuccessful humour. At the same time, however, she makes reference to a theory of humour according to which aggression is the defining characteristic of human humour, and can deny the applicability of this theory in the context of her study (cf. Laineste 2013, pp. 39, 41). She can thus deduce that the new medium of the Internet and its specific courses of discussion, which differ from those of everyday life, also lead to new forms of ­interaction and understanding (and misunderstandings) and thus also to a refutation of a common theory of humour.33 Monothematic approaches to analysis thus partly adopt classical philosophical theories of humour, but expand the range of expressions of humour to include other defining characteristics, such as the cultural-historical context (Bleicher 2003), performative aspects (Vogt 2007) and the study of failed humour (Laineste 2013). An analysis that followed these criteria would thus focus primarily on the cultural-­ historical context in which a media content is presented or on the type of performance or on the delimitation of humour by its opposite, failed humour. For our own work, both in the group discussions and in the children’s film analyses, partial aspects may be worth considering and will be discussed later, such as the inclusion of performative elements or the pointing out of unsuccessful humour (cf. inter alia Sects. 4.2.6, p. 167 and 4.4.4, p. 232).

3.4 Everyday and Television Humour of Children Children laugh at different things than adults, sometimes more often. These are everyday observations that everyone can probably confirm. But what are the specific characteristics of children’s humour? What groups according to age can be formed? What is the function of humour in children and what insights can be drawn from this against the background of the humour theorems presented and socio-­ cultural research? Do findings from research on children’s everyday and television humour complement those from other disciplines? These questions will be answered below by means of an annotated overview of the current state of research and, together with the findings of the preceding chapters, will determine the components of the author’s own analytical work.  As seen, Pennington/Hall (2014, p. 16) make quite different observations, namely that even failed humour leads to a positive evaluation about the humour producer, see above p. 134. 33  Grimm (2014), too, sees the related superiority theory as refuted (see above Sect. 3.3.1, p. 58). 32

3.4  Everyday and Television Humour of Children

111

3.4.1 Everyday Humour of Children in Research The scientific examination of children’s humour is a relatively new field of research in the twentieth century. Starting from the much-cited classics Wolfenstein (1954) and McGhee (1979), the aim here is to outline the range of the state of research on children’s humour as far as it is relevant for our own group discussions and film analyses, which is particularly the case for humour preferences dependent on age and gender. The American psychoanalyst Martha Wolfenstein studied white children between the ages of 4–17 at private schools in New York as early as the 1950s. She was able to prove that children go through certain stages of joke communication depending on their age. For example, at the age of six children begin to tell each other so-called riddle jokes (Wolfenstein 1954, p.  16), which usually consist of only two parts, namely question and answer: “What has four legs and can’t walk? A table” (Wolfenstein 1954, p. 110). When interviewed, the children, who were about 6 years old, said they had not known such standard jokes a year earlier. Wolfenstein now examined the frequency of riddle jokes told by children and found that this decreased to half between the ages of seven and ten, before falling to only one-third from the age of 11 and being replaced by the increased telling of anecdotes (Wolfenstein 1954, p. 94). In addition to these age-specific phenomena, however, Wolfenstein also draws attention to children’s joking activities as a coping tool, for example when discussing their own height in comparison to that of adults, which is subsequently exaggerated and ridiculed (Wolfenstein 1954, pp. 37–45). Gender identity and the question of whether one is liked or not is negotiated in early jokes and deliberate misnomers (a boy is called a girl or called by a girl’s name and vice versa, cf. Wolfenstein 1954, p. 19). Psychologist Paul McGhee (1971) also distinguishes age stages of humour understanding and use. Up to the age of about 6 years children enjoy the simple pleasure of incongruities, while with phase overlap from the age of 7 years onwards the fun of resolved incongruities is added, in which unexpected sense appears (McGhee 1971, p. 135). Plain incongruence is present, for example, when parents crawl on the floor like children, making their own children laugh. According to McGhee (1976), referring to Piaget, cognition development is crucial to the enjoyment of resolved incongruity and more complex jokes. Thus, he demonstrated that children who had just internalised the laws of set theory appeared to have more fun with the following joke than those who had known this subject area for some time: A man comes into the pizzeria and orders a pizza. The waiter asks, “Do you want me to cut it into eight pieces or six?” Says the man, “Oh. Six, please. I’ll never get through

112

3  Humor in Science and Practice

eight” (author’s translation after McGhee 1976, pp.  422, 425) [original English should be inserted here]. This cognitive developmental theory of the understanding of humour builds significantly on Piaget’s (1948/1983) statements on child development. Among other things, he examined children’s compliance with rules when playing marbles, as an activity that is largely passed on from children to children without adults intervening. He distinguished four developmental stages, namely mere motor play up to the age of 2, as well as playing alone between the ages of 3 and 6 (Piaget 1948/1983, p. 65 ff.), playing with others from about the age of 7 while observing consensual rules of play (Piaget 1948/1983, p. 82 ff.), and finally the critical redefinition and negotiation of rules of play (Piaget 1948/1983, p. 90). McGhee (1979) applied Piaget’s developmental stages in children analogously to the understanding of humour, just as other disciplines make use of Piaget’s list, such as Sturm/Jörg (1980) for the successful communication of tasks and solutions to 5–7 year olds in the form of stories on radio and television, which succeeds if “each action follows logically from the previous one” (Sturm/Jörg 1980, p. 61). Charlton (2004) also points to the age-dependent ability of children to put themselves in the shoes of other real or fictional characters and to take on their perspective, which is regularly only possible from around the age of 10 (cf. Charlton 2004, p. 134). McGhee’s (1979) four sliding stages of humour development correspond largely with those developed by Piaget for children up to around the age of 7 (Table 3.1). The direct link McGhee establishes between cognitive development and the understanding and practice of humour is also reflected, with reversed signs, at older ages. Based on the finding that cognitive abilities regress with increasing age, it can subsequently be observed that the ability to retain and remember jokes regresses, while the appreciation of jokes increases again (McGhee 1979, pp. 160 f.). McGhee (1980) also refers in his research to the correlation of creativity and the ability to receive and produce humour. He defines creativity as the ability to develop a high number of associations to events or ideas, many of which are above average in their novelty (cf. McGhee 1980, p. 120). Summarising quite a few studies, he finds that in creative children the initiative for both behaviouristic and linguistic humour is higher than in less creative ones. The same applies to the reception, understanding and appreciation of humorous content produced by others (cf. McGhee 1980, p. 136). Contrary to the findings of McGhee (1979), who assumes a close connection between cognitive development and understanding of humour, Loizou (2005, p. 51), however, comes to the conclusion in the study of six 1–2 year olds (three girls, three boys) that precisely this level of development is not (only) a condition

3.4  Everyday and Television Humour of Children

113

Table 3.1  McGhee’s infantile stages of humour development, based on Piaget Piaget Sensorimotor development (0 – approx. 2 years) Gathering experience with senses and movements. Activity in response to stimuli Innate reflex mechanisms such as grasping, sucking, listening, looking, smiling, turning away or towards (cf. Piaget/Inhelder 1986, pp. 17–19). Repetition of actions such as grasping and shaking a rattle. Repeated looking at and thereby “taking in” (assimilation) of the environment. Goal-oriented execution of action patterns (e.g. pulling up a blanket on which a toy is lying) (Oerter/Montada 1998, p. 520 f.) Pre-operational, descriptive thinking (approx. 2–7 years) Childlike thinking is dominated by perception and not yet so much by logic. The child’s “egocentrism” prevents the acquisition of other perspectives and the assumption of roles, even in spatial terms. Different views of an object cannot be constructed; instead, one’s own view is presented as the sole one (Oerter/ Montada 1998, p. 524). A way to school, for example, can be walked alone, but cannot be reconstructed in a three-dimensional model (Piaget/ Inhelder 1986, p. 98). Transferring a liquid from one container to another, for example, means a change in the liquid for the child, because it now looks different. Moral thinking is oriented towards objective harm: The intentional breaking of a cup therefore takes second place to the unintentional breaking of ten cups (Oerter/Montada 1998, p. 526 f.)

McGhee Stage 1: Non-factual functionalisation (approx. up to the 2nd year) Up to about the 2nd year of life, children enjoy the incongruent use of objects (the picture of a toy is treated like the toy itself, a cooking spoon is used as a telephone receiver, etc.). The child’s laughter here reflects the fun of imaginative play. Linguistic expressions can – depending on the stage of development – accompany the action (cf. McGhee 1979, p. 66 f.)

Stage 2: Linguistic labelling of objects (approx. 2nd – 3rd year) Actions with or against objects are replaced by linguistic naming, comparisons, metaphors, playful name changes or deliberate misnomers of objects, people or animals. For example, a stone is called a dog, an absent playmate is greeted as if he were there, or a dog is called a cat. Intentional mislabeling is a humorous game once the correct label is internalised. At this stage, the exercise of incongruent naming also depends on how the environment (parents, siblings) reacts to it. In the positive case, the child will “produce” further humour. (McGhee 1979, pp. 68–72) Stage 3: Conceptual incongruence (approx. 3–6 years of age) Simple misnomers are supplemented by more complex misconceptions: “A 2-year-old finds it funny to call a ball an apple or a pumpkin, whereas a 3-year-old finds it funny if the ball has ears and a nose or says “ouch” when kicked” (McGhee 1979, p. 72). However, the fun of incongruity is usually a phenomenal one. A 3rd grade child may find the drawing of a bicycle with square wheels funny because it contradicts previous observations. However, he or she may have no idea what a ride on such a bicycle would feel like Nonsense words and rhymes often give rise to laughter (“itsy, bitsy, mitsy, pitsy”) because they also sound different from what the child has heard before (McGhee 1979, p. 74 f.)

(continued)

114

3  Humor in Science and Practice

Table 3.1 (continued) Piaget Stage of concrete operations (approx. 6–11/12 years) Multidimensional thinking, categorising (mum and dad are together: the parents), and the recognition of transformations becomes possible (it is recognised that when liquid is spilled it does not change, Piaget/Inhelder 1986, p. 102). Space, time and speed can be related to each other (Piaget/Inhelder 1986, p. 109) Stage of formal operations (approx. 11–15 years) Solving problems on a purely hypothetical level possible. Training of the ability to combine, possibility of linking ideas and statements (Piaget/Inhelder 1986, p. 132 f.)

McGhee Stage 4: Multiple meaning acquisition (from approx. 6/7 years) For McGhee, crucial for the humour development of the 4th stage is the recognition of multiple meanings. In the following joke, a 4th stage child recognizes the comedy-­inducing incongruity of a double meaning, whereas a 3rd stage child may know both meanings, but cannot consider them simultaneously: “Did you take a bath?” – “No, why? Are you missing one?” The egocentrism that prevented younger children from taking in other people’s perspectives now recedes into the background. While younger children may still appear cruel in their laughter because they cannot reflect the effects of their laughter on other people, a child of the 4th stage is increasingly only able to laugh at different people when they are out of earshot. This is accompanied by a change in gloating over misfortunes inflicted on one person by another. These are now found exhilarating only when they happen accidentally and unintentionally. To a certain extent, the altered humour preferences of the 4th stage also persist in adult age (McGhee 1979, pp. 78 f.)

Source: Own representation according to McGhee (1979, pp. 66–79), Piaget/Inhelder (1986, pp. 109, 132 f.) and Oerter/Montada 1998, pp. 520 f., 526 f.

for the understanding and production of humour in young children. Rather, knowledge of the expectations of caring adults is sufficient for children in this age group to evoke reactions from them through silliness and to take hold of a situation or a social relationship themselves in a spontaneous or reactive way (cf. Loizou 2005, pp. 50 f.). The author formulates this in her so-called “Empowerment Theory”, according to which humour is defined: … as the ability to empower oneself by playfully violating or appreciating the violation of someone’s expectations and responding through smiles and/or laughter. (Loizou 2005, p. 47)

However, according to the author, young children also produce humour by using funny gestures, postures, sounds, words, incongruous actions and unconventional use of materials (wearing a container like a hat, for example) to create absurd situations that deviate from the ordinary. These observations lead the author to the “Theory of the absurd” according to which humour is defined:

3.4  Everyday and Television Humour of Children

115

… as the ability of children to recognize or create absurd situations that are a mismatch from their world, and smile/or laugh about what they are experiencing which is out of the ordinary. (Loizou 2005, p. 47)

Both theories are ultimately outgrowths of the incongruence theory and question McGhee’s cognitive presuppositions, at least in part, because according to the author’s derivations, young children are very much capable of recognizing incongruities, even producing them themselves (cf. Loizou 2005, p. 51). Groch (1974) was one of the first to investigate how gender-specific humour behaviour differs among children. In a total of 42 hours of observation of kindergarten children aged 3–5 (16 boys and 14 girls), she came to the conclusion that girls predominantly used responsive humour, whereas boys used aggressive and hostile humour and also preferred this in cartoons and jokes (Groch 1974, p. 1101). Groch defined responsive humour as one that involved the recognition of funny or surprising incongruities, in which people stood out for amusing behaviour, wordplay was prominent, and animals, too, encouraged laughter, such as when a gerbil carried its baby in its mouth. In contrast, hostile humour was defined as a means of attacking or threatening others, making fun of them (such as through hurtful name-­calling), or rebelling against authority or socially accepted behaviour (Groch 1974, p. 1099). McGhee (1979) summarises gender studies according to which boys between the ages of 3 and 11 were more likely than girls to take the joking initiative, both verbally and nonverbally, with boys tending toward aggressively funny behaviour (see with further evidence: McGhee 1979, pp. 210–212).34 These findings support the results of Coser (1960/1996) presented above (see p. 95). Differences emerge, however, in the preference of joke victims. Whereas boys between three and four and a half years of age preferred the father as a victim of cartoons and jokes when choosing between girls and boys of the same age and adult parents, girls of the same age showed no preference regarding the mother or a daughter of the same age as a joke victim. Between the ages of four and a half and six, boys preferred both girls and mother and father as joke victims as opposed to boys/sons of the same age. Girls, on the other hand, did not find mothers funnier than daughters as joke victims or boy victims funnier than girls in any age group. Fathers were generally found funnier as joke victims than daughters and sons. McGhee sees a possible explanation for this phenomenon in the assumption that girls developed more slowly in their identification process than boys or that they experience conflict situations with parents later than boys (McGhee 1981, pp. 928, 930).  As the analysis of the group discussions will reveal, a change seems to be taking place here, at least for the number of words in the sample, cf. Sect. 4.2.7.4, p. 201. 34

116

3  Humor in Science and Practice

A study by Chapman/Hugh (1976), who examined the laughter of 100 7-yearold girls and boys in differently mixed gender groups, is revealing. According to this, girls seem to make the intensity of their reaction to a joke dependent on the gender composition of the group: Girls were more affected by the sex of their companion than were boys: girls laughed and smiled more in the presence of a boy than in the presence of a girl companion. Boys laughter and smiling were, on the other hand, relatively unaffected by the sex of their companion. (Chapman/Hugh 1976, p. 205)

It is interesting that the children reacted with more laughter to a silent animated film (Tom and Jerry) than to an animated film with sound (Cruise Cat). Here it was assumed that both films were equally cheerful (Chapman/Hugh 1976, pp. 200, 205). A different use of humour by boys and girls was also found by van Alphen (1996, 1984) when she investigated the speech behaviour of Dutch boys and girls aged 9 and 12 by means of a card game involving an adventurous obstacle course across an imaginary island. For 9-year-old girls, for example, she found a normal conversational volume, and for 12-year-olds a soft one, often held in whispers. For girls, there was little talking back, but more frequent laughter in the group. Boys, on the other hand, spoke in a loud voice, or repeated themselves to be heard. In the case of the 12-year-olds, they interrupted each other or contradicted others frequently. Interjections from others were passed over and macabre jokes were made. Boys laughed more often overall than girls, but then often alone, and more often tried to make others laugh. “Their laughter and jokes more often had an aggressive, hostile undertone” (van Alphen 1996, 1984, p. 224 f.). The aggressive defence of status and the formation of groups was also studied by Fine (1987) among American boys between the ages of 9 and 12. Leaders of a group in a sports team are, according to his observations, exempt from aggressive joking activities such as teasing and kidding, whereas lower-ranking members are often the target of ridicule (cf. Fine 1987, pp. 91, 107). Hierarchy and social status, which in the case of the baseball teams observed depended on athletic success, thus allows insults to proceed mostly from the top down or among equals, while bottom-­up insults are rare and punished. Here, however, a distinction must be made by age group. 9-year-olds are not criticised in the same way as, say, 12-year-olds, and it is also rare, according to Fine, for shy boys to be victimized because they are not annoyable (“teasable”) (see Fine 1987, p. 91). Fine introduces a little-noticed aspect when he states that many insults among boys are not intended to hurt the other, but to articulate one’s own feelings towards the other in the group. Aggression, moreover, is usually limited to what is said and

3.4  Everyday and Television Humour of Children

117

rarely becomes physical. On the contrary, boys who fight are shunned and stigmatised by the group (cf. Fine 1987, pp. 118–119). Accordingly, for homogeneous groups of boys, one could argue that the superiority or degradation theory is relevant. Recent research draws attention to the effectiveness of visual humour in younger children aged 4–5, who produced and recorded it with disposable cameras, for example by photographing everyday situations, but also humorous gestures of friends and family members that deviated from the normal and the usual (Loizou 2011, pp. 152 ff.). Even though only six children participated in the study, it is clear that most of the photographs play with humorous gestures and incongruous actions in the domestic social environment, when children become humour producers and documenters themselves in this way, with aesthetic manifestations in particular, such as unusual colours, sizes and shapes of people, animals and objects, being found exhilarating by the children, such as, for example, their own dog sticking its nose too deep into a can of dog food and subsequently running around with it as if wearing a helmet (cf. Loizou 2011, pp. 159 f., 153). In a more recent study with 102 children aged 4–7, the author was also able to demonstrate that children were able to identify more aspects of humour in cartoons and drawings made by others than in humorous (oral) stories they had invented themselves (cf. Loizou/Kyriakou 2016, p. 113). Again, the preference for aesthetic forms of humour was confirmed (cf. Loizou/Kyriakou 2016, p. 115). It is also interesting to note which characters children are more inclined to find funny: The author’s remarks suggest that it is mainly human-like characters who behave nonsensically or incongruously, rather than, for example, children who do something dangerous or inappropriate (cf. Loizou/Kyriakou 2016, p. 119). This research approach of letting children define humour themselves is insightful and promising and reinforces our own intention to let children have their own say when it comes to cinematic humour. In Germany, the study of the topic of children’s everyday humour has also developed, with a time lag, into its own field of research and has produced numerous publications. The following selection of studies is intended to provide an overview of the current state of research. Helmers (1971, p. 76 f.) demonstrates that children, in contrast to adolescents, delight in tonal speech alteration and linguistic malapropism, such as syllable ­contortions and exaggerated use of vowels (“dri Chinisin mit dim Kintribiss”). But children also find amusement in sign language such as abnormal movements of the face through which the realm of common order is deliberately abandoned (cf. Helmers 1971, p. 144). Helmers formulates a theory of the child’s humour:

118

3  Humor in Science and Practice Humour in the child is behaviour that momentarily and accidentally challenges norms of the repertoire of social communication in order to confirm the repertoire as such through laughter as a mimic signal. (Helmers 1971, p. 146)

Bönsch-Kauke (2003a) deals with the intentions of children’s humour and its significance for school children aged 7–8. In a long-term study of 8-year-olds, she identified four important motivations, including the need for affection, stress reduction, initiating contact and asserting oneself. Understanding humour here determines not only integration but also rank in a group. “Understanding” here also means the use of humour (cf. Bönsch-Kauke 2003a, p. 20). Group leaders in both girls and boys are those who use humour in its full range in a socially competent way. Serious children, on the other hand, who are less inclined to humorous behavior and are not eager for popularity, are valued according to their school performance (Bönsch-Kauke 2003a, p. 21). In another publication on the same topic, Bönsch-Kauke expands on her findings (cf. for the following: Bönsch-Kauke 2003b, p. 271 ff.): the nature and level of development of humour interactions can be used to measure the type and level of a relationship. The spectrum of children’s social contacts ranges from close friends and playmates to acquaintances and intimate enemies. These findings correlate with those presented above by Kotthoff (1998), Coser (1960/1996), and Fine (1987), because for human interaction, even in childhood, joking seems to be an indispensable tool to ensure group cohesion, rank, and the avoidance, or buffering, of conflict. The observations of Bönsch-Kauke (2003b) regarding the differences between girls and boys are interesting. Similar to the previous example of McGhee (1979) and also of Branner (2003, see below p. 176), she comes to the conclusion that boys obviously prefer unruly humour in their friendships, whereas girls prefer coordinative and coherent conversations. Fighting and prickly criticism are, in the author’s opinion, means of boyish behaviour, while girls are less likely to shape interpersonal relationships in the form of a fight. While boys can go back to business as usual after provocations, it is almost impossible for girls to simply “put aside” insults, and while humour between girls creates problems due to disagreements, boys more often resent each other’s self-expression. According to Bönsch-Kauke (2003b), exclusion is a common punishment practice among girls, in which the disgraced girl is no longer spoken to, no longer looked at, and left on the margins. In the author’s view, this bearing of grudges, rather than fighting it, out determines girls’ behaviour towards each other and is very different from the competitive forms of boys’ rank struggles as Fine (1987)

3.4  Everyday and Television Humour of Children

119

had already noted above. Joyful recognition of their sense of self motivates girls more than the prickly criticism to which boys respond, resulting in numerous misunderstandings, because girls often impute evil intentions when they are angry, whereas for boys it is a means of communication and rapprochement. Therefore, when girls believed they could not fight back, they snapped. Snapping, according to the author, is an effective strategy against aggressiveness and encourages boys to worry about the girls’ concerns. Accordingly, those who mastered “similarity strategies” were also particularly successful as shifters between worlds: “Boys who learn to joke with girls more gently or to hand out ‘sweet’ compliments and girls who know how to counter boys in a freshly cheeky and clever way have a good chance of building bridges of understanding with humour interactions” (Bönsch-­ Kauke 2003b, p. 275 f.). Schreiner (2003), among others, examines the developmental stages of infant humour in more detail, distinguishing between infancy, humour in the 2nd and 3rd years of life, humour in the 4th to 6th years of life, and humour between the 7th and 12th years of life. While the infant reacts to stimuli (e.g. the appearance and disappearance of a Punch and Judy figure) and develops loud laughter between the 2nd and 4th month to signal joy and amusement, children from the 2nd year of life already begin to distinguish what their parents mean and what they do not mean (cf. Schreiner 2003, p. 123). With increasing linguistic competence, children test how they can manipulatively make their parents laugh. This socially motivated use of humour becomes more and more important from the age of four within the family circle, but also among peers through fooling around, making faces, using faecal language and also through irony and mockery in order to highlight one’s own abilities and to distinguish oneself from others (cf. Schreiner 2003, p. 126 f.). According to Schreiner, humour development begins to blossom from the 7th year of life, corresponding with emotional-cognitive maturation. Double meanings and ambiguities are now grasped. The younger ones prefer physical-actional humour interactions, 11- to 12-year-olds begin to use satirical techniques and verbal creations (cf. Schreiner 2003, p. 141 f.). Differentiated by gender, Schreiner summarises that boys use humour to attack and counter, to present themselves and to displace others in the hierarchy, which makes them more likely to resort to hostile, aggressive humour (cf. Schreiner 2003, pp. 173 f.). Girls, on the other hand, use humour primarily to build intimacy, facilitate proper understanding, and offer gentle criticism (cf. Schreiner 2003, p. 181). Schreiner’s findings thus correlate with those of Bönsch-­ Kauke (2003b) and with Fine’s (1987) studies. Branner (2003) examines joke communication among girls in detail and identifies teasing, among other things, as a means of normal discourse when it comes to the question of what appearance of a potential partner is appropriate. Here, the girls

120

3  Humor in Science and Practice

assign each other the most deviant figures of boys and men possible in order to sound out the standard accepted by the group. This correlates with a humorous discussion of the topic “why don’t I have a boyfriend,” especially among girls aged 16 and older. Self-deprecating humour is used here to explore possible reasons (cf. Branner 2003, p. 346). Branner concludes from her research that humour is also used against someone as a provocation precisely because they are liked, in the sense of a “loving bite.” According to her findings, victims can be status-equal as well as status-higher, and victims also become perpetrators (cf. Branner 2003, p. 350 f.). Thus, Branner’s results contradict the theses of degradation or superiority theories for girls, while these can be considered relevant for boys according to Fine’s (1987) results. Like Schreiner (2003), Fine (1987) and Bönsch-Kauke (2003a), Branner (2003) attests to the use of humour by pre-adolescent boys (approx. 7–12  years) as a means of rank struggle in the group hierarchy. Whoever wants to be successful within the group has to be a good joke teller, whereby he has to deal with an ungrateful audience due to the struggle for positions of power, whose representatives also want to move up in the hierarchy and make the success of a joke more difficult through interruptions and interjections (cf. Branner 2003, p. 133). Thematically, sexuality and aggression play a greater role than with girls, and comparatively boys produce considerably more humour than girls (cf. Branner 2003, p. 135), which in turn supports the research findings of Coser (1960/1996) and McGhee (1979).35 Prommer et al. (2003) show that pre-teens (10-13-year-olds) have a relationship to the humorous depiction of violence that is independent of conventional norms and therefore uninhibited. Pre-teens also enjoy playing with language, especially imitating dialects, foreigners or homosexuals: it is the tone of voice and not the social context that makes up the content of the humour (Prommer et  al. 2003, p. 65). The study concludes that pre-teens do not place a cognitive filter over their humour as do adults who have internalised social norms and values and are more likely to laugh cautiously, if at all, at politically incorrect humour because of the desirability of a particular humour in an adult’s social context to which he or she feels a sense of belonging. Pre-teens, on the other hand, enjoy the reversal of values and roles when mishaps happen to the big and strong or they are “made fun of” (Prommer et al. 2003, p. 66). Findings by Deppermann/Schmidt (2001) also fit in with this, identifying the principles of supply and competition in youth communication, whereby short speech contributions are evaluated by the peer group according to their entertain As the evaluation of the group discussions will reveal, a change seems to be taking place here, at least in terms of the number of words spoken, cf. Sect. 4.2.7.4, p. 201. 35

3.4  Everyday and Television Humour of Children

121

ment value, disregarding common rules of conduct. Fun and competitive self-­ expression are the yardsticks here (cf. Deppermann/Schmidt 2001, p. 36). Imitating adult voices with intoned seriousness is part of the repertoire of adolescents, among other things, in order to communicate norms that are first admonished in an ironic and playful manner, then seemingly violated, in order to indirectly confirm them (cf. Deppermann/Schmidt 2001, p. 33). Lyon (2006) points out for the school sector that children pay attention to humorous content, which can be used for teaching learning content in pedagogy, but the humour used must also be age-appropriate (cf. Lyon 2006, p. 7).36 This pedagogical approach is worth emphasizing, among other things, because it is not found in any of the humour theorems presented. Humour as a facilitator of learning seems to be unthinkable, at least in philosophical-philological discourse. Schreiner (2003) already refers to this. He fundamentally approves of the cognitive use of humour, but also observes a specific German debate on this topic, “… a being caught between two superficially (from a German point of view) contradictory basic values: learning and laughter. Obviously, we have little success in imagining learning without effort and deprivation visible on all sides” (Schreiner 2003, p.  239  f.). Nevertheless, he also addresses the difficulties of integrating humour pedagogically into school lessons. Especially with smaller children, non-specific amusement creates confusion through incomprehensible exaggeration of reality and, like irony and sarcasm, would at best cause cognitive dissonance, stress and anxiety (Schreiner 2003, p. 236). There is also often a lack of concrete support for practical implementation in the classroom. Schreiner sees a further difficulty in the fact that children have different degrees of humour and that those with a less pronounced sense of humour are soon ashamed of their less humorous ideas in lessons and thus benefit less from the humorous underpinning of the transfer of knowledge. Schreiner is also of the opinion that humour in adult teaching staff is strongly dependent on personal predisposition and can therefore no longer be fundamentally learned in adulthood. In the outlined works of children’s humour research, the motivation, expression, gender-specific use, age-relevant phases, sociological phenomena and categories of children’s humour as well as their possible use in pedagogy are examined. In this context, the different use of humour by girls and boys is striking, as is, on the one hand, the general tendency to transgress boundaries through humour, which young people in particular have either not yet internalised themselves or which they pro Goldstein (1994) already summarises studies according to which learning effects for children could be increased by humour, but not so much for older people (cf. with further evidence: Goldstein 1994, pp. 325–326). 36

122

3  Humor in Science and Practice

vocatively oppose, and, on the other hand, the phenomenon of the function of joking activities in the preserving of group and hierarchy, which is already known from adult research. In view of the variety of individual findings on childhood humour and the different research approaches (cognitive, emotional, social, gender-specific), Hartung (2008, p. 82) misses an integrating theory of humour development. It will be the subject of further research to establish this, because it is indisputable that models of adult humour can be developed solely on the basis of cognitive differences or, for example, the normative filters in the exercise of humour, as denied to preteens by Prommer et al. (2003), are not transferable to children’s humour. Children are thus primarily the object of observation, with the interpretive authority regarding childlike humour being assumed by adult researchers. In this study, children themselves are to have their say in order to encounter the phenomenon of humour from a child’s point of view. For the group discussions suitable for this purpose, the following derivations for our own analyses result from the presented state of research on children’s everyday humour in relation to the preparatory questions posed in the introduction (cf. p. 28); the following conclusions can be drawn for our own analyses: (a) due to the different humour development in children depending on their age, the participants of the group discussions should either belong to a similar age group or to very different age groups in order to obtain comparable results. (b) Humour is also dependent on gender in children, both in its use and its function. Therefore, in addition to mixed groups, homogeneous gender groups should also be examined in the group discussions. For the film analyses, it will also be necessary to investigate, on the basis of the studies presented, what conclusions can be drawn from the group discussions with regard to certain humour contents, i.e. whether, for example, humour categories or structures can be demonstrated that may appeal particularly to some age and gender groups. Particular attention will also be paid to aesthetic manifestations of humour, since even younger children define humour in this way (see above, Loizou 2011, p. 159 f.). In the following chapter, we will examine whether television research on children’s humour provides further insights that can be used for our own study. The categorisation of media humour content is of particular interest here, as it has already been outlined above in media studies for the adult sector. It will also have to be shown whether television research relies more on children’s self-disclosure when it comes to understanding children’s humour.

3.4  Everyday and Television Humour of Children

123

3.4.2 Children’s Television Humour in Research Humour plays a decisive role for children in television reception. Thus, some recent research has been concerned with types and structures of humour and comedy in children’s television. Research on humour in children’s films or on the question of which humour children prefer in (cinema) films is not apparent. The only exception is research concerning the anxiety-regulating function of humour, which is specifically reflected in possible age recommendations for children’s films and which I have dealt with in detail elsewhere (cf. on this Nebe 2016, pp. 152–177). The main results can be summarised as follows: Children do not like to be frightened, but “scaring” is allowed, to varying degrees depending on age and gender. According to recent findings, it can be assumed that frightening content first arouses and intensifies fear without reducing it, if there are no age-suitable and child-appropriate relieving factors. For younger children under the age of nine, these are particularly child-appropriate if they take place in the fearful scenes themselves, preferably through humour, because children in this age group perceive films episodically, so that relieving scenes that follow only later do not have the desired effect of relief. Furthermore, a frightening scene can be coped with by younger children if the hero of the dramatic action gives them the assurance that they can cope with the frightening situation. Moreover, frightening scenes are often part of the necessary dramaturgical plot to enable identification with a character. Against this background, it would be desirable to reflect on the introduction of new age ratings for cinema films from the age of 9, or at least supplementary recommendations (for the latter also Gottberg 2013, p. 342 f., for a differentiation of age groups relevant for the protection of minors Twele 2012, p. 18 f.). This reflects what has already been observed above in the evaluation of the media-scientific examination of the phenomenon of humour: apart from research on the anxiety-relieving effect of cinematic content and the very productive work of Wegener (2010) on the thematic preferences of children, there are hardly any studies that take into account the age group of children in relation to cinema films. The following overview is also intended to provide more in-depth clarification of the preparatory question posed in the introduction (see above p. 28), to what extent findings and techniques of (television) research can be helpful for one’s own work, which wants to investigate what kind of humour children prefer in children’s films and whether this is reflected in the selected films. Above all, the type of categorisation in television research and the derived ranking of certain types of humour among children are of particular interest here.

124

3  Humor in Science and Practice

Ensinger (2003a) demonstrates that television editors, when assessing which category of humour is most popular with children, deviate from the actual favoured humour content of their young viewers. Namely, while children favour aesthetic forms of humour in the survey (body deformations, funny appearances), editors focus entirely on the humour category of degradation (such as slandering, belittling and making fun of others) (cf. Ensinger 2003a, p. 54 f.; the argumentation of the article is based on the author’s extraordinarily profound master’s thesis: Ensinger 2003b, p. 97 ff.).37 Ensinger thus pursues a categorical research design for children aged 8 (cf. Ensinger 2003b, pp.  73 and 88  ff.), similar to the above authors Kümpel et  al. (2014), Dynel (2013), Knop (2007), and Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004) designed it for adults (cf. Sect. 3.3.3.4, p. 91 ff.). Here, it should be emphasized again that there is no question of a uniform system of categories in research. Rather, each author uses his or her own canon of humour categories. The type and scope of these categories differ considerably. Neuss (2003a) also deals with the question of what humour content children like to see on television. In empirical findings (group discussions, interviews, parents’ diaries, children’s essays) he identifies nine main categories of children’s humour for 173 primary school children and differentiates between jokes told, humour in everyday life and humour on television. Regardless of gender, the following ranking results according to popularity (Neuss 2003a, p. 22; Fig. 3.1). The partly very different results for the given situations are striking. For example, while children laugh most often about “other people’s little misfortunes” when watching television, this category only takes second place in their everyday lives and even only fifth place when telling jokes. In contrast, “playing with language and meaning” is the most important criterion for jokes, while it is in last place for television. In tabular form, the rankings can be presented as follows (Table 3.2). Within the humour categories, the most popular expressions are as follows:  With regard to degradation humour on German television, Kübler (2005) goes one step further and generally criticises the lack of research on the interaction of television and humour, not only for children (cf. Kübler 2005, p. 30). He asks to what extent television itself does not give birth to certain forms of humour, which are “due to the dictates of higher viewing figures and the amortisation of advertising costs” (Kübler 2005, p. 33). Laughter is heard because the programme demands such laughter. Kübler sees in this an interplay of structural violence of the medium and programmed framing with socialising consequences (cf. Kübler 2005, p. 33). If we think further, the author’s considerations make it seem possible that the social understanding of young recipients will develop accordingly through appropriate programming with a focus on degradation. 37

Conflicts and problem solving play pranks Playing with language and meaning zest for life/wealth of ideas Laughing at yourself minor misfortunes of others sensitive issues Aesthetics/Presence/Expression Play with Expectations 0

5

10

20

15

25

30

35

40

Percent Jokes

Everyday life

Television

Fig. 3.1  Humour categories of primary school children according to areas of life. (Source: Neuss 2003a, p. 22; figures in percent, basis: all respondents, n = 173) Table 3.2  Ranking of humour categories among primary school children according to Neuss 2003a, p. 22 Rank Category joke 1 Play with language and meaning 2 Playing with expectations 3 Conflicts and problem solving 4 Sensitive issues 5

Category everyday Rank life 1 Laughing at yourself

Rank Category television 1 Little misfortunes of others

2

Little misfortunes of others Lust for life Inventiveness Aesthetics, presence, expression Play pranks

2

5

Conflicts and problem solving Sensitive issues

Playing with expectations Sensitive issues

6

Play pranks

7

Play with language and meaning

Play with language and meaning Conflicts and problem solving

8

3 4

7

Little misfortunes of 5 others Aesthetics, 6 presence, expression 7

8

8

9

9

6

3 4

Aesthetics, presence, expression Playing with expectations

9

Source: Own representation based on Neuss (2003a, p. 22), basis: all respondents, n = 173

126

3  Humor in Science and Practice

Little misfortunes of others: Especially from authority figures, Playing with expectations: Especially surprising twists, Play with language and Significance: Especially playing with contexts through knowledge advance and word play, Pranking: Mainly by teasing and tricking, Aesthetics, presence, expression: Above all, funny looks, Conflict and problem solving: Primarily through comic solutions, Lust for Life/Inspiration: Crazy ideas, especially, Laughing at yourself: Especially your own little misadventures, Sensitive topics: Especially nudity and the opposite sex.

Common to the first three main categories listed is norm-breaking (cf. Neuss 2003a, p.  21), i.e. when something happens that contradicts the normal, usual course of events: for example, an adult falls down or makes a promise, or in a situation an expected convention is broken. For television, Neuss demonstrates, among other things, that girls prefer humour primarily through aesthetics such as funny voices or comical looks, while boys take particular pleasure in the small misfortunes of others (cf. Neuss 2003b, p. 16). The studies by Neuss are interesting because they distinguish between different life situations of the children and show that there are large differences between humour-producing and humour-receiving life situations. In contrast to the study by Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004) presented above, who also used a categorical research design, Neuss (2003a, b), like Ensinger (2003a, b), interviewed his study group himself using various methods. In a qualitative study, Götz (2003) comes to the conclusion that children tend to find word-heavy humour in educational and comedy programmes unattractive and thus confirms the results from the study by Neuss (2003a), in which the comparable category “Playing with language and meaning” came last in the television ranking38 (cf. Neuss 2003a, p. 22). According to Götz (2003, p. 50 f.), girls find themes such as relationships and romance amusing in television programmes for primary39 school children, whereas boys tend to find humour in action slapstick and the misadventures of others (Götz  As will be seen, this dismissive attitude of children towards word-heavy humour is also relevant for motion pictures, cf. Sect. 4.4.11.1, p. 343. 39  The programmes examined were “Wissen macht Ah! (WDR)”, “Willi will’s wissen” (BR), “Null-Acht-12” (WDR/SFB/MDR), “Felix und die wilden Tiere” (BR), “Anja und Anton” (ZDF) and “Was ist Was TV” (Super RTL). The reactions of 300 children aged between 6 and 12 years were measured during reception. Subsequently, supplementary interviews were conducted and the children were asked to draw scenes they liked best (cf. Götz 2003, p. 45). 38

3.4  Everyday and Television Humour of Children

127

2003, p.  50  f.). Independent of television content, Götz also looks at the understanding of irony and summarises studies according to which irony is perceived as mean by under 10-year-olds and is not always correctly classified. Children under the age of 5 can be assumed not to be able to classify irony at all and to equate the literal with what is meant. In contrast to adults, children perceive ironic criticism as less hurtful than literal criticism, but 5-6-year-olds are less likely to judge it as “funny” than 8-9-year-olds. Children up to the age of 10 therefore tend not to laugh at ironic humour (Götz 2003, p.  49; for pedagogical use also critical: Schreiner 2003, p. 236). In contrast, Aßmann (2008) argues that “… children can certainly be assumed to have the ability not only to distinguish between what is literally meant and what is not literally meant, but also to use humour in a functionally homologous way like adults” (Aßmann 2008, p. 39). Deutsch (2003) also points to differences in the understanding of humour and the resulting preferences. He examined the “laughter balance” among 7–13-year-­ olds for a children’s magazine (here TOGGO TV, broadcast in July/August 2002 on Super RTL). He comes to the conclusion that between the ages of 10 and 11 children’s understanding of humour changes, namely from an everyday life shaped by concrete operations and a resulting preference for situation comedy and slapstick to an everyday life shaped by formal operations, which subsequently makes word jokes and language games understandable and more popular (Deutsch 2003, p. 44). Rathmann (2004) deals with the reception of cartoon programmes by 9–10-year-­ olds. In doing so, she focuses her attention on, among other things, the comic-­ relevant portrayal of violence and draws comparisons between the perceptions of children and their parents. While the reception of children is characterised by a high level of genre competence and a concomitant enjoyment of the genre, cartoon programmes are partly judged critically by adults according to pedagogical aspects, reinforced by disinterest, incompetence and concomitant hostility to enjoyment (cf. Rathmann 2004, p. 152 f.). Due to their deficient knowledge of the genre, many have considerable reception problems, especially with the more recent cartoons, whether they lack the necessary insider knowledge to understand the content or are overwhelmed by the pace and visual design. In addition, the majority of adults interviewed are not prepared to engage with the fictional cartoon world… This is particularly true of the violence presented. It became clear that most of the mothers interviewed do not evaluate cartoon aggression as fiction, but measure the harm against criteria of real violence. As a result, the depictions collide with their own moral concepts and evoke pedagogical concerns. (Rathmann 2004, p. 113)

128

3  Humor in Science and Practice

The main fear of adults is that children imitate received violence because they cannot distinguish between reality and fiction. Rathmann, however, draws different conclusions from the evaluations of the interviews with children: When the children interviewed laugh at violence in the context of cartoon reception, they do so against a background of firm knowledge that the cartoon assaults are clearly unreal and produced solely for the amusement of the viewer. (Rathmann 2004, p. 114)

The findings of Prommer et al. (2003, see above), according to which adults are prevented from both the production and reception of certain humour content by internalised socially desirable moral concepts, are also confirmed here for children aged 9–10. On closer examination, it is also not the violent damage to characters in cartoons that children find funny, but the circumstances under which they come about (cf. Rathmann 2004, p. 99). This is also supported by the sympathy with the sometimes permanently unsuccessful antiheroes: Thus, when receiving funny cartoons, adolescents are apparently not looking for identification figures, but at best for parasocial media acquaintances who can offer them fun and excitement for a limited time. Preference is given to characters with flaws and quirks, such as the eternally unsuccessful Tom the cat. All children could well imagine having this anti-hero as a friend. (Rathmann 2004, p. 94)

However, Rathmann also observes a turning away from the genre already among 10-year-olds, especially among girls, since it does not convey development-­specific themes of adolescence, such as “being a woman”, due to a lack of cognitive content (cf. Rathmann 2004, p. 161 f.). In a representative study on reading motivation among 1188 Erfurt primary school pupils in grades 2–4, Richter/Plath (2005) also investigated the pupils’ preferences with regard to their television consumption. According to this study, the most popular television formats were funny films (86.3%), cartoons (83.6%), children’s films (71.7%) and information programmes (64.6%) (cf. Richter/Plath 2005, p. 49). While humorous content is clearly preferred for television, Richter goes on to show that primary school children have a clear preference for stories that can be assigned to the genre of adventure literature in terms of their reading behaviour (Richter/Plath 2005, p. 64), whereby the children name emotional aspects as a central reading motive, irrespective of gender, and demand that books should be “ex-

3.4  Everyday and Television Humour of Children

129

citing,” “thrilling,” and “funny” but also “sad” or “scary” (Richter/Plath 2005, p. 62). Last in popularity among them are so-called true stories (authentic events, realistic literature, religious themes) (Richter/Plath 2005, p.  64). While children prefer this category the least, the teachers interviewed, however, put it in first place among the literature covered in class (Richter/Plath 2005, p. 76). Later reluctance to read thus finds a reason in the pre-selection of adults that misjudges the needs of children, similar to how Ensinger (2003a) was already able to prove a lack of knowledge regarding the preferences of young viewers for humorous television content by adult editors. In connection with “true stories,” it is interesting to note that only one-third of the children aged 6–12 surveyed as part of a representative sample between the years 2005–2007 cited tying in with everyday experiences as a reason for choosing a television character as their favourite (cf. Götz 2013b, p.  559; Götz 2013a, p. 587). In contrast, it is more important that children can have fun with the characters (83.6% of the children agreed here), or can imagine that the characters could be their friends (75.9% agreement; cf. Götz 2013a, p. 581). Real-life series, on the other hand, that tie in with everyday life experiences, such as “Schloß Einstein” (KiKA), are not mentioned by the children, which leads Götz to conclude that it is primarily the lack of a humorous context that is to be cited as the reason here (cf. Götz 2013a, p. 589). In their television usage study, Feierabend/Klingler (2010) draw attention to the importance of fictional content for children. For the year 2009, data from the AGF/ GfK Fernsehforschung was used, which evaluated data from 1509 children b­ etween the ages of 3 and 13 and thus represented 7.21 million children in this age group (cf. Feierabend/Klingler 2010, p. 194). With 39%, fictional content was the most popular genre, followed by information and entertainment programmes (26% and 19% respectively); with 73%, serial content was ahead of 27% film content. Cartoon series were mostly preferred by younger children and boys, whereas serial entertainment such as telenovelas were more popular with girls. The difference in the popularity of genres in series and films is interesting here. While exciting fiction was seen in series with only 8%, exciting films (mainly thrillers and action40 films) were represented with 23%. The most popular genre for series was animation with 54%, and for films the leaders were comedies with 29% (Feierabend/Klingler 2010, p. 192 f.). The authors’ study on television use in 2012 has a different focus. Data from the AGF/GfK television research was again collected from 1425 children aged 3–13,

40

 The authors do not provide a precise definition of “tension”.

130

3  Humor in Science and Practice

representing around 6.98 million children in this age group (Feierabend/Klingler 2013, p. 201).41 On an average day, 54% of children aged 3–13 again watched less television than in previous years. This so-called loss of reach can be tracked at one percent annually since 2009, even if it is exclusively attributable to 10–13  year olds. Younger children have hardly changed their viewing habits (Feierabend/Klingler 2013, p. 190). Leaving aside the European Football Championship, which dominated in 2012, it is striking that the most popular TV program among children is the fictional animated series “Yakari”, which is about the nature-loving Indian boy who can talk to the animals. Differentiated by age groups, differences emerge in the preference of fictional material: The top 100 list of 3–9 year olds includes programmes such as “Sandmännchen,” “Baumhaus,” “Yakari” and “Kein Keks für Kobolde,” but also educational programmes such as “Wissen macht Ah!” (Feierabend/Klingler 2013, p. 199). Among 10–13 year olds, on the other hand, 38 places in the Top 100 go to various casting formats, in which Dieter Bohlen was presenter 31 times. The titles include “Deutschland Such den Superstar,”, “Das Supertalent” and “Voice of Germany” (Feierabend/Klingler 2013, p. 200). Even for the 2014 World Cup year and despite competition from the Disney Channel, which was newly launched this year, the series “Yakari” occupies eight of the top ten places in popularity among girls and boys (excluding weeks of the World Cup, cf. Feierabend/Klingler 2015, p. 184). For television use, one can conclude from this that fictional formats are increasingly displaced by show formats in children’s favour from around the age of 10, even though the overall survey of 3–13-year-olds shows42 a clear preference for fictional material. In a recent article, Prommer (2014) summarises components of successful and humorous television for children (on this and in the following Prommer 2014, p. 26 ff.). Like numerous other representatives from media studies, she also considers incongruence to be the fundamental characteristic of humour. She goes on to cite sitcom writer John Vorhaus, who identifies three comic conflicts: human versus nature, human versus human, and human versus self. These conflicts are more general than Mast’s comic plots (1979, p. 4 ff.). However, they may be subject to the  These figures alone illustrate the well-known demographic “shortage of children”: compared to the survey year 2009, there were around 230,000 fewer children in Germany in the age group surveyed. 42  With regard to the TV programmes mentioned by the children in the group discussions, this trend was confirmed, as “Upps – Die Pannenshow” is the clear favourite, cf. Fig. 4.3, p. 165. 41

3.4  Everyday and Television Humour of Children

131

same criticism that Palmer (1987) and Horton (1991) already formulated for comic plots: all conflicts are also found in dramas and tragedies and therefore do not appear to be exclusively constituent of comic media content (cf. Palmer 1987, p. 28; Horton 1991, pp. 1–2.; cf. p. 124). Quoting Vorhaus, for the author a comic character is composed of a comic perspective, an exaggeration based on it, weaknesses and humanly sympathetic characteristics. Among the other techniques of humour (“comic techniques”) she counts the 45 humour categories of A. Berger (1993), whereby she limits herself to the four upper categories: linguistic humour, situation comedy, action comedy and character comedy. Finally, she points out that the cognitive presuppositions (not only) of children set the framework of understanding. According to the author, the style of humour should therefore be as simple as possible for children (cf. Prommer 2014, p. 29). In their article on humour in children’s television, Götz/Berg (2014) are also inspired by work already presented here. Instead of A.  Berger (1993), they cite Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004), who formulated their 41 humour categories for media content after A. Berger (cf. on this and in the following Götz/Berg 2014, p. 30 ff.). However, they mainly cite humour categories that Neuss (2003a, b) had developed and which will be presented in more detail below, such as aesthetic incongruence, slapstick, minor misfortunes of others, playing with expectations, linguistic wit, pranks, victory of minor heroes, establishing justice, etc.. In one result of a study in which 510 children between the ages of 7 and 10 from Canada, Uganda, Brazil, New Zealand and Germany were asked what funny scene they could remember from television, the authors conclude that, regardless of origin, children by and large laugh at very similar things, even if the same formats are not available in all countries. In addition to the general investigation of television use, many of the above-­ mentioned studies are therefore primarily concerned with the preferences of humour reception specific to gender and age among children and adolescents and are limited exclusively to television consumption. In this context, existing humour theories are adopted to explain children’s humour, as was already the case for adult humour in the media studies presented above, and, if necessary, supplemented by a system of categories. The findings of television research do correlate with those of research on children’s everyday humour, especially where a distinction is made between the sexes. The preference of boys to use humour as a means of rank struggle in the group finds its counterpart in the preference to laugh at the misfortunes of others when watching television. The humorous evaluation of self-expression in everyday life and the playful assignment of the most deviant partners possible finds its counter-

132

3  Humor in Science and Practice

part in the girls’ preference for humour in the aesthetic field and, with increasing age, in the consumption of telenovelas. It is striking that children’s preferences with regard to humorous content are consistently viewed differently, incorrectly or critically by adults, as has been seen (cf. among others Rathmann 2004, p. 113; Ensinger 2003a, p. 54 f.; Richter/Plath 2005, p. 76). For the recruitment of participants in group discussions, this again makes it clear that age and gender also play a role with children in order to be able to correctly assess the humour categories named by the children. It is therefore not sufficient to differentiate between adults, adolescents and children, but within the group of children there are once again separate age and developmental levels that are relevant for content preferences. The definition of a clearly defined canon of categories is also necessary in order to be able to determine the components of film analyses alongside those of film-specific expressive possibilities and techniques. The lack of any studies of humour preferences in children’s films makes it clear that it is necessary to develop a procedure suitable for cinema films which, similar to that used for television, makes it possible to establish a ranking of humorous film content. In the context of this work, a categorical approach will be pursued, since such an approach makes the quantitative recording of humorous content possible. Approaches to categorical humour research for media content that is primarily aimed at the adult age group have already been presented above (cf. Kümpel et al. (2014), Dynel (2013), Knop (2007), and Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004), who also included children in their research). In German-language television research, only Ensinger (2003a, b) and Neuss (2003a, b) offer methods for recording children’s humour preferences, as far as can be seen. These will therefore be examined in more detail below. The ranking of children’s favourite humour categories for television according to Neuss (2003a) has already been presented. In comparison to Ensinger’s (2003a) ranking, which took into account the mentions of children and editors, the following picture43 emerges (Table 3.3). The group of children surveyed in Ensinger was very small (a total of eight children aged eight, four girls, four boys), whereas with Neuss it was very large (173 primary school children). Ensinger concentrated only on the evaluation of three children’s comedy programmes, which the children rated in terms of their humour content during reception by means of a kind of joystick and were subsequently questioned again about this (cf. Ensinger 2003b, p. 72). The programmes

 A comprehensive comparative table of the humour categories of both authors with references can be found in the appendix (available on Springer.com) in Appendix A 4. 43

3.4  Everyday and Television Humour of Children

133

Table 3.3  Ranking of humour categories at Neuss and Ensinger in comparison NEUSS Children and Rank television 1 Little misfortunes of others 2 Aesthetics, presence, expression 3 Playing with expectations 4 Conflicts and problem solving 5 Sensitive issues 6 Play pranks 7 Play with language and meaning 8

ENSINGER Rank Children and television 1 Aesthetics

ENSINGER Editors and Rank television 1 Degradation

2

Deviation from the norm 2 + absurdity

3

Degradation

4

Wordplay/language play 4

5 6 7

Surprising turn Hyperbole Parody

5 6 7

Parody Nonsense Action

8

Confusion/ misunderstanding

8

Confirmation of an expectation

3

Aesthetics

Wordplay/language play Slapstick

Source: Own representation based on Neuss (2003a, p. 22; 2003b, pp. 13 f.), basis: all respondents, n = 173 and Ensinger (2003a, p. 54 f.), basis: all respondents, n = 8 (children), n = 3 (editors)

were: “Die Couchmanns,” ZDF 15  minutes long; “Chili TV,” KiKa 15  minutes long and “Blaubär und Blöd,” WDR 27 minutes long. Neuss, on the other hand, covered a broad spectrum through group discussions, interviews, parent diaries and children’s essays (cf. Neuss 2003a, p.  3  ff.) and, moreover, did not introduce a limitation to specific television programmes, but had the children recall humorous television content (cf. Neuss 2003a, p. 23). Thus, no reactions to programmes were measured during a screening. Despite these methodological differences, the comparison of the forms of humour extracted in this way by both researchers is revealing. However, one of the obstacles to adopting these humour categories for our own work is that the number and definitions of the humour categories differ considerably between the two authors. The comparison of the definitions of the humour categories shows similarities, but also differences. Some categories are only used by one author, while others appear almost congruently in both. In addition, not all categories were provided with definitions or differ from each other despite using the same terms. For example, what Neuss calls “clumsiness, awkwardness, inexperience, bad luck, or just plain stupidity” under the category “minor misfortunes of others” (cf. Neuss 2003a, p. 15), Ensinger calls “degradation” an “amusement at

134

3  Humor in Science and Practice

the harm done to a person” (cf. Ensinger 2003a, p. 54). Certain categories appear only with one author, for example, Neuss lists “conflicts and problem solving”, which Ensinger does not include as a separate category. In contrast, Ensinger lists “slapstick,” “repetition,” “parody” and, without definition, “exaggeration,” which Neuss does not list as separate categories. As a canon of categories, the models presented are therefore not readily usable for the recording of children’s statements, for example in group discussions, and for cinema film analyses, simply because of their contradictory nature, for what is, for example, a “degradation” in a scene according to Ensinger (2003a, b) can be “comedy with regard to the misfortune of others” in the case of Neuss (2003a, b). Moreover, both lack gapless definitions and it is conceivable that other categories of humour come into play for children in the case of cinema films or that a different ranking results than for television programmes.44 After all, the situation with television consumption differs considerably from that of going to the cinema. Whereas on television, apart from the broadcasting of films, mainly short broadcasting formats are predominant, in the cinema it is almost exclusively long films. In addition, there are access barriers, because children are usually dependent on the support and accompaniment of adults for a visit to the cinema. Here, a common date has to be found, outward and return journeys have to be organised and, last but not least, entrance fees have to be paid by the adults. In contrast, a television is often available in a child’s room and its use is subject to other rules. Following the presentation of the current state of research, gaps thus emerge that are to be closed by answering them with the help of a suitable research design, whereby children are to be interviewed themselves in a selected procedure and films are to be analysed for their correspondence with the identified humour preferences. The presented state of research practice (cf. Sect. 3.3, p. 58) and research on children’s everyday humour (Sect. 3.4.1, p. 111) was complemented by the more specific television research (Sect. 3.4.2, p. 123), for it has been shown that in any survey of whatever kind the age and sex of the children must be taken into account boththe conducting it and in the evaluation. Accordingly, then, the answers to the preliminary questions will have to be made below (cf. p. 145). For film analyses, the state of research presented, together with the theoretical underpinnings underlying it in all disciplines, should be taken into account insofar as, on the one hand, as has been seen, it has revealed numerous film-specific humour techniques for analysis and, on the other, various category systems have been developed which, although aimed at a child (television) audience, as earlier discussed, can serve as inspiration for the study of a cinema audience and corresponding films. 44

 Which has also been confirmed: see Fig. 4.4, p. 175.

3.5  Discussion and Summary

135

3.5 Discussion and Summary As diverse as the theoretical approaches to humour presented in an overview are from the philosophical, linguistic, sociological, medical-psychological and the media studies disciplines that frequently refer to them, they are also worthy of criticism, because each approach has a comprehensible core, but nevertheless leaves the impression of an inadequate definition or at least too narrow a perspective. For one’s own analysis of children’s films, for example, there would therefore inevitably be gaps when deciding for and against other humour definitions. The same applies to the question of which analytical components can be derived from the state of research for one’s own empirical work. For as seen, depending on the discipline and the author, completely different parameters are examined as determining humour. Theoretical approaches, to which the research practice presented here wishes to refer, must furthermore admit to a fundamental inadequacy: children do not appear in them at all. Criticism of Humour Theories from Philosophy and Psychology Thus, the superiority theory can hardly explain children’s laughter at word sounds as well as laughter at themselves. Animals playing and comedians transforming themselves, which stimulate laughter, are also difficult to construct into this model (cf. Sully 1902, pp. 123 f.). A clever magician arouses more admiring laughter than a feeling of superiority, and it is also not one’s own inability that provokes laughter as a result of successful comedy, but the utterly unbelievable effect of the performance with its unexpected result. Incongruence is generally regarded as a basic prerequisite of the comic, but the model fails in the case of tendentious jokes, which are all the more successful the less a person affected by them is liked (cf. Schreiner 2003, p. 109). However, since the person’s characteristics are known and already evaluated, the moment of discrepancy between imagination and reality does not apply. Laughter is nevertheless heard. A recent (student) study under the supervision of Rod A. Martin also comes to the conclusion that the degree of humour and comedy increases the more predictable the punch line is (cf. Fearman 2014, p. 28). According to this, then, it is precisely not surprise and the discrepancy between imagination and reality that make45 a joke funny, even though this may well be true for other types of humour  It is interesting to note that in Fearmann’s (2014) study, women outnumbered men. Among the participating 183 American students aged 16–58, average age 18.8, there were 129 women as opposed to 54 men (see Fearman 2014, p. 15). The study thus captured rather female humour behaviour with a share of women of more than 70%. 45

136

3  Humor in Science and Practice

and surprise may continue to play a role in many jokes. The fact that incongruity theory is nevertheless cited in many places may also be due to what Amir (2014b) characterises as the phenomenon, occurring in academia, of rewriting all books according to whichever theory prevails (cf. Amir 2014b, p.  75). This ultimately describes the competition-like quality inherent in all discourses, which is influenced by fashions, struggles for power and interests (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 281 f.). If one understands “the statement” (Foucault 1981, p. 117) as the elementary unit of discourse, furthermore the “system of rules contained in a system of statements” (Diaz-Bone 2002, p. 129), which occurs “in an epoch in a social field” (Diaz-Bone 2005, p. 540) and in which there is a struggle for interpretative sovereignty with regard to perceived reality, it becomes clear that there are always excluded persons in this process (cf. Winter 1997, p. 55). When Niekisch (2002) writes: “The concept of discourse avoids the dilemma of having to decide which statements are true or false: … The dominant discourse eventually prevails and is then considered true…” (Niekisch 2002, p. 29), then this also fits the theory discourse on humour presented here, as the example of the currently prevailing incongruity theory shows. For even if a comprehensive discourse analysis in which the “products (the system of statements, the texts)” can be inferred from the underlying system of rules “that produced the products” (Diaz-Bone 2002, p. 131) cannot be undertaken within the scope of this work, one can nevertheless assume the disregard of ­childlike perspectives on humour that has taken place in the context of humour theory as one probable reason (among possible others) that has helped incongruence theory to its leading position. The remaining (classical) humour theories are also worthy of criticism: Freud’s remarks about spared emotional effort can be countered by findings from studies according to which people most frequently laughed at jokes that addressed impulses that they themselves openly expressed and acted out in their behaviour, i.e. precisely did not suppress or want to spare themselves (cf. Martin 1998, p. 25). The transition from a tense pressure situation to relaxed composure according to the relief theory may therefore be given in some humorous situations, but by no means in all. Thus the child who laughs because he observes a crow landing on a sheep is not in a state of anxiety from which only the comic situation provides relief. It is similar with visitors to a comedy event. Here, on the contrary, we can assume an anticipatory anticipation that can only be surpassed by the stage presentation in the best case, but in the worst case is disappointed and then leads not to relaxation but to tension, namely in the form of annoyance resulting from disappointment. An exuberant mood as a prerequisite for laughter and the perception of comedy may be present according to the game theories in the above example of stage per-

3.5  Discussion and Summary

137

formance, but on the other hand this exuberance is again not observable in people who burst out laughing because they are tickled. For it is precisely the unannounced attack, perhaps just in a mood of extreme concentration, that causes the laughter. Moreover, the detached playful state seen as antithetical to the serious demands of everyday life cannot be assumed in forms of humour such as satire, for here it is precisely “serious” joking that takes place (so also: Caroll 2014, p. 43). None of the classical humour theories is therefore able to capture childlike humour in every case or to contribute to the clarification of terms. Criticism of the Results of Research Practice, Especially in Media Studies The social function of humour, on the other hand, including its medical effects, can be scientifically proven, even if it is more the after-effects that can be described in this way. For the definition of humour and/or for a correspondingly oriented film analysis, the findings can only be used to a limited extent, also because they are not always convincing. For example, solitary laughter in one’s own four walls, while perhaps watching cartoons, has no social effects to begin with, even though it may be beneficial to health. Humour, then, does not always have a socially relevant component. It has been proven that humour is able to eliminate negative effects of media content, for example by lightening up frightening content (cf. with further evidence: Nebe 2016, pp. 52–177). Positive humour can therefore actually “heal” if the (unnecessary) evocation of fear is understood to be harmful to health because it is psychologically destabilising. That, on the other hand, negative humour can cause harm, for example in the form of media content, may be assumed. This opens up new areas for interdisciplinary media analysis, for example with regard to the effects of degrading humour that is contemptuous of humanity. Individual results of sociological studies, for example, make the inadequacy of the mostly philosophical theories clear, since these cannot take into account the phenomena described, but the consequence is a further fragmentation of the concept. This is mainly due to the fact that functions, characteristics and modes of action of humour and comedy in their entirety are still partly unknown. Attempts to record the phenomenon empirically and to evaluate it objectively can help here, provided they are methodologically valid. For example, the Humour Disposition Test by Grimm (2014) presented above promises to be able to predict quite a bit about its participants, including preferred media content based on proven humour preference. However, the test attempts to objectify what can only be subjectively experienced. Whether a joke is vulgar, raunchy, xenophobic, just acceptable, or too broad depends very much on personal socialisation and milieu attitudes, including those of the test developers. As Knop (2007) has shown, fans of the Harald Schmidt show, for example, have a completely different understanding regarding the possi-

138

3  Humor in Science and Practice

ble xenophobia of Harald Schmidt’s jokes than representatives of the press. The Grimm’s Humour Disposition Test here claims an interpretative sovereignty over qualitative characteristics of humour that is highly questionable, especially if – as the author suggests – it is to be used to prognostically record groups of people and their preferences in other areas of life as well. Here, humour research runs the risk of classifying people in the way that algorithms on commercial Internet portals, such as Amazon, do: those who have laughed about this, also like to do that, could then one day be the result, which has nothing to do with reality and can lead to bizarre recommendations similar to those on the well-known sales portals (quite apart from the fact that people are thereby denied their ability to develop). Due to the fact that sociological and medical disciplines are not the only ones to have gained knowledge, the theories of humour presented here can ultimately only represent historical milestones in humour research. The combination of several theories is also not suitable to make up for the inadequacies of individual theories, as is often pragmatically demanded and practiced (cf. with further evidence: Prommer 2012, p. 116; Knop 2007, p. 68; Raskin 1985, p. 40). The media studies examination of the phenomenon of humour is also open to criticism, although it has undoubtedly brought to light some new insights into what humour is and what concrete forms of expression it experiences in the media. A purely media-scientific theory of humour cannot be discerned here (as already: Prommer 2012, p. 124), although it is questionable whether such a theory is even possible. It is surprising that humour, comedy and laughter hardly receive any attention in film studies (cf. Glasenapp/Lillge 2008, p.  8; Lambernd 1998, p.  239). Thus, among the standard German-language works on film analysis, in two of them there is no mention at all of the genre of comedy (cf. Korte 2010; Hickethier 2012, pp. 205 f.). The same can be said for humour content on the Internet, because humour on the Internet is (still) a little-studied area of research (cf. Shifman 2007, p. 188), although this medium, more than any other, offers the possibility of turning consumers into producers and can thus also generate new forms of humour content (cf. Shifman/Lemish 2011, p. 156). Thus, in the film analyses by Fahle, Klepper and Türschmann (all 2008, see above) presented here as examples, theories of comedy are applied in an eclectic, almost opportunistic manner, which just happen to fit the respective case. A film-­ specific systematisation of comedy and humour or an examination of humour theories does not take place at all; rather, the films are simply subsumed uncritically under pre-existing humour theories. The example of Alic (2014) shows how justified criticism of Mast’s (1979) film plot model, which has existed for decades, is not perceived at all, because all the

3.5  Discussion and Summary

139

patterns and plots that are supposed to be determinative for comedy can also be found in tragedies. This recent example shows that the discourse on the nature of humour and comedy in film studies has to some extent come to a standstill, in that justified criticism is not addressed or existing theories of humour are resorted to and made suitable for the film field without any actual examination of traditional theories of humour taking place. A sense of lack in this regard also arises in purely historical considerations, such as those of Heller/Steinle (2005), which from their perspective offer no conclusions or critical insights into the nature of humour from a media studies perspective. However, by using the ambiguous concept of attitude, the authors point to the phenomenon of the subjectivity of comedy, which is also confirmed by the sociological studies presented. Visarius (1997) puts it this way for the film field: Totò and Roberto Benigni in Italy, Louis de Funes and Pierre Richard in France, Otto Waalkes and Helge Schneider in Germany are obviously difficult to export. And they rarely cross the borders of certain milieus. Laughter seems to be bound to national, social, sometimes even merely biographical-individual factors, and when one laughs, it is by no means guaranteed that (sic!) others can laugh too. (Visarius 1997, p. 13)

Ultimately, previous humour research makes it clear that investigations of humorous content, of whatever kind, can only ever reveal potential, since the intensity of comedy cannot be measured due to its subjective determinant, just as films as a whole are only created “in the minds of their viewers” (Mikos 2008, p. 12). With such a kind of potential analysis, there can and must necessarily be gaps, because as Jahn-Sudmann (2008) rightly points out, it depends not only on the individual sensibility of the viewer (and the researcher) and his or her ability to recognise comedy as such in the first place, but there also exists the phenomenon of non-­ intended comedy, “so that a film may well be read as a comedy that was not intended as a comedy at all” (Jahn-Sudmann 2008, p. 157, fn. 7). The widespread assumption in film studies that the happy ending belongs to the essence of comedy is questionable (according to Alic 2014, p.  71; Wuss 1993, p. 419; Neale/Krutnik 1994, 1990, p. 12, among others), because other genres also use a positive outcome to their stories, so that a happy ending cannot be appropriated by comedy alone. Schramm (2012), on the other hand, can make it very clear in her study of Charlie Chaplin films that visual comedy cannot be explained by humour theories oriented towards linguistic means of expression. Schramm can thus clearly deny the applicability of a large part of traditional humour theories from a media studies perspective. However, this also reveals how little influence the medium of film has had on humour research to date.

140

3  Humor in Science and Practice

Incidentally, Schramm’s enumeration of specific visual gags, together with selected cinematic humour devices as elaborated by Mikos (2008), among others, is intended to inspire the present work’s own categorisation in order to ensure that visual comedy can be adequately captured in the author’s own humour analysis of children’s films. In film studies, therefore, there is a prevailing tendency to analyse the comedy of films according to existing humour theories and thus to confirm them. The predominant approach is to fall back on existing humour theories and to transform them to suit the medium. The fact that one or more theories of humour may be appropriate for each film, but the rest are not, has not led to a general questioning of their applicability. Film-specific expressions of humour and comedy, on the other hand, are systematised by Mikos (2008) and by Schramm (2012) for the films of Charlie Chaplin. The question of the extent to which plot structures or narrative patterns constitute film comedy is controversial and has remained unresolved for decades (see above on Mast 1979; Horton 1991; Alic 2014). However, similar to Grimm’s (2014) humour disposition test, this assumes a false premise, namely the objective ascertainability of humour. If, on the other hand, one assumes that humour on the sender and receiver side is always only an expression of a subjective constitution, the humour content of plot structures and other elements can still not be defined as film humour, but one can confidently concede them a humorous potential that can very well be objectively determined, regardless of whether or not everyone can laugh about it in every case. In this respect, classifications into categories, forms of expression, structures or patterns are useful if they help to examine this humorous potential of a film. Whether a film offers humorous elements at all can be determined in this way. How much these elements are perceived as humorous is beyond objective answer because of the subjective component of this question. Therefore, only interpretative offers regarding humorous content can be made, just as film in general can only ever offer meaning and “signals that guide reception” (Korte 2010, p. 23). What comedy is will thus also always be renegotiated (cf. Glasenapp/ Lillge 2008; generally for the genre concept: Hickethier 2007, p. 81). It is significant that, with few exceptions, neither in philosophical discourse, nor in sociological, medical or film studies are children and their humour preferences the subject of research. In television research, the studies are seemingly diverse in terms of subject matter, but sometimes methodologically unclean, do not live up to their own claims, or focus on such a narrow field of research that the underlying theoretical level is lost from view.

3.5  Discussion and Summary

141

Thus the study by Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004) is worthy of criticism in many respects, even if it ultimately offers an interesting starting point for humour research in the audiovisual field. For example, in their study of advertising clips, their allocation to age groups and the humour preferences derived from them, the authors did not establish any connection between the product advertised in each case and the humour used, although Weinberger/Campbell (1990, pp. 46, 50) proved for radio commercials that the use of humour is particularly effective for products such as food, jeans and hair dyes (according to the authors, the same also applies to these products in TV commercials), but not for the advertising of cars, insurance and banks (similar results are also supported by more recent research: cf. Gleich 2009, p. 271 f.; Gierl 2007, p. 16). In this respect, the age of the target group is only one criterion for certain humour content or techniques, perhaps even a marginal one, at least in relation to advertising. However, it is above all what is being advertised that becomes important, because some products only seem to be successfully advertised with certain humour contents and techniques (so also Räwel 2005, p. 195). It should also be mentioned in this context that the authors refer to the publication by Acuff/Reiher (1997), who state humour preferences for certain age groups, for example for parodies and rebellious humour among 8–11-year-olds. As catchy as these thematic humour preferences read, however, Acuff/Reiher (1997) leave it open on what their findings are based. The humour techniques of A.  Berger (1993) on which the work of Buijzen/ Valkenburg (2004) is based also lack distinctiveness and, as Knop (2007, p. 31) and Brock (2004, 59  f.) stated, also applicability, because individual so-called techniques, such as “speed,” do not generate comedy of themselves (so also Brock 2004, p. 60), which Berger himself also admits (cf. Berger, A. 1993, p. 52). A similar discussion could already be observed above with the cinematic plot structures of Mast (1979). Here, as there, a different perspective is helpful. If one merely examines the humorous potential of humour techniques or categories, such as those used by A. Berger (1993) and Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004), without insisting that they be exclusively constitutive of humorous content, these techniques and categories can again be used in a cognitive way. However, terms such as “humour technique” and “humour category” are used simultaneously by Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004), are difficult to separate from the “basic categories,” or the subdivision does not make sense. Already A.  Berger (1993), who divided his 45 humour techniques into the four basic categories of language, logic, identity and plot, had somewhat arbitrarily separated himself from conventional terms such as “genre” and replaced them with “humour technique” (cf. Berger, A. 1993, p. 18).

142

3  Humor in Science and Practice

For the present work, which deals with the phenomenon of humour in German children’s cinema, recourse to findings on English-language television advertising clips is also of very limited value. The authors also assume that advertising clips, if only because of their narrative structure, are an audiovisual equivalent of A. Berger’s joke studies (cf. Buijzen/Valkenburg 2004, p. 149). However, it is difficult to extract meaningful values from advertising clips for other audiovisual content, not only because the length of these clips differs considerably from that of a film, for example, but also because the two formats pursue completely different goals: in the case of an advertising clip it is the creation of an incentive to buy, in the case of a film it is entertainment (not to mention the different situations of reception: advertising clips are often tolerated rather than intentionally received as is the case with films). Finally, it is methodologically questionable to impute certain humour preferences to a group of recipients by coders, as the authors have done (cf. Buijzen/ Valkenburg 2004, p. 156). In this case, it is more appropriate to speak of a simulation of an audience study than of a methodologically sound recipient study. To declare a different humour theory relevant for each age group, or even all of them for the group of adults (cf. Buijzen/Valkenburg 2004, p. 164), is ultimately also not suitable for bringing light into the theoretical darkness. Even in the methodologically diverse and outstanding work by Knop (2007), in which humorous TV content and topics are analysed and put in relation to the ­subsequent survey of recipients, and in which the author also gives a good overview of the theoretical discourse in the general section, one looks in vain for what the author herself misses in other studies: a theoretical location (cf. Knop 2007, p. 307). The question of what conclusion the author draws from her own detailed findings for the applicability of humour theories, whether she needs to expand or restrict them and whether the concept of humour does not need to undergo an expansion through media content, thus remains unanswered. Instead, even before evaluating her own research, the author assumes a synthesis of incongruity, degradation and relaxation theory and assumes incongruity to be the basic characteristic of comedy (cf. Knop 2007, p. 68 f.). As shown above, however, incongruence is not always present when comedy stimulates laughter. People also laugh at familiar, congruent and even predictable content. The study by Prommer (2012), which aims to make taste in humour on television measurable by surveying recipients, is exciting, even if further research will have to take socially relevant parameters such as income into account. Whether ever-changing life circumstances can actually determine humour preferences and tastes remains to be seen. Similar to Grimm’s humour disposition test above, however, any predictions will probably only be possible to a very limited extent and for a limited period of time.

3.5  Discussion and Summary

143

Nevertheless, the justification for an assumption made by Dynel (2013) remains open. For her, a kind of guilelessness (“cognitive safety”) is a basic prerequisite for the reception of humour in films and television content (cf. Dynel 2013, p. 28), but the basis for her claim remains completely open. With regard to the therapeutic use of film and television programmes presented above in the medical section, it is also difficult to speak of “cognitive safety,” because the patients are not “safe,” but consume humour content in full awareness of their illness with the hope of improvement, i.e. guilelessness is not given here, but humour nonetheless often has a function and mode of action. Also questionable is the insight gained from the monothematic work of Brock (2007), who assumes that TV parodies have a media-critical effect through a self-­ aggression of the viewer. On closer inspection, this assumption of a media-critical effect seems quite contrived. Consequently, every surprise would have to be evaluated as self-aggression, since the viewer would have to admit to overlooking a possible other interpretation, which, according to Brock, is the basis of this effect, i.e. when the viewer’s eye is sharpened for other interpretations. However, surprises are also conceivable that even the alert and understanding recipient could not have expected, one thinks here of body and object deformations, for example, but also of slapstick interludes. The fact that these means of comedy can also be used for media criticism is not to be disputed here. Self-aggression can therefore be a possible explanatory model for the media-critical effects of parodies, but not necessarily the only one, just as degradation theory cannot explain all forms of comedy. Like many other studies, Bleicher’s (2003) historical examination of television humour avoids slipping into theoretical shallows. However, he makes it clear that humour preferences are also always culturally and historically conditioned. Here, then, what has already been mentioned above in terms of cultural history is confirmed in terms of media studies, namely that humour is, on the one hand, a highly subjective phenomenon due to the life horizon of the respective recipient, which, on the other hand, is also determined by the constantly changing culture in which it is practised. Of value is also the reference by Vogt (2007), who is the only one to elaborate on the performative elements of comedy. Here, the subjective character of humour is transferred to the sender of the same. It is not only the receiver who determines how and whether humour is understood, but to a large extent also the sender. It is also always the way in which humour is presented that determines how it is perceived. An analysis of humour content should therefore also deal with a determination of performative elements, which is also what will be done in this thesis (cf. Sect. 4.4.3, Acting Guide (i), p. 250).

144

3  Humor in Science and Practice

The studies by Lambernd (1998), Schumacher/Hammer (2000) and Gerhards/ Klinger (2003) can be criticised for not examining large groups of viewers such as children at all. Here one could object that, at least in Lambernd’s case, the focus was also on a programme which, due to its broadcasting time, is not primarily watched by children (RTL Saturday Night Show). However, this does not apply to the broader studies by Schumacher/Hammer (2000) and Gerhards/Klinger (2003). Ultimately, this shows what happens to the age group of children up to around 12 years of age in relation to cinema films in media studies, also in market research (such as that of the FFA, which only records its cinema-goers from the age of 10), and can best be described with the word disregard. In the relatively new area of research on the Internet, however, an interesting discourse can be observed in comparison to film and television studies when it comes to the examination of existing humour theories and the expansion of the concept through media content. Here, too, however, there are studies that can hardly offer any insights in this regard. Thus, the observational studies by Wehn (2003, 2010) are devoid of conclusions for the humour-theoretical substructure. Although the author can come up with an enumerative description of humorous content on the Internet, some of which only occurs in this medium, it would have been interesting to find out what influence the interactive possibilities offered by the Internet have on existing theories of humour, or what modification or additions these might undergo as a result of the new medium. However, only Laineste (2013) offers this kind of argument, proving that aggression theory cannot explain the use of humour on the Internet and therefore cannot be applicable, because the use of humour declines as Internet participants engage in increasingly aggressive arguments. Laineste’s study is therefore one of the few from a media studies perspective that comes into direct confrontation with at least one of the pre-existing humour theories. In contrast to Laineste (2013), Pennington/Hall (2014) assume that humorous comments have a social-bonding rather than a divisive or competitive function. Even though a distinction must be made here between freely accessible news portals such as those studied by Laineste and social networks requiring registration, and the topics differ for both portals, these contrasting results make it clear that the relatively young medium of the Internet has not yet led to a coherent formation of opinion with regard to humour and is unlikely to do so, as differentiations are necessary with regard to specific use. On the one hand, humour research for the Internet thus examines humorous content in a descriptive explanatory manner using existing humour theories, as has already been done in film and television research. It is remarkable, however, that the mostly young authors also identify new forms of humour for the youngest me-

3.5  Discussion and Summary

145

dium and, at least in the case of Laineste (see above), are not afraid to refute old humour theorems. The youngest medium thus seems to animate researchers to attack the oldest axioms, which leads us to expect an exciting discourse of the kind that has largely failed to materialise for film and television humour. Research on children’s everyday and television humour can confirm what has been recognised in sociology, among other fields: the importance of age, gender, cognitive development and social environment for the understanding and production of humour. This also explains why adult and child humour differ and why a definition of humour that is valid for all age groups is impossible, although a general theory of humour is repeatedly sought (cf. Raskin 2012, p. 62; Raskin 2014, pp. 370–371). Notwithstanding this, categorical accounts of humour appear useful for capturing children’s humour. Nevertheless, there are still gaps in our knowledge of children’s films in cinemas, as the conditions of reception, access and format are different when compared to television consumption. It must therefore be stated that neither philosophy, as already stated as an interim result above (cf. p. 57), nor science has succeeded in providing a convincing definition of humour that could help to conceptualise a survey of children or clearly outline film analyses in their components, even if, for example, individual c­ inematic humour techniques, age and gender differences and categorical coverage are adopted for one’s own analysis. The preparatory questions posed in the introduction can now be answered as follows, in the form of derivations from the current state of research. In this context, a definition of humour is also given. The further research goals of this thesis in the empirical-analytical part result from the gained knowledge. Deriving a Definition for the Children’s Film from the State of Research The literature on children’s film does not offer a sufficiently conclusive definition of a children’s film (cf. in detail: Sect. 2.4, p. 21). For this reason, the following definition of a children’s film is used in this thesis: A children’s film can be assumed if a film material has been implemented in a way that is suitable for children and resonates with the target audience, thus the intention of the filmmakers on the one hand, implementation and reception on the other hand are in an appropriate relationship to each other. In the following, “children” as recipients are understood as adolescents under the age of 12 (also Bazalgette/Staples 1995, p. 92). The Definition of Humour and Its Usefulness for One’s Own Investigation After reviewing previous research on humour, it must be noted that philosophical theories of humour have been limited exclusively to adult humour and that for this reason alone a generally valid definition of humour is impossible as long as all of

146

3  Humor in Science and Practice

its manifestations and effects are not known, which also includes the study of specific children’s humour. However, many works in other disciplines have simply refrained from taking children and their humorous preferences seriously; above all, the target group itself does not have its say in most cases. Beyond this flaw, as we have seen, each of the theories presented can only ever explain partial aspects of humour and comedy (cf. in detail Sect. 3.5, p.  135). Insofar as texts, films or other content are examined by purely subsuming these flawed theories of humour in other disciplines, including media studies, no flawless contribution to the definition of the phenomenon can emerge, because both sociological research and specific research on children’s everyday humour and television research on children’s humour have shown that children go through their own motivations, expressions, gender-specific customs and age-relevant phases of humour production and reception. Topics and preferences therefore differ significantly from adult preferences, again highlighting that approaching an understanding of children’s humour to the exclusion of children from a purely adult perspective is doomed to failure. It is important that children themselves define what is funny for them. The presented humour theorems and the research results of medical-­ psychological and media-scientific studies make it necessary to approach a definition of humour that goes beyond the linguistic-historical and philosophical-­ theoretical and also takes into account the findings of individual scientific disciplines of more recent times in order to be able to narrow down and conceptualise the planned children’s film analysis, but also the preceding interviews with children. After reading the theory dispute, one would first like to follow Martin (1998): Although everyone seems to recognize a sense of humour when they see it, no one seems to agree on how to define or explain it. (Martin 1998, p. 15)

The hope of one day being able to explain and define humour through a general theory nevertheless persists (cf. Raskin 2012, p. 62; Raskin 2014, pp. 370–371). In the meantime, attempts are also being made to synthesise several theories (cf. with further evidence Knop 2007, p. 68). Ultimately, a theoretical definition of the comic and humour is also difficult because the phenomenon has not yet been sufficiently researched in its entirety, as the chapter on medical-psychological and media studies research has shown. Through the latter it becomes clear that both received and produced humour is to be seen in dependence of the respective medium: People laugh about different things on television than on the Internet, for example. In addition, humour must

3.5  Discussion and Summary

147

always be seen in a cultural and historical context. The Middle Ages, for example, with its Christian-extremist doctrine of renunciation led to a rejection of the comic, and especially of laughter, not only in clerical circles. The socio-cultural studies have shown that dispositions specific to age, role and gender also produce different attitudes in the expectation, as well as in, the exercise of humour. Humour implies the ability to grasp, understand and produce humour oneself and thereby to amuse other people. Thus humour as part of the personality is initially bound to the subject. The assessment of what the subject perceives as funny… is shaped by his or her biographical experiences, knowledge, views and situational sensitivities. (Hartung 2008, p. 65)

In addition, there are social norms of hierarchy and the spirit of the times, which decisively determine who is allowed to joke, when, how, and who may laugh and about what. A generalised theory of humour is inconceivable due to these multiple parameters. Instead, the number of humour theories and descriptions grows with the number of target groups they concern. Consequently, it will only ever be ­possible to describe the milieus of those involved in humour, i.e. context-specific descriptions of humour, and the more homogeneous the composition of these milieus, the more precise these descriptions will be. The humour of a school class will thus be easier to describe than that of an entire school. For the questioning of children in this work, the consequence is that any abstract descriptions of the humour typical for the group can only claim to be valid for the relevant context (cf. below Sect. 4.2.8, p. 203). In order to partially break up the confusing disparate definitional situation in the sensory area of the comic, only an attempt at an abstract description of the parameters influencing humour can therefore be made here for the terms humour, comedy and laughter, which also takes into account the somatic-psychic relevance of positive humour as an effect: In the context of this work, it should be assumed that humour describes an attitude of a subject, that comedy arises from an understood and accepted offer of humour by the recipient, that both forms have joy, pleasure and/or pleasurable surprise as their goal, laughter can be a form of expression of this process (although not the only one), and all three phenomena have in common that they are historically, socio-culturally and medially determined specifically as to gender, age, occupation and development, as well as socially effective and psychosomatically relevant in their positive and negative forms of expression. For the analysis of films and the self-disclosure of children on the subject of humour that is to be aimed at, decisive consequences result from this abstract para-

148

3  Humor in Science and Practice

phrase: humour content, forms and techniques can only be recorded according to their potential and agglomeration as a function of the medium, but not according to their effective intensity or quality, since comedy content eludes recording due to its subjective determinant. Thus, both in the group discussions and in the film analyses, only offers of humour can be recorded, but not the quality, effectiveness or intensity of these offers. The Significance of Humour in Media Studies In summary, it can be said for the media studies examination of the phenomenon of humour in relation to audiovisual media that, despite the supposed diversity of research results and the increasing interest in this subject area, humour is still a phenomenon to which little attention has been paid in media studies and, in particular, humour content and categories are rarely examined in the audiovisual field (so also: Kümpel et al. 2014, p. 220; Dynel 2013, p. 22; Knop 2007, p. 15; Buijzen/ Valkenburg 2004, p. 148). Many studies mainly examine (television) programme offerings according to quantitative measures or preferences of humorous programmes from the recipient’s perspective without combining both approaches. ­Investigated effects of humorous media content only rarely lead to the enrichment or critical examination of humour theories, which are incidentally hardly ever integrated into studies (cf. in detail: Sect. 3.5, p.  135; critically also: Knop 2007, p. 307). Instead, traditional theories are often adopted and, with greater or lesser effort, analogously applied. It is striking that theoretical, analytical and empirical procedures are hardly combined in order to process humour in media studies. Moreover, as Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004, p. 148) rightly complain, the different humour contents and types are generally only dealt with in very few studies, much less empirically verified (even if the authors are not exempt from this criticism, as mentioned above, cf. Sect. 3.5, p. 141). Mills (2008) provides a sobering explanation for this state of affairs, which is in need of improvement, for the field of television, but which can easily be extended to the even less researched field within film studies: It appears that studying comedy is just too difficult. Yet that difficulty that has so far discouraged thorough long-term analysis of broadcast humour will, it is hoped, become its major focus and guidance principle. (Mills 2008, p. 75 f.)

Thus, as shown, findings on humour from a media studies perspective are ultimately split up into partly very specialised works. The spectrum ranges from historical observations to individual product and genre analyses to audience analyses in individual media.

3.5  Discussion and Summary

149

In the field of film, this is partly based on premises that stand in the way of further insights into cinematic humour, for example, when looking for plot structures that are supposed to be unique to comedy but also occur in other genres. In television research, the combination of empirical and theoretical approaches is often dispensed with. Where television research has dealt with children’s humour and has also interviewed children, two things can be stated with regard to concrete humour preferences and categories: 1. Adults have a different sense of humour than children and therefore misjudge the latter in terms of their preferences. 2. In the field of categorical humour research, only two studies, which differ greatly in their methodology, have identified children’s preferences with regard to humorous content on television, among other things, by means of surveys (cf. Ensinger 2003b; Neuss 2003a). Comparable research in the field of children’s cinema, on the other hand, is completely lacking, as far as can be seen, apart from the few exceptions that deal with humour as a regulator of fear (cf. with further evidence Nebe 2016, pp. 152–177). The most recent medium, the Internet, on the other hand, not only provokes new manifestations of humour, but also allows young researchers to question traditional humour theorems, even if it is by no means possible to speak of a consensus regarding the individual research results. It is to be hoped that the energy of this critical and fresh discourse will also take hold of the “old” media again in the future. Even if humour can only be defined abstractly after evaluating the state of research, the merit of media-scientific approaches can very well be grasped and also positively formulated, because a lot has been contributed to the understanding of humour and its theories: the aggression theory has been refuted (at the same time, the frequently practiced pure application of traditional humour theories to media content avoids gaining knowledge); the importance of cultural-historical phenomena as well as of age groups for the understanding of humour are confirmed and emphasised; humour is also dependent on the medium that is received (e.g. television) or through which humour is produced (Internet); the performative aspect of humour on the broadcasting side is emphasised as indispensable; it is proven that even the smallest units of audiovisual imprinting, such as sounds, can produce comedy; film-technical parameters such as camera movements, but also the acting of the film, for example, are of great importance for the understanding of humour. Cinematographic parameters such as camera movements, but also the acting, play a decisive role in the implementation of humour; categorical approaches facilitate the quantitative recording and comparability of humorous content according to its

150

3  Humor in Science and Practice

potential in an analysis; surveys of recipients provide insights into humour preferences that can only be insufficiently captured by purely theoretical considerations. Other Derivations from the State of Research for the Recording of Children’s Humour Preferences and the Analysis of Children’s Films In the context of this work, it makes sense to establish a system of categories that defines forms of humour and makes it possible to classify statements when interviewing children. On the one hand, categories will have to be formed that can capture incongruencies and degradations, as has been done, above all, in philosophical discourse and, following it, in the subsuming and multi-perspective models of humour research in media studies (see above Sects. 3.1, p. 27, 3.3.3.1, p. 72 and 3.3.3.2, p. 78). On the other hand, the age and gender of the participants in the group discussions should also be taken into account as has been done in sociological humour research (see above Sect. 3.3.1, p. 58). Whether it is possible to prove that humour is potentially harmful to health, or at least influences mood, will at least be a matter for discussion in view of the medical findings on the effects of humour (see below, Sect. 4.2.7.1, under “Bad and non-jokes”, p. 192 and Sect. 4.4.11.1, p. 349). For the film analyses following the group discussions, in addition to this humour category system, filmic humour devices will also be taken into account, which have proven to be meaningful from the presented state of research and have been taken into account not only, but especially in the multi-perspective humour research of media studies (see above Sect. 3.3.3.2, p. 78). These include, among others, the detection of shog sizes, acting, linguistic and non-linguistic acoustic comedy, the possible presence of so-called comic characters, visual comedy and cognitive narrative elements such as suspense and tension, and the genre affiliation of a film. For reasons of research economy, some of these elements will be analysed quantitatively and others qualitatively (cf. Sect. 4.4.2, p. 216). The definition of humour that has already been made, a humour category system that has yet to be determined, the age and gender of the participants in the group discussions and film-specific forms of humour are thus components of the group discussions and the film analyses inspired by the state of research presented. These are supplemented by production data such as the number of shooting days, budget and number of viewers for the films analysed, in order to investigate whether correlations exist with the other parameters. In this way, it should be clarified, for example, whether a film with a high humour density also has a high number of spectators.

4

Empirical Part

4.1 The Goal and the Questions In the context of this work, which deals with forms of humour in selected high-­ attendance children’s films, the following research questions arise, the answers to which should help to close the existing gaps for the children’s film sector. Here, a distinction is made between questions that relate to the questioning of children and those that are relevant to the film-analytical part: The core question of the group discussions is which categories of humour prove to be particularly popular when children are questioned. In this context, it will be examined how children themselves define humour, which filmic humour elements are remembered or gladly retold and how humorous scenes are interpreted and understood. The children’s answers will be used to form humour categories, taking age and gender into account. Finally, it will be clarified whether the humour of the children interviewed can be described in a context-specific way. The core question of the film analyses is what role humour plays as a cinematic device in selected German children’s film productions with a high number of viewers from the years 2007–2010. The aim is to analyse which types and categories of humour can be found in the films and how this is implemented in film. It is also of interest which similarities or differences arise in terms of humour between children’s films based on book adaptations and those based on an original screenplay. Finally, it will also be clarified whether certain cinematic humour characteristics may be indicative of the successful production of children’s films, specifically: whether there is a relationship between the presence of certain humour categories and the audience figures of the films examined.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. F. Nebe, Humour and successful children’s films, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40323-2_4

151

152

4  Empirical Part

In answering the research questions, as presented, analytical procedures will be applied that take into account the findings of philosophical theorising, but also research practice from sociology, medicine, media studies and children’s and television humour research. This applies both to the conception of group discussions with children and to the subsequent film analyses of successful children’s films. Following the exegesis of the state of research, the work is divided into two parts: While in the first, children’s preferred humour categories are recorded by means of an empirical procedure, in the second part the selected films are examined both on the basis of this canon of categories and by means of selected cinematic humour techniques by means of sequence analyses in order to answer the question of which of the children’s preferred humour categories are now to be found in the films. In addition, further parameters and their correlation to the respective determined humour density will be examined, such as the number of shooting days, the budget and the number of viewes achieved. The methodological procedure for recording the humour categories through group discussions with children, which is inspired by the research presented, will be described and justified in more detail in the following chapter.

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour This chapter presents the methodology of interviewing children, conducting the group discussions and the results of the same. The occurrence of the humour categories preferred by the children interviewed is related to the theoretical approaches to humour from the first chapters. Against the background of the results of the group discussions, it will be discussed to what extent the theories of humour, which, as shown, are the basis of theoretical debate in all disciplines, can explain the children’s humour recorded (cf. Sect. 4.2.8, p. 203) and how the humour of the children interviewed can be described in summary. Finally, the first part of the research questions in the following Sect. 4.3 can be answered. Interviews with children can be designed and conducted in a wide variety of ways. The decision for, and the methodology of, group discussions are justified and explained in the following.

4.2.1 Group Discussion The guiding principle in deciding on a survey form was the likelihood of explorative information acquisition, taking into account the feasibility with the special

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

153

type of group, after it became clear that there have been no studies to date on children’s preferred humour in films and that the literature on the subject of humour also does not allow any conclusions to be drawn in this regard. It was crucial to find out how children themselves define humour, what examples they give of it and what preferences result from the frequent mention of individual humour categories. For this reason alone, a rather open-ended questioning was aimed at, since it could be expected to reveal little known phenomena (cf. Friedrichs 1990, p. 226, who speaks of “intensive interviews” in such a case). In order to relieve the children interviewed of possible fears, biases or simply a certain shyness that can arise from a single interview, it seemed sensible to have their discussions in the same groups to which they also belonged in everyday life. In terms of feasibility, discussions in groups also offer an advantage in terms of research economics, as more information can be collected in a short time than through individual interviews (cf. Mikos 2013, p. 632 f.). The participants’ answers should also be qualitatively and quantitatively evaluable. These were the reasons for conducting several group discussions, about which different definitions exist in the literature. Lamnek (1995) puts it briefly and succinctly, according to which a group discussion can generally be understood as a conversation by a group on a certain topic under laboratory conditions (cf. Lamnek 1995, p. 134). According to Neuss (2003a), group discussions represent a survey method that obtains data through interactions of the group members, whereby the researcher specifies the topic (cf. Neuss 2003a, p. 3). However, group discussion is also understood as an “articulation of overarching collective orientations” (cf. Schäffer 2005, p. 305). Common to all definitions is the fundamental interest in statements from groups of people as opposed to individuals. Schäffer (2005) also attaches importance to the distinction between group discussions, group surveys and group interviews (cf. on this and in the following Schäffer 2005, p. 304). Group interviews are merely a time-saving variant of individual interviews. By contrast, group interviews tend to analyse forms of conversation without planning a survey situation from the outset. However, the demarcation is futile for this work (as also generally: Lamnek 2005, p. 27, whose definition of a group discussion is followed here), since in the present case, as explained above, the group consisting of children is of particular importance and the collection of information is the reason for the implementation, so it was also in the sense of Schäffer (2005) not about the investigation of forms of conversation or a variant of individual interviews. The limitations of the procedure of a group discussion lie in the non-recording of individual biographies, subjective intentions and practices of action, since talking about an action does not replace the analysis of the actual action (cf. Schäffer

154

4  Empirical Part

2005, p. 305). The first two points are not the subject of analysis and therefore do not come into play here. The non-verifiability of action practices, on the other hand, can be of importance, because children’s statements about, for example, the humorous content they prefer does not permit the inberence that they actually find it funny in practice. It is, in any case, not possible to check on past recollected receptions. There is, of course, a certain probability that only those situations are actually remembered that the children have also experienced as humorous. However, a survey procedure during the reception of selected cinema films was out of the question for several reasons: in the first place, the technical effort would not have been affordable for four groups with a total of 24 children. At present, there is also no tried and tested procedure for recording audience reactions in a cinema1 auditorium. On the other hand, the children’s comments in the subsequent group discussion would have been strongly influenced by the current reception (apart from the fact that some children would have already known one or the other film, i.e. unequal starting conditions would have prevailed), so that it is highly probable that moments of humour experienced a long time ago would have been pushed into the background in contrast to those just received. It is precisely these memories of past receptions, however, that can be assumed to be an expression of preferences, since they have become engrained. Accordingly, conducting group discussion seemed appropriate to answer the research question about the definition of humour on the part of the children.

4.2.2 Recruitment of the Group The following fundamental considerations of qualitative research played a role in the selection of the children for the group discussions: the goal of qualitative research is not representativeness for an entire collective, but rather typification, in which typical patterns of interpretation and action are sought (cf. with further evidence Wegener/Mikos 2005, p. 177; Mikos/Prommer 2005, p. 193; Paus-­Hasebrink 2005, p. 224). Nonetheless, the aim here is generalisation, namely for those cases in which the contextual conditions are comparable (cf. Baur/Lamnek 2005, p. 246). Cases (persons, processes, procedures, social entities) are understood as typical if

 According to Williams et al. (2016, p. 7), it is possible to tell from certain values of an air measurement during a film screening in the cinema whether the film being shown is a comedy or one containing suspense. According to this, comedies seem to generate a certain “breathing air”. 1

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

155

they are “regarded as typical cases or particularly concise or meaningful examples with regard to a larger set of phenomena with the same or a similar structure” (Hartfiel 1982, p. 160; quoted from Baur/Lamnek 2005, p. 245). Accordingly, all children who are part of the target group for children’s films are to be seen as typical cases. In principle, therefore, all children were suitable for participation in group discussions. Recruitment was therefore based pragmatically on organisational feasibility. The children participating in the group discussions were recruited from a cooperating public primary school in Erfurt (Gisperslebener Schule), and mini-groups (5–7 participants) were formed according to age and gender. The children’s groups were composed of one school class each. Four investigative group discussions were conducted with a total of 24 children and approximately 200 minutes of interviews were evaluated. Children aged 8–10 years came to the group discussions. The individual groups were composed as follows, with each child participating in a group only once (Table 4.1). The age structure (8-year-olds and 10-year-olds) was chosen in order to do justice to the different reception behaviour of children of these ages discussed above. As presented elsewhere (cf. Nebe 2016, pp. 152–177), children under the age of nine tend to perceive films episodically, while the story arcs related by older children are longer. But also in general sociological humour research (see above Sect. 3.3.1, p. 58) and in research on children’s everyday humour (see above Sect. 3.4.1,

Table 4.1  Number of participants in the group discussions by age and gender 21.06.11 21.06.11 22.06.11 22.06.11 11:00–12:00 12:00–13:00 Group/day 11:00–12:00 12:00–13:00 Group 1 Three boys Four girls Age: 8 years Group 2 Four boys Three girls Age: 10 years, one girl 9 years Group 3 Four boys Age: 10 years One boy Age: 9 years Group 4 Five girls Age: 10 years Source: Author’s survey, n = 24

156

4  Empirical Part

p.  111) the determining influence of age and gender has already been proven. Therefore, attention was paid here to age variance. Real groups divided in this way promised a high probability of “not having to struggle laboriously through the initial premises of a conversation”, since the members of the group knew each other and shared a common wealth of experience (cf. Schäffer 2005, p.  306). Moreover, it could be assumed that a lively discussion emerges more quickly due to the pre-existing personal acquaintance (cf. Lamnek 2005, p. 108). The existing real groups (pupils from the same class) also offered a guarantee that children with similar experiences would exchange ideas and “a discursive settling on centres of experience” (Bohnsack 2012, p. 379) became possible. Through this social corrective, the limitation due to the lack of verifiability of action practices in the conception phase could to a large extent be assumed to be alleviated.2

4.2.3 Guide According to Lamnek (2005), the concretisation and specification of the research question are crucial for the planning of a group discussion in order to obtain clarity about what information is to be obtained through it (cf. Lamnek 2005, p. 96). For this purpose, the first part of the research questions was used (cf. Sect. 4.1, p. 151). What Categories of Humour Prove Most Popular When Children Are Asked? How do children themselves define humour? Which cinematic humorous elements are remembered or readily retold? How are humorous scenes interpreted and understood? What categories of humour emerge from the children’s responses? What role do socio-demographic aspects such as the age and gender of the children surveyed play? After evaluating the group discussions, can the children’s sense of humour be described in a context-specific way? In order to structure the group discussion, a discussion guide was developed based on these central questions, following Flick (1991, p. 152).

 But cf. also Chap. 5, p. 535.

2

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

157

The guidelines (cf. Appendix A 3)3 were intended, on the one hand, to serve as a memory aid for the interviewer in order to guide the dialogue with the children back to the complex of the subject if necessary, while at the same time offering enough leeway for a conversation to develop that was as free as possible. A strict catalogue of questions was not to be worked through in order to gain “an insight into the relevance structures and the background experiences” (Schnell et al. 2013, p. 378) of the children. The guideline was divided into three parts according to the structure designed by Lamnek (cf. on this and in the following: Lamnek 2005, p. 98 ff.). In the first part, for which a time of around 15 minutes was set, a basic stimulus was to be established, which was to get into the mood for the topic of humour and enable reflections on the difference between laughing about something and laughing with someone, as well as laughing in the sense of degradation.4 Thus, a start-up phase was to be structured with introductory questions that promoted the children’s recall (cf. also Atteslander 2010, p. 139). In the first and third groups, after the greeting, the following introductory question was asked: “What have you really laughed about?” (group 1), or “What happened to you at school that was really funny, so funny that you really had to cackle?” (group 3). The children immediately took up the question and a stimulating discussion ensued. In the fourth group, the initiative even came from the children themselves, who, after the initial greeting, immediately opened the topic with a statement: Group 4, para 25, 4. Anne Marie, 10: What kids don’t find funny is when they’re fat. Can I just say.

In the second part of the group discussion, which took about 10 minutes, the children were asked to tell their own jokes in order to move from the recounted reception to the production of humour. The aim was to discuss the specific humour characteristics (e.g. surprise, nonsense, language and sound jokes) depending on the type of joke. In addition, both the mixed and the homogeneous gender groups were to discuss whether there are special “boys’ jokes” or “girls’ jokes.”

 Available at Springer.com.  Originally, drawings made by the children in class were to serve as a basic stimulus or conversation starter. Despite agreement, however, only the mixed group 2 had made such a drawing. 3 4

158

4  Empirical Part

The third part was the main part with a planned 20 minutes, in which laughter and humour in films were to be reflected upon. Here, for example, there was an introductory talk about generally funny films and where and with whom one watched them. Subsequently, sub-types of humour were discussed, e.g. whether there are also sad scenes that one nevertheless has to or is allowed to laugh at. Finally, the reception of television productions compared to cinema productions was again explicitly discussed in order to work out specific differences in humour preference or memory. Care was taken to ask open questions and to keep them as vague as possible in order to stimulate the “self-progression” of the discussion (cf. Schäffer 2005, p. 309 f.).

4.2.4 Implementation For the discussions, a location was chosen that had a high affinity to the discussion and guaranteed undisturbed progress (cf. Lamnek 2005, p. 120). In this case, it was a cinema (Kinoklub am Hirschlachufer, Erfurt), which also seemed suitable for evoking associations with leisure activities of a positive connotation, in order to promote a relaxed mood, seen by many researchers as a basic prerequisite for the development of humour (see above Sect. 3.2.4, p. 55). The duration of the group discussions was not significantly to exceed the duration of a school lesson (45 minutes), in accordance with the attention span of the children and their school habits. The discussion was recorded both on video and audiotape. For reasons of research economy, but also in order to exclude bias on the part of the children due to the presence of several adults, the discussion was moderated by the research director himself. Due to his professional experience as a children’s filmmaker, he was attuned to dealing with children while at the same time possessing expertise in the content. The seating arrangement favoured the form of a semi-circle on the floor, which brought the children to eye level with the facilitator. Handing out sweets before the discussion began supported this informal, recreational atmosphere. The children were marked with sticky notes in order to guarantee precise attribution of spoken contributions. Through appropriate follow-up questions, care was taken to minimise possible shortcomings of group discussion procedures, namely a possible high rate of silent participants, the dominance of individual participants and a pre-existing imbalance of power and authority(cf. Lamnek 2005, pp. 84 f., 107), to the extent that they were manifested.

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

159

Unlike Ensinger (2003b), who used a measurement procedure to collect data on children’s humour preferences during the reception of children’s television programmes, the questions in the guideline stimulated the children’s memory process with regard to past film and TV reception, as was also the practice of Neuss (2003a), among others.

4.2.5 Methodology of the Analysis of the Interviews In the following, the way in which the group discussions were evaluated will be explained. Transcription The recorded discussions were transcribed for further analysis. The extent and type of transcription was decided on a case-by-case basis by the respective research objective; there is therefore no fixed standard (cf. Lamnek 2005, p.  175). Consequently, the question is which information actually helps to answer the research question (cf. Lamnek 2005, p. 188). Measured against the research objective (including the formation of categories on the basis of the children’s statements in the discussion and the establishment of a ranking of humour preferences) and in order to improve readability, the transcription of the verbal messages in the present study was limited to what was said, because this method seemed best suited to answering the research questions, taking into account the necessary effort. Linguistic investigations or particularly sensitive topics such as sexuality, where, for example, pauses in speech can provide information about intentions and meanings, did not play a role here, so that a reduction of the transcription process seemed justified (cf. for the coding of similar cases: Prommer 2005, p. 405). Reactions of parts of the group and non-linguistic reactions were therefore only taken into account if they were made by all participants or could be clearly assigned to individual participants. Pauses and emphases were left out of the transcription, as they were not expected to provide any significant gain in knowledge for the research objective, but were transcribed verbatim and true to the original. Coding Using an automated cut-and-paste technique (Lamnek 2005, p. 232) with the help of the MaxQDA software, the 1091 statements of the discussion participants were assigned to individual humour categories in the analysis in order to be able to answer what children understand by humour and into which manifestations it can be

160

4  Empirical Part

divided (double entries were permissible, since remembered funny situations, scenes or moments almost always fulfilled several humour categories). The smallest unit of analysis is the part of a speech (expression) that can be understood as a single entity and that contains at least one humour category. There are basically three possible procedures for coding: categories are taken from the literature, they can be derived from the research question guiding the ­research, or they are only obtained inductively from the data material afterwards, whereby a combination of these three methods is frequently encountered and “corresponds to the flexible and open approach of qualitative research” (with further evidence: Lamnek 2005, p.  232; Kuckartz 2016, pp.  64, 71; Kuckartz 2010, p. 201 f.; Mayring 2015, p. 85 f.). For the adoption of humour categories, the canons of various researchers of categorial humour research, which have already been presented above (cf. Sect. 3.3.3.4, p. 91). All category canons also take into account incongruencies and degradations, which in principle spoke in favour of adoption. However, while the selection of Kümpel et  al. (2014), Dynel (2013), Knop (2007), and Buijzen/ Valkenburg (2004) seemed unsuitable in scope and definitiveness for the present work, as they had been designed exclusively for adults except for the work of Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004), a selective-adapted application of the humour categories of Ensinger (2003a, b) and Neuss (2003a, b) (see above Sect. 3.4.2, p. 123), at least for the initial coding process, was used to fit the allocation of the statements for the child target group. As already shown, however, the category systems of the two researchers are characterised by strong differences and are by no means congruent, even purely in terms of scope: while Ensinger drafts 19 categories, for example, Neuss has 55 (cf. Ensinger 2003b, p. 88 ff.; Neuss 2003a, p. 9 ff.). Moreover, as Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004) demonstrated, the delimitability of humor categories suffers greatly from their increasing number (so also Prommer 2012, p. 130 for the similarly extensive work of Knop 2007). The aim of this work was therefore also to develop a category system that was distinguished on the one hand by a clear identifiability of its individual categories and on the other hand was able to contribute to the standardisation of categorical humour research through meaningful quantitative reduction and the renunciation of unnecessary new designations, because a division of humor structures that is too small tends to impede their apprehension. It was therefore necessary to limit the number of humour categories in order to be able to guarantee selectivity, to adopt plausible definitions of categories, and to provide more precise definitions of categories where they had not previously been provided or had not been provided in a comprehensible manner.

161

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

For these reasons, a selection from Ensinger’s (2003a, b) and Neuss’s (2003a, b) canon of categories was compiled as the basis for coding the transcripts, consisting of thirteen categories and four subcategories. Here, the term “humour category,” already established in research, was retained (justifications for the specific selection follow below in the definitions of the humour categories). Through repeated coding runs within this inductive procedure, the disparate classification was then unified through increasingly clear definitions of these adopted humour categories and the assignment of statements was repeatedly ­corrected (cf. Mayring/Hurst 2005, p. 439; Lamnek 2005, p. 235). This a priori – a posteriori procedure thus ensured that all the children’s utterances in the group discussions could be clearly assigned to one or more humour categories. The group discussion also highlighted the need to establish an additional humour category, namely the category “bad and non-jokes,” which will be discussed in more detail below. This Table 4.2 provides a first overview of the selected categories: Table 4.2  Humour categories for coding the statements in the group discussions Humour category Aesthetics Mishaps/misfortunes of others Playing with expectations/surprising twist Deviation from the norm/absurdity Language/wordplay/meaning Voice sound Confusion/misunderstanding Degradation degradation of authority Degradation because of stupidity Degradation as compensatory justice Own misadventures (not applicable to the movies) Pranks

Code 1 2 3

Delicate issues Sound and noises Imitation/parody Bad + non jokes

10 11 12 13

Source: Own survey

4 5 5a 6 7 7a 7b 7c 8 9

Examples Appearance, deformations Damage, disadvantage for a figure Surprise or failure to meet an expectation Unusual actions, reactions Puns, double entendres, rhymes Tone of voice, accent, dialect Errors Pejorative Debasement of a powerful figure Pejorative Degradation of a person acting unjustly Damage, disadvantage for oneself Actions to harmlessly damage or provoke a character Shameful Non-speech sounds Imitation of living beings, situations Missing the intention of comedy

162

4  Empirical Part

Frequency analyses (cf. Mayring 2015, p. 65) subsequently enabled the construction of a ranking. In this respect, quantitative methods were also applied to the qualitatively obtained data material. From the answers, categories of humour could thus be formed, which served as a basis for humour classification in the later film analysis and which allowed an answer to be given to the question of how children themselves define humour. Classification of Statements According to Areas of Life, Age and Gender The utterances of the children participating in the group discussions could also be divided into four areas of life and were additionally coded accordingly: Everyday life, cinema films, DVD films and TV broadcasts. This subdivision, which Neuss (2003a, b) also makes in part, makes sense in order to show whether and to what extent humour preferences differ among children depending on the area of life. In this way, it should be possible to mitigate what thematically and retrospectively focused surveys can always be accused of, namely that they “always only reflect and illuminate what is already there” (Götz 2013a, p. 613). Through the assessments of the group discussion participants, which were open to all areas of life, it was therefore possible to achieve a qualitative improvement, because the humour preferences for (given) cinema films could, for example, be contrasted with preferences for freely organised activities of everyday life. The areas of life in detail: Everyday life includes all expressions that describe humorous incidents of ordinary life, such as anecdotes, observations, experiences, but also the telling of jokes. In contrast to Neuss (2003a), the telling of jokes was attributed to everyday life, because on the one hand there is no situation detached from the children’s everyday life in which children only devote themselves to telling jokes. Rather, jokes are integrated into everyday life – as is the case with adults – and serve to loosen up, to bridge pauses, to attract attention or simply to entertain. Crucial for the equation, however, is an argument that Neuss (2003a) himself mentions, even if. for him, it leads to different conclusions. Namely, it can be assumed that children only retain those jokes “which they also find funny and which they have cognitively understood” (Neuss 2003a, p. 25). However, this condition applies to the same extent to everyday situations in which children’s own experiences and adventures are at stake. Only what is perceived as funny and the anecdotal humour content of which has been recognised is subsequently retold. However, where there is a level playing field, there is no need to differentiate. Therefore, in the context of this study, jokes are to be understood as a component of children’s everyday life.

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

163

All statements that refer to a film reception in the cinema, where the focus is not on one’s own experiences, but on the perception of foreign, staged experiences, are to be assigned to the cinema area. Where a clear allocation of a film to a cinema visit was doubtful, for example because the film had its release date more than 18 months before the group discussion (e.g. “Zweiohrküken” by Til Schweiger on 03.12.2009), this title was allocated to the DVD titles, as this corresponded to the probable reception behaviour. For the title “Tangled” (Howard et al. 2010), it emerged from the discussion that the film was seen both in the cinema and later again via DVD. Accordingly, it appears in the title list for both the theatrical film and DVD sectors. As can be seen from the cinema release dates (in brackets after the relevant title in Figs. 4.1 and 4.2), most of the films named had been released in cinemas up to about six months before the group discussion. Exceptions are due to special screenings (“Kiriku” by Michel Ocelot in 1998 or “Das grosse Rennen” by André F. Nebe in 2009). The area of DVD films and TV broadcasting serves to categorise statements that go back to a film reception on television as a playback or reception device. Although films can be consumed both in the cinema and at home via the television, the barriers of a visit to the cinema already mentioned at the beginning (travel time, entrance fee, possible need for adult companions, etc.) should be taken into a­ ccount in comparison to film consumption within one’s own four walls by recording cinema films in a separate category. Even if the question of why children watched certain films at home (e.g. on DVD) and not at the cinema was left out of this study, the following can be regarded Title DVD + TV broadcast Asterix + Obelix The Princess and the Frog (10.12.2009) The 7 Dwarfs II (26.10.2006) Over the Hedge (06.07.2006) Hangover I (23.07.2009) Lord of the Rings (1:19.12.2001, 11:18.12.2002, 111:17.12.2003) Rabbit Without Ears (20.12.2007) Mr. Bean’s Holiday (29.03.2007) Tangled (09.12.2010) Star Wars - Clone Wars (14.08.2008) Transformers I + II (01.08.2007 + 24.06.2009) Traumschiff Surprise (22.07.2004) Zohan (08/14/2008) Rabbit Without Ears 2 (03.12.2009) 1 1/2 Knights (18/12/2008) Paul Blart: Mall Cop (03/26/2009) Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (02.09.2003) Hancock (03.07.2008) 0%

23.1% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

18%

21%

24%

Fig. 4.1  Ranking of the DVD and TV broadcast film titles mentioned in the group discussions. (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all titles mentioned for cinema films that were received on DVD or via TV broadcast (multiple answers possible), n = 26)

164

4  Empirical Part Title Cinema FILM 21.3%

Tangled (09.12.2010) Rango (03.03.2011) Rio (07.04.2011) Grown Ups (05.08.2010) Greg’s Diary 2 (02.06.2011) Kiriku and the Sorceress (07.10.1999) Fast & Furious Five (04/28/2011) Kokowääh (03.02.2011) Pirates of the Caribbean -Stranger Tides (19.05.2011) Hangover 2 (02.06.2011) Harry Potter + Deathly Hallows 2 (07/14/2011) Despicable Me (30.09.2010) Kung Fu Panda II (16.06.2011) Thor (04/28/2011) X-Men: First Decision (09-06-2011) Yogi Bear (23.12.2010) The Race (29.10.2009) 0%

12.8% 12.8% 8.5% 8.5% 6.4% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

18%

21%

24%

Fig. 4.2  Ranking of the cinema titles mentioned in the group discussions. (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all titles mentioned for films that were seen in cinemas (multiple answers possible), n = 47)

as probable with regard to the film titles named by the children: on the one hand, those films are mostly watched and remembered on DVD or on television the theatrical release date of which already lies somewhat in the past and which the children were not able to see in the cinema at that time for age reasons (e.g. “Lord of the Rings” by Peter Jackson, theatrical release date in Germany, Part I: 19.12.2001, Part II: 18.12.2002, Part III: 17.12.2003).5 On the other hand, films are also watched again on DVD after a visit to the cinema (e.g. “Tangled”, cinema release date in Germany: 09.12.2010,6 video rental release date: 07.04.2011).7 The list of films that the children watched at home therefore differs from their cinema list primarily in terms of the age of the films. The following list takes into account the date for the cinema release in brackets (as far as the titles could be clearly determined from the discussion, which was not possible only for “Asterix and Obelix”).

 German Film Distributors Association website: http://www.vdfkino.de/cgi-bin/termine.cgi ?SEARCH=Herr+der+Ringe&SEARCH2=&month=Monat&year=Jahr&ACTION=Go&. cgifields=month&.cgifields=year, retrieved 2014-08-15. 6  Website of the Association of German Film Distributors: http://www.vdfkino.de/cgi-bin/ termine.cgi?SEARCH=Rapunzel&SEARCH2=&month=Monat&year=Jahr&ACTION =Go&.cgifields=month&.cgifields=year, retrieved 11/08/2014. 7  Gruner + Jahr Verlag video portal: http://www.video.de/videofilm/rapunzel-neu-verfoehnt-­ dvd-leih/146537, retrieved 11.08.14. 5

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

165

Title TV-Broadcasts 61.5%

Oops - Breakdown Show Hotel Zack & Cody

11.5%

Good Luck Charlie

3.8%

Mister Bean

3.8%

SpongeBob

3.8%

Bet that...?

3.8%

Winnie the Pooh

3.8%

Alarm for Cobra 11

3.8%

American Dragon

3.8%

0%

7%

14%

21%

28%

35%

42%

49%

56%

63%

Fig. 4.3  Ranking of the TV shows in the group discussions. (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all titles mentioned for TV programmes that were consumed via TV broadcast (multiple answers possible), n = 26)

Since the children only named cinema films that they had consumed on DVD, the areas of cinema and DVD films were ultimately combined into one area (a graphic individual list with a ranking of the humour categories separated according to the areas of cinema and DVD films can be found in the appendix (cf. Appendix A 4).8 The last category, “TV shows,” includes all TV formats that can classically only be seen via the TV and not in the cinema or on DVD (e.g. “Upps! Die Pannenshow” or series). Even though some series, such as “Hotel Zack & Cody” mentioned by the children, can be purchased on DVD, this option was never mentioned – unlike with films. Rather, the focus was on consumption via the regular television schedule and thus the corresponding formats were also assigned to the category “TV shows” (Fig. 4.3). The children’s expressions were also coded according to age and gender. During the approximately 20 coding sessions, the definitions of the humour categories were refined with each session and sufficed to serve as a coding guide. However, the recording of the children’s statements according to age, gender and possible humour production (e.g. by telling jokes) made a codebook necessary (see Appendix A 5),9 which with its rules also coped with the deficits of the

 Available at Springer.com.  Available at Springer.com.

8 9

166

4  Empirical Part

MaxQDA software, among other things, and for this purpose provided text examples, also called anchor examples (cf. on this procedure with further references: Prommer 2005, p. 408; Lamnek 2005, p. 201). For example, it had to be decided how statements were to be evaluated and counted that were repeatedly interrupted by other participants, or whether one or more productions of humour were to be assumed if, for example, a joke was told by several children in a kind of division of labour. However, since these difficulties of demarcation only have statistical implications, reference is made at this point to the corresponding codebook in the appendix (Appendix A 5). Due to the multiple coding runs, which also took place with a large time interval (first coding run on 05.12.11, final coding on 16.02.15), it was possible to achieve at least approximate intercoder reliability, although only the research director himself coded (cf. Prommer 2005, p. 409; Lamnek 2005, p. 221). Finally, with regard to possible objections to the selected procedure, Lamnek (2005) should be followed here, aptly remarking with regard to the evaluation of group discussions: The group discussion as an explicitly qualitative method will live – and this is by no means meant ironically – with regard to its acceptance less from elaborate procedures of reliability or validity testing, but rather from the plausibility and the persuasiveness of the findings speaking for themselves. (Lamnek 2005, p. 223)

With the initial adoption of existing humour categories from television research (Sect. 3.4.2, p.  123) and the subdivision into areas of life, the evaluation of the group discussions was thus guaranteed to answer the research questions in several respects: On the one hand, this allowed the target group itself to have its say in an age-­ appropriate manner, and speculative assignments of preferences, such as those made by Buijzinger/Valkenburg (2004), could be avoided. The location, setting and conduct of the group discussions offered a maximum in terms of supportive atmosphere, which could not have been achieved by individual interviews, if only for reasons of research economy. Appropriate questions based on the recollections of the discussion participants ensured that not only recently experienced humorous content from a particular area of life that had just been received was recalled. Differences resulting from age and gender were adequately taken into account in the analysis. The definitions of each humor category are explained in more detail below:

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

167

4.2.6 Definition of the Humour Categories The aim of the selection and definition of humour categories was to limit their number, in order to be able to guarantee selectivity, to adopt plausible definitions of categories from the state of research and to provide more precise definitions for categories where they had not been provided or had not been provided in a comprehensible manner in previous research (see above Sect. 4.2.5, p. 159). The following categories were selected and redefined: • Aesthetics That aesthetic manifestations of humour are important for children has, as seen, also been confirmed by recent research (Loizou 2011, p.  160; Loizou/Kyriakou 2016, p. 115; cf. Sect. 3.4.1, p. 111) and underlines the necessity of this category for our own analyses. This category of humour appears with very similar definitions in Ensinger (2003a, b) as well as in Neuss (2003a, b) (see above). However, both subsume sounds under it in addition to visually perceptible manifestations. Neuss also includes unknown languages and “varieties,” which probably also include dialects, as well as funny associations. This broadens the category almost to the point of arbitrariness. In addition, a technical production circumstance is overlooked here, namely that dubbing and image recording are different and separate processing steps, both during filming and in post-production. A particular tone or sound is therefore always a conscious staging decision, which may be completely detached from the purely visual. However, King (2002) is one of the few to have worked out that sounds can unleash their own humorous potential (see above King 2002, pp. 13–14, discussed here in Sect. 3.3.3.1, p. 72). Sounds of a linguistic and non-­ linguistic nature have therefore been detached from this category and form their own. According to this, the category of aesthetics describes things that can be perceived with the visual senses, such as looks, appearance and movement. This includes above all body and object deformations, changes and transformations, but also slapstick interludes. Thus, the category also includes, for example, so-called visual gags, which Mikos has elaborated as film-specific (Mikos 2008, p.  149  f., discussed here in Sect. 3.3.3.2, p. 78).

168

4  Empirical Part

• Mishaps and Misfortunes of Others This category is listed with common overlap in Ensinger (2003a, b) under “degradation,” in Neuss (2003a, b) under “minor misfortunes of others” and is, as shown, a direct outgrowth of degradation theory (see above Sect. 3.2.1, p. 34). But there is a difference between belittling a person and a mishap or misfortune. Not every mishap automatically leads to disparagement. For example, a mishap may under certain circumstances only be considered bad luck for a character with a positive connotation, and even the revelation of an unfortunate disguise does not necessarily constitute a disparagement, as in the film excerpt from the film “Hanni and Nanni” discussed below, in which Hanni turns a schoolmate’s book the right way round, behind which she thought she was inconspicuous in the observation of an idolised boy. Although the situation is embarrassing and the book held upside down is indisputably a mishap, Hanni’s cheerful tone and the mood of the scene has no disparaging impetus directed against the character. For a clearer distinction, degradations have therefore been collected in a separate category. Misadventures and misfortunes of others are here understood to mean an action or a result of an action that causes harm or disadvantage to a character who got into that situation by chance, absent-mindedness, “not thinking about it,” a reflex reaction, his own or someone else’s fault, clumsiness, or even stupidity. • Playing with Expectations/Surprising Twists The category covers forms of humour that can be justified primarily on the basis of the incongruence theory (see above Sect. 3.2.2, p. 46) and accordingly forms the theoretical background for many audiovisual forms of humour in media studies (see above Sect. 3.3.3, p. 71). In Neuss (2003a, p.  12), this category is listed under “playing with expectations” and includes both surprising actions and behaviours, as well as norm-­defying behaviour, but also misunderstandings, confusions, and clichéd portrayals of a character. Behaviour that deviates from the norm is also categorised by Ensinger (Ensinger 2003a), but a distinction is made between “norm deviation” and “absurdity.” In the case of deviations from the norm, “the sense of humour results from the pleasure of breaking with the rules of reality. In absurdity, the focus is more on the astonishment at the absurd behaviour than on the pleasure in the dissolution of the boundaries of everyday reality” (Ensinger 2003b, p. 105). However, the distinction made by the author is hardly practicable as the example of “absurdity” she gives shows:

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

169

in a children’s show, a family puts on ear muffs in order not to hear the father’s snoring (Ensinger 2003b, p.  91). This behaviour is not without meaning, even though it may be unusual and thus a deviation from the usual behaviour. Ensinger himself then also combines these two categories in another publication (Ensinger 2003a, p. 55). Neuss thus defines the category very broadly, while Ensinger strives for a delimitation. Here, however, concepts can be more clearly separated from one another in order to make children’s preferences more accurately ascertainable. With regard to the evaluation context of the study, a distinction between norm-deviating humour, which also includes fantastic moments such as talking animals, flying people, etc., and surprising twists is useful for material developers, among others. A twist can be brought about with norm-defying or even fantastic behaviour, but it does not have to be. In its unpredictability, it can just as well be rooted in realistic everyday life, i.e. it can do without a norm deviation altogether. Conversely, however, a deviation from the norm is always also a game with expectation, precisely because the deviation is surprising and unexpected. So while norm deviations will always coincide with the category of playing with expectations/surprising twists, the reverse is not the case. This is also due to the fact that the deviation from the norm takes place on the part of the acting (film) character, while an attitude of expectation can also be built up in the viewer and, if necessary, be disappointed in a surprising way. A game with expectations or a surprising turn is thus present when the staging provokes a certain presumption, suspicion or innocence, which is unexpectedly not fulfilled or is exploited to achieve a surprise effect. • Deviation from the Norm/Absurdity The category “deviation from the norm / absurdity,” in contrast to the category “3. playing with expectations / surprising turns,” therefore covers in particular those unexpected actions and reactions that contradict the experiential reality of life or are highly unusual. This also includes absurd and fantastic moments. The category can ultimately also be justified with the incongruity theory, since the imagined and reality diverge here (see above Sect. 3.2.2, p. 46). • Language/Wordplay/Meaning This category occurs both in Ensinger (word jokes/language play) and in Neuss (play with language and meaning) and was essentially adopted due to its determinability. In addition, however, a subcategory was created for speech sounds, which

170

4  Empirical Part

includes foreign languages and accents and which was subsumed under aesthetics in Neuss. It seems more correct, however, to understand the sound of a language as a subspecies of the general language joke, since in this work aesthetic phenomena are restricted to the visual. For this work, therefore, poetic elements such as rhymes, but also aphoristic sayings, rhetorical replies, play with linguistic contexts and ambiguities, puns and comic naming fall under the category of language / wordplay / meaning. This also applies to omissions of these acts, such as through eloquent silence. This category thus also captures the so-called linguistic gags that Mikos has elaborated for cinematic humour (Mikos 2008, p.  149, discussed here in Sect. 3.3.3.2, p. 78). A subcategory emerges for the play with intonation, which is not about the content but about the linguistic sound as a source of humour: • Speech Sound The humour category speech sound includes tone of voice, accents and dialects of linguistic utterances. • Confusion/Misunderstanding Here, too, a redefinition became necessary after Ensinger (2003a, b) listed this category, but Neuss (2003a, b) subsumed “confusions and misunderstandings” only in a subcode under the category “playing with expectations”. The latter, however, leads to inaccuracies, because for the recipient the misunderstanding or mistake of a film character is often not unexpected, but on the contrary downright predictable. The fun often arises precisely because a character fulfils this e­ xpectation and a situation drifts into the comic or chaotic as a result of the character’s feared error. The result of the error can then – depending on the complexity of the humour – very well be a play on the viewer’s expectations, namely when something happens that was not anticipated to this extent. It therefore seemed sensible to distinguish cause and effect and consequently to focus on the film character and not on the viewer in the case of confusion and misunderstanding. The category of confusion/misunderstanding, therefore, includes a character’s active error about actual or assumed occurrences. As distinct from to the category of accident/misfortune, the manifestation of a certain idea is usually necessary here, which excludes reflex actions, e.g. when a deliberately plugged-in iron is caught by the hand when it falls down. The “victim” knows of course that one does not touch a hot iron, but out of reflex one nevertheless reaches for it. There is therefore no misunderstanding here, but an accident.

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

171

The same applies to surprising events or reactions that were not to be expected according to the realities of life or the laws of the established film world and for whose occurrence there were no previous indications. In this case, a mishap / misfortune is also to be assumed. • Degradation This category can be justified with the degradation theory (see above Sect. 3.2.1, p. 34). What was said under “2. Mishaps and Misfortunes of Others” applies here: A character’s misfortune can be accompanied by degradation, but it does not have to be. In this respect, degradation differs from misfortune in the way the person concerned is portrayed. What is important is the element of degradation that is mirrored via other characters or that draws on the viewer’s life experience as a yardstick. For a clearer distinction and delimitation, degradation means a degradation of a figure by others but also by its specific representation itself. In children’s anecdotes and stories, this is reinforced by staging devices and exaggerations. In film, however, the solitary portrayal of a character is also enough to make him ridiculous, insofar as he obviously deviates from the general experience of life. The following subcategories can also be found in Ensinger (2003b, p. 89) and have been given their own, more concise definitions: • Degradation of authority Belittling a highly placed, powerful, or fearsome figure, or a figure who would like to have these qualities. • Degradation because of stupidity Belittling a character who acts or speaks without understanding or in an avoidably ignorant manner. • Degradation as compensatory justice Reconciliatory element of oppressed or unfairly treated characters or of the viewer due to the belittling of a third character acting unfairly or disproportionately in the film.

172

4  Empirical Part

• Own Mishaps/Misfortunes In Neuss (2003a), the category is listed under “About oneself,” since he also conducted group discussions. In the pure reception work of Ensinger (2003a, b) it naturally plays no role. In the four group discussions conducted, anecdotes are often told in which the children report their own funny mishaps and misfortunes, so the category was included in the canon and defined in analogy to mishaps experienced by others. The category own mishaps/misfortunes describes an action or the result of such an action, which means damage or disadvantage for oneself, the situation arrived at by chance, absent-mindedness, “not-thinking”, own fault or that of another, clumsiness or also stupidity. • Pranks Neuss (2003a) lists this category under “playing pranks”. It is missing in Ensinger (2003a). Deliberate teasing, annoying or pranking among acquaintances played a major role repeatedly in the group discussions, especially between boys and girls. The result of a successful prank can be recorded, among other things, by the category “Mishaps and misfortunes of others,” e.g. if someone falls down because someone tripped them up, or by the category “Own mishaps and misfortunes,” if the narrator himself has become the victim of the prank. The active act, however, also deserves to be recorded because for the victim, unlike a mishap, it is not rooted in fateful bad luck but in the intent of the performer. As a catch-all offence and close to the origin of the word (prank = blow or shove),10 pranks also include physical actions. Pranks here, then, describe an intentional action that aims to cause (often) harmless damage, a disadvantage, a change in behaviour, or just a desired reaction from another character. This also includes teasing with invented names, but in a broader sense also physical actions such as tickling, pushing, hitting, kicking and beating, as long as they can still be counted as teasing or harmless ribbing. • Delicate Issues This category was adopted by Neuss (2003a, p. 13); Ensinger (2003a, b) does not list it. It deserves its own position because embarrassment in connection with

10

 http://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/Streich, retrieved 04.03.15.

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

173

shame-related topics often occurs both in the children’s everyday narratives, especially in the jokes, and in the retold film scenes. What makes this set of themes special is the circumstance of its adult context. Sex, kissing, private parts, and boy-­ girl themes are treated humorously by children in jokes and cinematic situations, even though they may not fully grasp the actual contexts. The appeal here lies in the surreptitious (cf. Neuss 2003a, p. 14; Weinrebe 1979, p. 40). The humour category of sensitive topics includes matters involving shame, fear, or very personal feelings such as sexuality, girl-boy relationships, religion, violence, divorce, exposure, and resulting embarrassment. • Sound and Noises As justified under 1. Aesthetics, the auditory source of humour was granted its own category. Ensinger (2003b, p. 88) and Neuss (2003a, p. 17) both subsumed it under “aesthetics.” Mikos calls this type of cinematic humour “acoustic gags” (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 149, discussed here in Sect. 3.3.3.2, p. 78; King 2002, pp. 13–14, discussed here in Sect. 3.3.3.1, p. 72). With sounds and noises, the exhilaration comes from non-linguistic sounds such as burps or overly intense tones. • Imitation/Parody Only Ensinger lists parody as an independent code (cf. Ensinger 2003b, p. 90). No equivalent is apparent in Neuss. However, imitations appear more frequently, especially in everyday narratives. Here, children often underline their report with grimaces or imitative movements, earning benevolent laughs from the listeners. Animal figures that imitate human behaviour in exaggerated or absurd form frequently occur in jokes as well as in the film scenes mentioned. Imitation and parody are exaggerated imitations of people, animals, situations or the use of objects for purposes other than those for which they were intended. • Bad and Non Jokes Neither Neuss nor Ensinger record situations and jokes that have the opposite effect of their intention, namely rejection and the failure to amuse. However, the recording of humour rejected by children is informative in at least two respects. First, it serves to delineate and highlight the limits of humour accepted by children, even if this raises the problem of having to identify failed humour (cf. Bell 2014, p. 231). As Laineste (2013) already noted, successful humour can also (only) be

174

4  Empirical Part

understood if failed humour is examined (cf. Laineste 2013, pp. 33–34, discussed here in Sect. 3.3.3.6, p. 102). The comments of the children in group 2 regarding the TV programme “Upps! Die Pannenshow” provided exemplary indications for limiting unsuccessful humour: children no longer find the portrayal of serious injuries and damage funny, even in a bloopers show (see below Sect. 4.2.7.1, p. 174). On the other hand, the paradoxical phenomenon was observed again and again in the group discussions that situations or jokes that had been classified by the majority as not funny ultimately contributed to a certain degree of amusement, even if only for the group of perpetrators. Bad or non-jokes thus describe the misuse of an action or utterance for rejected purposes, or the simply mistaken intention of comedy.

4.2.7 Results of the Group Discussions In the following, the results of the group discussions are presented, evaluated and interpreted. Here, a ranking is made according to the frequency of mentions, which is then discussed both against the background of the various everyday areas and according to age and gender, in order to apply these day-to-day aspects, which were considered by Prommer (2012), among others, to be constitutive of TV humour taste, but which have also been elaborated in sociological humour research, analogously here (cf. Prommer 2012, p. 264, discussed here in Sects. 3.3.3.5, p. 98, and 3.3.1, p. 58).

4.2.7.1 Humour Categories Mentioned by the Children Interviewed In order to be able to depict which humour categories were most prevalent among the children in the four group discussions conducted, the 830 life-area-specific expressions were analysed and frequency counts were made on the basis of the total of 1091 expressions. A distinction was made between the above-mentioned receiving areas of cinema and DVD films, TV programmes and the area of everyday life that both receives and produces humour. The following percentage f­ requency distributions resulted, which can be shown in a comparative graph (Fig. 4.4). In the area “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcasting,” statements were taken into account that explicitly referred to cinema films which, according to the children, had been consumed in the cinema or on DVD or via TV broadcasting. The allocation resulted either from the direct statements or from the context, for example when talking about cinema films or receptions at home.

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

175

Aesthetics

18

Mishaps + misfortunes of others

17.7

8.7

Deviation from the norm/absurdity 1

Playing with expectations/ surprising turn

23.8

16.5 16.2

11.1

Sound + noises

22 22.9

14

3.4

13.4 11.4 11.6

Confusion/misunderstanding

4.3 2.7

0

Pranks

3.7 2.9 3.9

Imitation/parody

3 3.8 3 2.9

Delicate issues Language/wordplay/meaning

5.9

5

1.8 0.6

Degradation Bad + non jokes

0

Own mishaps/misfortunes

0 0

0

7.6

14.4

4.8 4.6 2.9

5.2 5.5

10

20

30

Cinema + DVD films + TV broadcast (n=164)

Fig. 4.4  Ranking of the humour categories in the group discussions for the areas “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcasting”, “TV programmes” and “everyday life”. (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all statements that could be assigned to a humour category of the three areas of life, n = 830)

A comparison of the number of assigned expressions, i.e. the absolute values, from all groups for the area of particular interest in this work “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcasting” with the percentage shares of the respective humour categories is shown in this Table 4.3. The area of TV broadcasts includes statements that refer to programmes produced purely for television. It therefore does not concern (cinema) films that the children have consumed via television as a mere playback device (via DVD, Blu-­ Ray or simply via a “TV broadcast”; Table 4.4).

Table 4.3  Number of statements for the area “cinema + DVD films +TV broadcasting” according to humour categories Humour category Aesthetics Mishaps + misfortunes of others Deviation from the norm/absurdity Sound + noises Playing with expectations/surprising turn Confusion/misunderstanding Pranks Imitation/parody Delicate issues Language/wordplay/meaning Degradation Bad + non jokes Own mishaps/misfortunes Total Missing Total

Frequency 36 29 27 23 22 7 6 5 5 3 1 0 0 164 0 164

% Percent 22.0 17.7 16.5 14.0 13.4 4.3 3.7 3.0 3.0 1.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

Source: Own survey, data according to frequency and in percent, basis: all statements, n = 164 Table 4.4  Number of utterances for the field “TV programmes” according to humour categories Name Mishaps + misfortunes of others Aesthetics Deviation from the norm/absurdity Playing with expectations/surprising turn Language/wordplay/meaning Degradation Imitation/parody Pranks Delicate issues Bad + non jokes Sound + noises Confusion/misunderstanding Own mishaps/misfortunes Total Missing Total

Frequency 25 24 17 12 8 5 4 3 3 3 1 0 0 105 0 105

% Percent 23.8 22.9 16.2 11.4 7.6 4.8 3.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

Source: Own survey, data according to frequency and in percent, basis: all statements, n = 105

177

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

Everyday life includes all expressions that describe humorous incidents of ordinary life, such as anecdotes, observations, experiences, but also the telling of jokes (Table 4.5). In the following, the children’s statements are presented11 according to humour categories: • Aesthetics If humour through visual aesthetics already plays the most important role in children’s everyday lives (and is still the second most important for television broadcasts), it also becomes the most important source of humour for the film experience in the cinema and on DVD (22% of all mentions). What looks funny and behaves conspicuously inspires laughter. Combinations with other categories are most frequent here, as in the following with the categories Table 4.5  Number of expressions for the domain “everyday life” according to humour categories Name Aesthetics Language/wordplay/meaning Playing with expectations/surprising turn Deviation from the norm/absurdity Mishaps + misfortunes of others Imitation/parody Own mishaps/misfortunes Bad + non jokes Delicate issues Degradation Pranks Sound + noises Confusion/misunderstanding Total Missing Total

Frequency 101 81 65 62 49 33 31 29 28 26 22 19 15 561 0 561

% Percent 18.0 14.4 11.6 11.1 8.7 5.9 5.5 5.2 5.0 4.6 3.9 3.4 2.7 100.0 0.0 100.0

Source: Own survey, data according to frequency and in percent, basis: all statements, n = 561

 cf. digital appendix (accessible in the university library of the Filmuniversität Potsdam-­ Babelsberg), folder “AA. Group discussions coded transcripts”. 11

178

4  Empirical Part

“Mishaps/misfortunes of others,” “Deviation from the norm/contradiction” and “Delicate topics”: Group 4, para. 166, Anne Marie, 10: Well, we saw the film “Grow Ups.” They were on holiday. There were two funny things. The first one, they were in a water centre, there were substances in the water, which turn your piss blue. The big guy peed and the water turned blue. Then all the kids went out. Then the adults, the men, came in and peed with them. (chuckles)

The preference for aesthetic conspicuousness and outlandishness finds its counterpart in many animated films. So it is above all the unusual that provokes laughter in the cinema, rather than the everyday, such as household mishaps. However, the children from group 2 would prefer “real” actors, although the humorous deformations, which are easier to implement in animated films, have great attraction value: Group 3, para. 344, How is that actually, “Off through the hedge” is cartoon. What’s funnier in general, cartoons or with real people? All: With real people. Timo, 10: But sometimes animated films are better, because in animated films they can crumple up like that, for example they can wrap their legs around their heads a few times, but you can’t do that in real life. But I think “Alarm for Kobra 11” is sometimes so funny.

However, a look at the films mentioned that the children from all groups have actually seen in the cinema suggests that there is a contradiction here between supposedly preferred films with “real people” and the animated films mentioned in the discussions. Of the fourteen titles mentioned by the children (cf. Fig. 4.2, p. 164), half are animated films, but based on the frequency of their mention by various children, they account for a total of 57.5%, and it can be assumed that the reception behaviour is also in favour of animated films. This assumption is supported by results from the study by Wegener (2010, p. 12 f.). Only among adolescents between the ages of 13–17 does the preference for animated cartoons wane. Among children aged 7–9 and the so-called pre-teens aged 10–12, they are in first place in terms of popularity (Table 4.6). For TV, aesthetics (22.9%) came in second as a humour category. Group 1, marginal no. 305, 2. Kilian, 8: I know something else cool. In “American Dragon,” that’s a series, a boy turns into a dragon. He’s still at the beginning, he turns into a dragon, he still has his legs and then he’s in his underpants.

179

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour Table 4.6  Genre preferences by age status Cartoon Action-/Adventure Science fiction Fairy tale Horror movie Romantic movie Comedy

Children 67.6 37.8 35. 1 24.3 2.7 2.7 27

Pre-Teens 60.4 67 61.5 8.8 12.1 17.6 58.2

Teenagers 30 71.4 61.4 7.1 42.9 32.9 67.1

Source: Wegener (2010, p. 13), base: all respondents, n = 198

In the following narrative, the two most frequently mentioned categories for TV are “mishaps/misfortunes of others” and “aesthetics:” Group 2, para. 148, 1. Vincent, 10: Well, I think the show [meaning: “Upps! Die Pannenshow”] is cool, because sometimes it looks really cool. There are two older people dancing on the table and then the table collapses. (chuckles)

In the anecdotes of everyday life and the jokes told, as in the cinema and DVD film sector, sequences that played with “aesthetics” (18%) occurred most frequently. Often it is comical images that arise in the mind’s eye of the listener as a result of the narration, as the following example makes clear, in which proportions are played with: Group 1, marginal 157, 4. Lucienne, 8: I know another one too. A mouse and an elephant go to the beach. 5. Juliana, 8: I know that one. 4. Lucienne: No, no, no, don’t tell it! So, the mouse and the elephant go to the beach. The elephant sits outside, the mouse goes into the water. The elephant says, “Mouse, come out here.” The mouse says, “Why?” So the elephant says again, “Mouse, come out here.” The Mouse says “Why?” again. “Why don’t you come out, mouse?” The mouse says, “All right.” So the mouse goes outside and says, “Well, what is it now?” Says the elephant, “I just wanted to see if you had my bathing suit on.”

As this example shows, humour categories almost always occur in combination. Rarely does a story or a joke contain only one humour category. This also applies to the joke with the elephant and the mouse, which still contains the categories “language and word joke,” “norm deviation/contradiction” and “playing with expectations/surprising twist.”

180

4  Empirical Part

In the following, however, the focus will be on the respective determining humor category. The prominence of aesthetic comedy in all three areas of children’s lives also highlights once again what Schramm (2012) already pointed out in her study of Charlie Chaplin films, namely that theories of humour that focus mainly on verbal humour fail when it comes to visual comedy (cf. Schramm 2012, p. 12), and in the case of children’s humour preferences this flaw is particularly evident. Due to the different definitions and category formations, my results for the different life domains cannot be directly compared with those of Ensinger and Neuss (cf. Sect. 3.4.2, p.  123), especially since they did not correspond to each other either in number or in definition. Furthermore, the focus of this thesis is on the unexplored area of children’s humour preferences in motion pictures. However, the smallest common intersection that emerges here is that aesthetic humour – regardless of which definition one follows – occupies a prominent position for children in both television and cinema film entertainment. • Mishaps/Misfortunes of Others “Other people’s mishaps/misfortunes” are in second place in the film and DVD sector (17.7%). Here, however, the playful, the inauthentic, is important. No matter to whom it happens: it must not be too bad. People laugh about a misfortune when it has not really become dangerous for the victim and he or she remains more or less unharmed. The insights presented above in the case study “The House of Crocodiles” (2011, directed by Cyrill Boss, Philipp Stennert) regarding the ups and downs of the protagonist and the need of children for nothing really bad to happen to their hero can thus also be extended to other figures of cinematic experience (for more on this, see “Bad and non-jokes”, p.  272). In this sense, this frog gets off lightly: Group 4, R. 157, 5. Antonia, 10: So in “Kiss the Frog”, the princesses threw the frog against the wall and when he lay on the floor, he went “Ouch”.

The clear humour favourite in first place was the category “Mishaps and misfortunes of others” (23.8%) in TV programmes. Only in fifth place in everyday life, this category is by far the most popular in the TV shows section. This is particularly due to the children’s exemplary mentions in connection with the programme “Upps! Die Pannenshow,” which was remembered fondly and frequently by all children.

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

181

The following contribution is typical of mentions from the bloopers show: Group 1, para. 201, 2. Kilian, 8: I know, once a grandfather jumped out with a parachute. And then his false teeth flew out.

“Mishaps and misfortunes of others” (8.7%) as the fifth most frequent humour category in everyday life often resulted in Schadenfreude. However, in terms of frequency, a clear gap can already be observed here, for example, when compared to the category of “aesthetics,” to which more than twice as many expressions could be attributed (49 compared to 101 for “aesthetics”, cf. Table 4.5, p. 177). An example from mixed group 2 where all the children were 10 years old: Group 2, para. 103, 1. Vincent, 10: When someone falls down, they always laugh and I always laugh. So earlier I was on the playground, there was a spinning thing, I pushed Thoralf down, he fell down, so I laughed.

These small everyday mishaps also occurred in the girls’ group 4 of the same age: Group 4, para. 356, 2. Emma, 10: Anne Marie, you ran into the pillar earlier. (laughter)

It is clear from this different ranking that children have different preferences depending on the area of life. On television, laughing at others is the most important source of comedy, while in the cinema and DVD sector it is aesthetic humour. The unusual and pictorial is thus appreciated above all in films, while in television programmes it is rather everyday mishaps that evoke hilarity, with Lambernd (1998) already using it for adult television taste under the term of “authenticity” (cf. Lambernd 1998, p. 232 f., discussed here in Sect. 3.3.3.5, p. 98). The fact that Schadenfreude does not play such a large role in everyday life can also be understood as an expression of social interaction among the group children. • Deviation from the Norm/Absurdity For cinema and DVD films, this category ranks third with 16.5% of all relevant expressions. Here is an example, which, according to the narration of the 10-year-­ old Paul, is implemented in the film with visual comedy in the form of an image punchline which is also a pun: Group 3, para. 281, 4. Paul, 10: In “The Seven Dwarves,, they were supposed to get Snow White out of the castle. Then he said, we have to storm the castle [Schloss], then there is a kind of lock [also Schloss], like a padlock.

182

4  Empirical Part

This fine little example is good evidence of a very specific film comedy in which the punchline is told through an image alone. “Norm deviations” (16.2%) rank third among TV shows. The exhilarating norm deviations include, for example, the following statement from the mixed group 1: Group 1, margin note 319, 5. Juliana, 8: That was once on “Wetten, dass?” A man dressed up as a woman and then he sang in a funny way. With suuuch big heels. (chuckles) And underpants! (laughter)

In the children’s expressions from their everyday lives, norm deviations (11.1%) occupy fourth place. Here it is above all the many riddle jokes in which animals display human characteristics and behaviour in a comical way. Already Wolfenstein (1954, see above. Sect. 3.4.1, p. 111) had observed this type of joke as a frequently occurring subspecies among children between the ages of 6 and 11. Group 1, marginal 152, 5. Juliana, 8: I know something else. Don’t give it away, Melanie! What flies through the air and is red? A tomato? 5. Juliana, 8: Nope. A mosquito with sunburn. (laughter)

The popularity of this kind of humour in all areas of children’s lives is evidence that the unusual, the deviation from the norm, from the everyday and the familiar, is an important source of children’s comedy. As the example of the man in drag makes clear, children enjoy unfamiliar otherness beyond adult filters of desired social behaviour. It is certainly not entirely wrong to draw a parallel here with the findings of Prommer et al. (2003) for the humor of pre-teens (see above Sect. 3.4.1, p. 120). • Sound and Noises “Sound and noises” (14.0%) play a prominent role in the film sector. The fact that they appear in fourth place in the ranking underlines their importance and justifies having given them their own category. Without much thought, the children list sounds that they found funny, thus confirming the importance of auditory experience, which Tatsch (2010) had already noted for children up to the age of 10 (cf. Tatsch 2010, p. 149).

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

183

Group 2, from marginal 320: Last question: If you think about it, in the cinema and DVD. Are there also funny sounds? … 4. Jacob, 10: Burp. 7. Isabell, 10: Fart. Poop. 4. Jacob, 10: Run through the wall. That sound when the wall cracks? 4. Jacob, 10: Yes. 7. Isabelle, 10: Bombing. You think that’s funny? 7. Isabell, 10: Yes. 4. Jacob, 10: Swords clanging. 3. Jo, 10: Teleportation. What kind of noise is that? 3. Jo, 10: Wiu-Wiu-Wiu (in a high unvarying voice).

In the TV sector, “sounds and noises” are not so popular and fall to twelfth place (1%). However, it must be conceded that this was not explicitly asked about. Only laughing along when injured parties can laugh about their own misfortune in blooper shows can be counted here. However, the fact that this is highly significant is discussed below under the category “Bad and non-jokes” (cf. p. 272). The category “sounds and noises” also appeared less frequently in everyday life (3.4%, 12th place). However, it became apparent that “sounds and noises” had a special status as a source of humour, as they were able to generate hilarity on their own or were mentioned as funny, in contrast to other humour categories, which often appeared in conjunction with others. Some examples may illustrate this: Group 1, para 294, 1. Jan, 8: I think farting is funny, under the arm like that. Group 4, para. 60f., 5. Antonia, 10: When Marie has a laughing fit or she farts. (Screeching laughter) Group 4, para. 297f., 4. Anne Marie, 10: Well, we make Mrs. Schink laugh sometimes. And when she laughs really hard, she laughs through her nose … (makes grunting noises). (laughter) Group 2, para. 257ff., 4. Jakob, 10: Trouble with Mrs. Schink. And when she says something and he is angry, he [note: this refers to a fellow pupil] always says afterwards: Whoo! Whoo! (shakes himself) 7. Isabell, 10: No, then he also goes: Mau! (cat-like) (laughter)

Sounds are capable of generating humour in children on their own, which other humour categories usually only achieve in combination. Due to the direct questioning in the film sector, it can be assumed that sounds also have a higher significance in the TV sector than appears in the present evaluation.

184

4  Empirical Part

• Playing with Expectations/Surprising Twist There is little squeamishness in this remembered scene from the film “Grown Ups” (2010, directed by Dennis Dugan), which this time is not satisfied with harmless damage and which, in addition to a “deadly” sound, is also an example of the category “Playing with Expectations/Surprising Twists” (13.4%) in fifth place and the category “Mistaken Identity/Misunderstanding” (4.3%) in sixth place in the cinema and DVD film sector: Anne Marie, 10: … And then he tricked them with a stick as a bone and then there was a bird underneath (giggles) and then he said: Well, I heard something squeak in the air underneath me, then it went “Krchk”, but it could also have been something else. It weighs at least 200 kilos, so it slammed down on the little bird (giggles).

The game with “expectations/surprising twists” finds its counterpart in film, among other things, in fable-like uses, which may explain the popularity of animated films, which very often work with talking and anthropomorphised animals. Here is an example that also stands for the category “imitation/parody:” Group 3, para. 272, 3. Timo, 10: My brother has a film about animals fighting each other. There is a mole with a bazooka, a hedgehog with a machine gun and things like that.

The category game with “expectations/surprising twist” (11.4%) was named fourth most frequently in the TV area. The following statement from the all-boys group 3 refers to the children’s series “Hotel Zack & Cody”: Group 3, para. 377, 2. Levi, 9: … And then when the show was over, Sac was back in the car and a girl got in the car. And that’s when Cody said, “Full speed ahead,” and then it was just like slow motion.

The unexpected slow motion, which at the same time represents a “deviation from the norm,” is perceived as comical, because on the one hand it contradicts the announcement (“Full speed ahead!”) and on the other hand it contradicts the reality of life, in which one cannot move in slow motion. “Playing with expectations/surprising twist” (11.6%), the third most frequent feature in everyday life, is also a characteristic of the riddle jokes mentioned above, because only if the solution is not immediately apparent is the resolution surprising and the joke successful. The surprising effect, which Kant (1790/1963) and Schopenhauer (1844/1987), among others, had already mentioned as a defining

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

185

characteristic of humour (see above), has its greatest impact and significance here. Here is an example of a hearty and rather fragmentarily told joke with an unexpected punch line: Group 3, marginal 93, 3. Timo, 10: There are 3 people. They go into the castle like this, even though they’re not allowed in. And then they are captured there, but are allowed to stay everywhere except in one room. And then they got bored and went into the room. Then the guard said: Go into the garden and pick a fruit. I’ll think about your punishment. One of them comes in with a cherry. Says the guard: Pull down his pants and stick it up his butt. The one with the cherry in his bottom starts to cry. Then the next one comes with an apple. They do the same thing, but he starts laughing. Because the other one is standing in the doorway with a pumpkin!

The category “Playing with expectations/surprising twist” was almost the only one to receive almost equal scores in all three areas of life (cinema and DVD films: 13.4%; TV programmes 11.4%, everyday life 11.6%). So, when it comes to comedy, children want to be surprised above all else, regardless of the life domain. This seems to argue, with all the necessary qualifications one can make towards this theory, for the necessity of incongruities in children’s humor (so also Prommer 2014, p. 26 ff., presented here in the Sect. 3.4.2, from p. 123). Whether this is also true regardless of gender, however, will need to be explored (see below: Sect. 4.2.7.2, p. 197). • Confusion/Misunderstanding For the cinema and DVD film sector, this category played a rather minor role with 4.3% in sixth place, which is one of the surprising results. An example was already given above from the film “Grown Ups” (2010, Dennis Dugan) with the long-suffering bird. From the film “Tangled” (2010, Howard, Greno), popular with children and vividly remembered, this scene was remembered: Group 2, para 42, 4. Jacob, 10: Rapunzel hits the one with the frying pan because she doesn’t know who it is.

Clemens from the same group added: Group 2, para. 50, 2. Clemens, 10: Yes. But Rapunzel wants to prove to her mother, what do I know, that she also has what it takes to go out of the tower (?). And that’s why she slaps him and locks him in the closet.

For the TV sector, no statements could be assigned to this category.

186

4  Empirical Part

“Mistaken identity and misunderstandings” (2.7%) in the thirteenth and last place were also rarely mentioned for everyday life. In group 1 not at all, in group 2 only in the form of this joke: Group 2, marg. 92, 3. Jo, 10: Two fish meet. One says: Hi! Says the other: Where? [“Hai” in German is shark]

Group 4 tells of a provoked misunderstanding: Group 4 para 117, 4. Anne Marie, 10: The other day our neighbours, well they have a big garden. They have a rubber rat. And I was supposed to go to the currants and hold the rat by the tail and shout, “Aaaah, what’s that?” And he went, “Wait, I’ll get the camera. I’ll take a quick picture.”

The fact that “confusions and misunderstandings” as a source of humour in everyday life and for the children’s remembered enjoyment of films represent a barely measurable or at least very small quantity is one of the rather surprising results of the evaluation. It is not entirely clear why so few statements applied to this category. It is possible that the films and TV programmes recalled rarely used this type of humour or that the children did not recall corresponding passages. In purely numerical terms, this initially gives the impression that “confusions and misunderstandings” play a rather minor role for children as a source of humour. This result could indicate that suspense humour, for example, does not play a major role for children, because here the film character is often subject to a misunderstanding because he lacks the viewer’s advantage of knowledge. However, further research is needed here in order to be able to interpret the results more clearly. • Pranks Among the equally surprising results in the film sector is the rarity of appearances for the category of “pranks” (3.7%, seventh place). One of the few examples comes from the animated film “Despicable Me” (2010, directors: Chris Renaud, Pierre Coffin): Group 3, para. 251, 4. Paul, 10: Then some kid was playing with his planes. Thenit fell on the pyramid. And then they found out that it was only inflatable.

In TV, “pranks” (2.9%) and “touchy subjects” (2.9%) ranked eighth and ninth in terms of frequency, and are thus mentioned more often than in children’s everyday lives (ninth place for “touchy subjects” and eleventh place for “pranks”).

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

187

A prank from a TV show, which at the same time also dealt with the “sensitive topic” of nudity, was retold in mixed group 1: Group 1, marginal no. 306, 1. Jan, 8: So at …. (unintelligible 34:50), that always runs on Super RTL but not anymore, he made himself invisible as a ghost and pulled down the underpants of one of his enemies and he had just eaten an ice cream – just in the face!

As already did in the area of everyday life, the underpants that slip or are pulled appear here again. “Pranks” (3.9%) in eleventh place surprisingly played a minor role in children’s everyday life compared to the other humour categories. A classic is this prank, which at the same time counts among the “imitations:” Group 4, para. 26, 5. Antonia, 10: Sometimes my little 4-year-old friend comes. And when my other friend is there, we both put on white bathrobes and turn off the lights and scare Jolina, that’s the little girl’s name. We pretend to be ghosts.

“Pranks” thus rarely appear in all areas of the lives of the children surveyed. This is remarkable because, from an adult perspective, “pranks” are often associated with children. • Imitation/Parody Humorous content in this category for the film sector (3%, eighth place) can be found again, similarly to everyday life, in film scenes in which human characteristics, behaviour and techniques are imitated in exaggerated form by animals, as in this example from an animated film: Group 3, para. 336, 3. Timo, 10: Well, there is, I saw a film, I don’t know what it’s called now, but it’s with teddy bears and stuff. They are alive and are always up to mischief. They dig a hole in the garden or something. They have their territory somewhere under a staircase. They have to put their paws on it and then an elevator takes them down. And they make a lot of mischief in the house.

The category “imitations/parody” (3.8%) comes in seventh place in the children’s statements for the area of TV shows. An example from group 1: Group 1, para 49, 4. Lucienne, 8: So the comedy shows are always so funny. I don’t know. They talk so funny too. It’s also about professions. And sometimes they do ice skating, they’re men, and sometimes they put on ballerina skirts and go (spreads his arms and giggles) “didididi”.

188

4  Empirical Part

The highest value is achieved by the category “imitation/parody” (5.9%) in the everyday area with sixth place. Above all, human characteristics imitated by animal figures appear here in the children’s jokes: Group 4, marginal 323, 5. Antonia: I’ve got another one: Why don’t mice drink alcohol? Because they are afraid of the hangover. [“Kater” is German for hangover, but also means a male cat]

But imitated adult behavior is also the subject of anecdotal evidence: Group 4, para. 249, 5. Antonia, 10: So we had a graduation party at the football, we had red fizzy drinks. Erik, who plays football, had some of the red fizzy drinks and pretended to be drunk: “Huh, that really pops…” “Imitations and parodies” were mentioned above all in the girls-only group 4. This includes, for example, the anecdote of the teacher Mrs. Schick mentioned above, who makes grunting noises when laughing, which the girls imitated laughing. With the boys in group 3, for example, imitation was used to answer the question of how girls would react to a dirty joke: Group 3, para. 173, 3. Timo, 10: Either they are angry, look at us like Lisa. (imitates Lisa) (Chuckles)

Parodies are therefore most popular in everyday life, while imitations are little remembered in TV programmes and for cinema and DVD films. • Delicate Issues “Sensitive topics” (3.0%, ninth place) play a rather subordinate role in the cinema and DVD sector as well as in the everyday and TV sector. Unintentionally visible nudity is almost style-defining, even if it is only hinted at, as here from the film “Keinohrhasen” (2007): Group 1, marginal 309, 4. Lucienne, 8: Exactly. No, One Ear Chicks. Exactly. That was funny in one part. They climbed up there, on a ladder. Then they were up there. One of them still had his bathrobe on. There were things like that. Because he was completely naked underneath. And then they tore it open and folded it down. And there was a wedding. And then he stood in front of the bride.

For the TV area, the reference is to the show remembered under the category “Pranks”. In everyday life, “sensitive issues” (5%, ninth place) were often reflected in anecdotes:

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

189

Group 1, para 327, 4. Lucienne, 8: I’ve had my underpants slip down by accident before. 1. Jan, 8: Yes, I know something. So my friend Lea, Lisa also knows her, the little cousin is called Niclas, he pissed in his knickers. Then he couldn’t wear them. They were on the street. And then his pants slipped down by accident. (laughter)

Being naked or having your pants down are common topics in the “Hot Topics” category. The topic of sex was dealt with in jokes like this one: Group 3, marginal 90, 3. Timo, 10: Okay. A man goes to a brothel. The woman who works there says: Once in bed costs 100 Euros and on the carpet only 20. The man gives her a 100-Euro note. The woman says: “Well, it’s always best in bed. The man says: Who said anything about bed? Five times carpet!

Specific fears can also have humorous content as a “touchy subject,” as in this anecdote: Group 3, Rn, 72, 2. Levi, 9: I thought it was funny the other day. My sister is afraid of foam. Of what? 4. Paul, 10: Of bath foam. And what do you do? 2. Levi, 9: My mom took foam from the bathtub, held it in front of her nose, and then she started blowing. And when did she calm down? 2. Levi, 9: When she was out of the bathtub again. So you have to take them out and then she calms down again. 2. Levi, 9: Yeah.

The children in the group discussions were thus not embarrassed to treat sensitive topics in the form of jokes. However, the often childishly raunchy jokes in particular did not appear analogously in the form of remembered film or TV scenes. This could be an indication that children, if they want to come in contact with this complex of topics, prefer to be producers themselves rather than consumers. However, it is also possible that this type of humour simply did not occur in the remembered films and that the non-remembrance therefore merely reflects non-existence. • Language/Wordplay/Meaning “Language/word jokes/meaning” (1.8%, tenth place in the cinema and DVD area) is one of the categories in which differences in children’s humour preferences can be particularly well substantiated on the basis of the areas of life. While in everyday

190

4  Empirical Part

life telling of already jokes and anecdotes attach a great significance to the linguistic (place 2 with 14.4% of all categorized expressions), this decreases markedly for the television area (place 5 with 7.6%), and plays almost no role in the film area (place 10 with 1.8%). Thus, the larger the picture for which the content was intended, the lower the preference for linguistic humour. Certainly not to be considered a children’s film is the film “The Hangover” (2009, directed by Todd Phillips), from which this scene was recalled and which may at the same time be evidence of cinematic irony: Group 3, para. 297, 1. Tom, 10: I thought it was funny once in “The Hangover”, they drove back again. And they took the car – they were in Las Vegas, they had a bachelor party before you get married. And they drove back, the car was already totally broken, and one of them kicks it like this, because he wants to put the roof down. And the fat guy says: “Watch out, you’ll break my car!” But it’s already broken.

Of the TV mentions (7.6%, fifth place) here is an example from mixed group 1: Group 1, para. 51, 1: Jan, 8: I once saw a joke show where a box of biscuits fell down and then they shouted and said “We have to eliminate them”. And then she ate them. (laughs)

The second most frequent humour category in the everyday area is the category “language/word joke/meaning” (14.4%). An example here is a reproduced joke from mixed group 1: Group 1, margin 142, 6. Melanie, 8: Yes. The mother says to her, I think Inga, well she’s supposed to boil the eggs now. And an egg boils for 5 minutes. And at breakfast everyone wonders why the eggs are so hard. And then Inga said: One egg boiled for 5 minutes, and 5 eggs boiled for 25. She thought she should add it up.

This joke presupposes abstract thinking and a basic understanding of quantities and time. Only from this can the content of the punch line be derived, according to which five eggs do not need five times as much time to cook as one. The children in Group 1 were all 8 years old, and the joke presented here as an example may thus also serve as evidence of Piaget/Inhelder’s (1986) and McGhee’s (1979) stage theory (cf. Table 3.1, p. 113), since it is likely that younger children would not have grasped the punch line. Another variation in the language jokes represented simple riddle jokes, which have already been presented several times.

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

191

It is noticeable that, in contrast to everyday life, humour conveyed by language plays a significantly smaller role for TV and DVD consumption (see also the overview chart in Appendix A 4).12 The picture says more than the word here. • Degradation “Degradations” (11th place with 0.6%) hardly play a role in the film sector, in contrast to the television sector, where they still come in sixth place (4.8%), and the everyday sector (tenth place with 4.6%). This may have something to do with the very clear definition, according to which it must actually be about the degradation of a character. A trend can certainly be discerned here with regard to the studies by Ensinger (2003a, b) and Neuss (2003b), even if their comparable categories “minor misfortunes of others” (Neuss 2003a, p. 15) and “degradations” (Ensinger 2003b, p. 89) use different definitions (see above Sect. 4.2.6, p. 167). For while degradations are found in the top three places in these television studies, they seem to be less popular here in the film field. The only example from a film may be the (fragmentary) representation of a character from the film “Mr. Bean’s Holiday” (2007): Group 3, para. 358, 1. Tom, 10: … In “Mister Bean’s Holiday,” he wanted to go to the railway station and then looks for it. He looks at the map and it goes straight across. He walks right along the track, there’s a man standing there and he’s waiting. And when he leaves, he continues from the same spot.

For TV, the following was recalled from the bloopers show, which falls into the category of “degradation,” here for stupidity (4.8%, sixth place): Group 2, para. 142, 4. Jakob, 10: Well, I think it’s funny because one of them was so stupid once. So an iron that was on, he accidentally knocked it down and he wanted to catch it and he grabs the hot surface and then he drops it. (giggles)

It was noticeable that in everyday life “degradations” (4.6%, rank 10) often only played a role in jokes, or met with rejection as “bad jokes” (see above): Group 2, marginal 220, 4. Jacob, 10: I have one where girls don’t laugh at it. What does a blonde do on the computer? Surfs the Internet.

In the rest of the everyday events, degradation was rarely reported as a source of humour, except for inter-gender banter, which will be addressed in the next cate-

12

 Available at Springer.com.

192

4  Empirical Part

gory. It seems as if degradations play a rather minor role as a humour tool in the children’s everyday life, which is also shown in the following account from girls’ group 4, in which degrading behaviour is reported, but this is not understood as an invitation to laugh, neither by the narrator nor by the listeners: Group 4, margin 35 f., 3. Annabel, 10: We have one who always insults with “wobbly” and so on. Anne Marie, 10: And he is simply fat. Most of us tease the ones who are medium and fat. We have the thinnest girl in our class who gets teased because she is thin.

Certain derogatory behaviors are also rejected among boys and are not considered fun: Group 3, Rn. 400 f., 3. Timo, 10: That was also like that once with Moritz. I always run, and then he takes me by the back and tips me over when I’m after the ball. And then he laughs at me. I find that totally unfair. If you ever tip him over and he falls down … 5. Florian, 10: He’s offended.

In many cases, “degradations” have the opposite effect in terms of humour. The fact that “degradations” are also a tricky terrain for achieving comedy in television shows and films also becomes clear in the discussion of the next category “Bad and non-jokes,” with which “degradations” often coincide. • Bad + Non Jokes No examples of this category could be identified for the cinema and DVD film ­sector. Among the most interesting expressions from the area of TV shows are the following from mixed group 2, in which a differentiation is made for a bloopers show and in which the children list, among other things, several examples of “bad and non-jokes” (2.9%, tenth place): Group 2, para. 136, 3. Jo, 10: So on “Upps! The Bloopers Show”, my parents kind of can’t laugh at that, which I think is hilarious. (talking over one another) 7. Isabell, 10: I can’t laugh at that either. Do you all think they’re funny? Almost everyone: No! So, first things first, what about the bloopers show, what’s good about it, or not? Carlotta, 9: It’s kind of funny, but it hurts. Well, I didn’t think it was that funny.

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

193

So you’re saying you don’t think it’s funny because people get hurt all the time? 6. Carlotta, 9: Yes. 2. Clemens, 10: Well, they film people’s mishaps that maybe shouldn’t be shown. I find that a bit stupid. And in the end many of them must be seriously injured in hospital.

This passage offers a variety of statements. The bloopers show and episodes recalled from it, as seen, were frequently recounted in the groups. In most cases, the scenes reproduced contain utterances that can be assigned to several humour categories, because, except in the case of sounds and noises, humour categories, as seen, usually appear in combination because an event fulfils several definitions. What is special here is that the children are quite aware of the drama behind individual mishaps and therefore also partly state that they cannot laugh (Isabell); at least the programme is not collectively perceived as funny because people are “hurt”, or as Clemens puts it, “there are certainly many who are seriously injured in hospital at the end.” As shown, the scenes from bloopers shows are consistently assigned to the category “mishaps/accidents of others,” often they also have a degrading moment or are perceived as such, as the example with the caught iron has shown. It just doesn’t seem to fit when on the one hand many scenes from the show are enthusiastically remembered and told, but on the other hand their humorous content is denied. Lisa resolves this dichotomy in the same group. At the same time, she addresses what is of great value for a child-oriented dramaturgy: Group 2, para. 153, So let’s be honest, you said you think it’s a bit nasty, the show, but you all still have to laugh? (Nods of agreement) Lisa, 10: As long as they’re still laughing, I think it’s funny. Because some of them are still laughing afterwards.

As long as the victims of the mishaps can still laugh themselves, the fun for the children is guaranteed, otherwise the display of other people’s misfortunes is also viewed critically. In this respect, Knop’s (2007) assumption does not seem to apply to children to this extent either, according to which television humour is “acting out aggression in a socially recognised form” (Knop 2007, p. 315, discussed here in Sect. 3.3.3.5, p. 100), because children are concerned with a reduction of content in this respect. Now, one should not immediately impute a moral reservation to children, which clearly contradicts the obviously frequent reception of the programme. However, Wegener (2010) already proves in her study on the film experience of children and adolescents that the depiction of violence or of cruel things

194

4  Empirical Part

that really happened is rejected by well over 60% of the children surveyed (Wegener 2010, p. 25 f.). Of course, the film experience differs from the television experience, especially in terms of the length of the programmes and the external context. However, one may draw the conclusion that regardless of the format, children reject content that shocks or frightens them, which especially includes the suffering of other people. Just as humour can have a psychologically positive effect on children as an anxiety reliever (cf. Nebe 2016, pp. 152–177), one will note the recent findings on the health-endangering effects of negative humour (see above, Sect. 3.3.2, among others, p. 70) and the fact that children reject malicious gloating; it may be assumed that this type of humour, with the appropriate agglomeration and intensity, can also have negative effects on the young recipients in terms of health, or at least in terms of influencing their mood. Further research in this area will be needed to investigate these suspected relationships. By contrast, the playful documentation of other people’s mishaps, in which the involuntary protagonists can laugh at themselves in the best case, is a guarantee of great fun. From this, insights can also be gained for fictional dramaturgy: if a character suffers a misfortune or a mishap, it is advisable to keep the playful moment in mind. Usually it is only a fraction of a second, a smile, a gesture or another cut that clears up an awkward situation and brings the young viewers the relieving certainty that everything is not so bad. That this kind of staging is appropriate for children has already been made clear above in the discussion of the film “Das Haus der Krokodile” (2011, Cyrill Boss, Philipp Stennert), because children care deeply about the ups and downs of the protagonist (cf. Unterstell/Müller 2014, p.  38; Rogge 1999, p. 70; Linz 2004, p. 19; Valkenburg/Cantor 2000, p. 148). “Bad and non-jokes” (5.2%) in eighth place were mentioned slightly more frequently in the everyday area than, for example, “Sensitive topics” (5%) and ­“Degradations” (4.6%), but this may also have been due to the fact that certain groups were explicitly asked about jokes or situations that were not funny. Classic non-­jokes were told, for example, in group 1 in response to the question “Are there any jokes that you don’t find funny at all?”: Group1, marginal 182, 5. Juliana, 8: I know another funny one. So: a man wanted to go by bus. The man went to the bus stop, the bus was gone. Group 1, para 185, 4. Lucienne, 8: Fritzchen went to a shop assistant and said, “I want a packet of cigarettes.” Not funny at all.

Bad jokes were also told when it came to laughing at the opposite sex. Thus, several categories combine in the answer to the question of whether there are jokes at which girls do not laugh:

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

195

Group 3, marginal no. 101, 3. Timo, 10: Well: “Everyone else is driving on. Except Anne, her car has a breakdown [the German for which rhymes with Anne].” Yes, and of course Anne doesn’t laugh.

On the one hand, this is a linguistic joke that works with a simple rhyme, but on the other hand, it is also a degradation, because “Anne” is also to be equated with “breakdown” in terms of content through the rhyme. At the same time, the speaker must empathically admit that the person concerned does not find the joke funny, but that probably did not stop him from telling it in the past tense. That Timo is right in his assessment is confirmed by Anne in her group: Group 4, para. 328, … But one more question, how is it actually, you have told a lot of jokes now. When you tell the jokes to the boys, do they also laugh about them? All: No, they’re not laughing, they’re not laughing at all. Anne Marie, 10: They tease me and say: “Everyone’s moving on, except Anne, she’s broken down.” My name is Anne.

However, the girls are not at a loss for a response to these language games, which are considered to be non-comical: Group 4, para. 336, 4. Anne Marie, 10: When the boys say that, we girls have a nice defence. Because we say: “All the children want to go to the toilet. Except Jo [rhymes with colloquial German for toilet], he’s in the toilet.” 3. Annabel, 10: Or we always tease them when I say: Jojo. Then he says: “My name is not Jojo. 4. Anne Marie, 10: He’s got long hair, so we’re like, “Oh! Josephine!”

So jokes in everyday life are bad for children especially when punchlines are missing or when they use the levels of meaning in language only for the purpose of annoying and insulting. In television, the ups and downa of the victims are important so that laughter can still be had. The same applies to films (cf. Nebe 2016, pp. 152– 177), even if corresponding remarks were not made in the group discussions. • Own Mishaps/Misfortunes: This category only plays a role in the children’s everyday lives, as none of the participants have acted in a film or TV show. Although “mishaps and misfortunes of others” were mentioned more frequently as a source of comedy in everyday life, “one’s own mishaps and misfortunes” (5.5%, seventh place) were not excluded; on the contrary, they could have the same

196

4  Empirical Part

content as in the case of accidents involving others, or descriptions by third parties were taken up in order to tell the story from one’s own point of view: Group 1, para 127, 4. Lucienne, 8: I’ve had my underpants slip down by accident before. Group 4, para 359, 4. Anne Marie, 10: (giggling) Me and Emma were chatting. And I was looking at my shoes. And Emma’s looking forward like this, and she’s smirking like this, “Shit.” I already knew what it was, I look forward and run into the pillar. (laughter)

This also fits in with the common telling of a shameful story that happened to an individual in the presence of others, for example in the all-boys group 3 (all 10 years old): Group 3, para. 19 et seq: 1. Tom, 10: The other day I made a fool of myself in music. 3. Timo, 10: Yes. (laughs) What happened there? 1. Tom, 10: Well, I couldn’t sing one song. Did you have to sing right at the front? 1. Tom, 10: Yeah. All alone in front of the whole class? 1. Tom, 10: Yeah. Timo, 10: We all have to do that. And then it actually went like this… folk song. (giggles) And you didn’t know the words, did you? 1. Tom, 10: I couldn’t do anything. 3. Timo, 10: The song went: With sweet sounds in the house… And Tommi sang: With sweet sounds in the castle… (Chuckles)

“One’s own mishaps and misfortunes” (5.5%) were recounted almost with relish. The fact that one’s own person was affected seemed to play less of a role than the entertainment factor associated with the telling. Unlike adults, who have a tendency to downplay or even deny their own misfortunes, in the group discussions the impression also emerged from the frequency distribution that for children it did not make a great difference as to whether they themselves or others had been “victims” of an action or situation, as long as only the fun of the story was guaranteed. For children, therefore, the saying of Jean Paul (1812, 1973) seems to be true: “Laughing people are good-natured and often line up with the laughed at” (Paul 1812/1973, p. 121, discussed here on pp. 80). However, one can also be less optimistic of the view that children are unaware of the self-defeating effects of deroga-

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

197

tory humor directed at themselves (cf. James/Fox 2016, p. 428), given findings in medicine on negative forms of humour (cf. Kuiper 2014, p. 283, discussed here in Sect. 3.3.2, p. 63). On the other hand, Führer/Matthes (2014) have indeed found that self-irony has an effect on speakers of generating sympathy and credibility (see above Footnote 14, Chap. 3, p. 38). So perhaps children intuitively use humour in which they themselves are victims as a rhetorical device. Further research will have to take it from here. At least in the context of this evaluation, the superiority theories of Plato, Aristotle and Hobbes can therefore be considered refuted. Neither the ranking of the humour category “mishaps and misfortunes of others” nor the qualitative evaluation suggests that a feeling of superiority could be a significant feature of children’s humour. As shown, the children’s own misfortunes (5.7%) have a similar, albeit reduced, significance for them compared to those of others (9%). Conclusion In summary, the following can be formulated for the three areas of children’s lives: cinema and DVD films, TV programmes and everyday life: Films thus amuse children above all when they humorously transpose sensorily perceptible and fantastic deviations from the norm and peculiarities that deviate from the everyday. “Mishaps and misfortunes of others”, as well as “sounds and noises” play a major role in this. In TV programmes, on the other hand, children are reminded above all of the everyday “mishaps and misfortunes of others,” usually paired with an aesthetic-­ comic portrayal. Otherwise, a deviation from the normal, i.e. from the expected, is preferred. However, this result can be explained to a large extent by the frequently retold episodes from the programme “Upps! Die Pannenshow”. For everyday life, it can be said that children in the interviewed groups clearly had a preference for aesthetically effective and linguistic humour, for playing with expectations as well as “deviations from the norm” and “mishaps/misfortunes of others,” whereby their own “mishaps” were also frequently told without shame. The greatest differences for the above-mentioned areas are in linguistic humour, which plays a subordinate role in film and television, where it is replaced by figurative humour.

4.2.7.2 Humor Categories by Gender for Theatrical and DVD Movies The percentage recording of the statements from the four group discussions separated by gender (12 boys, age 8–10 years; 12 girls, age: 8–10 years), yields the following frequency distribution, which can be represented graphically as follows (Fig. 4.5):

198

4  Empirical Part

Aesthetics

20

Mishaps + misfortunes of others

24.3

13.7

Deviation from the norm/absurdity

11.4

Sound + noises

25.7

20

14.3 13.7

Playing with expectations/surprising turn

8.6

Confusion/misunderstanding

3.2

Pranks

16.8

5.7

5.7 4.2

Imitation/parody

1.4 3.2

Delicate issues

2.9 1.1

Language/wordplay/meaning

0

Degradation

0

Bad + non jokes

0 0

Own mishaps/misfortunes

0 0

0

Expressions girls (n=70) Statements boys (n=94)

3.2 1.1

10

20

30

Fig. 4.5  Overview chart for the ranking of humour categories for “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcasting” by gender. (Source: Own survey, data in percent, basis: statements by girls, n = 70; statements by boys, n = 94)

On the one hand, similarities between the genders are visible, for example for the category “Sound and noises,” which reaches percentages of 14.3% for girls compared to 13.7% for boys, and for the category “Pranks” (5.7% girls, 4.2% boys). On the other hand, large differences are also noticeable, for example in the category “deviation from the norm/contradiction,” which is mentioned almost twice as often by boys as by girls (20% by boys to 11.4% by girls). A similar situation applies to the category “Playing with expectations/surprising twist” (16.8% for boys, 8.6% for girls).

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

199

It is noticeable that in the girls’ statements an even higher preference for aesthetically based humour can be read than is already given by the boys. The girls also seem to have a higher affinity for “mishaps and misfortunes of others” in film (24.3%) than is the case with the boys (13.7%). One reason for this could be the fact, studied by Bönsch-Kauke (2003b) and Schreiner (2003) among others, that girls also understand humour as a means of exploring socially acceptable behaviour (see above Sect. 3.4.1, p. 111 f.). It fits in with this that boys in the group discussions favour “deviations from the norm and absurdities” to a much greater extent than is the case with girls (20% to 11.4%). Another explanation could be a higher relief potential, which is made possible by laughing about other people’s fates. As we have seen, boys like to use humour and to tease and wind each other up in order to get into contact with each other, whereas with girls it tends to have the opposite effect (see above Sect. 3.4.1, p.  118). The liberating laughter about people who do not belong to the group, namely the film characters, could provide an outlet for girls. The great popularity of the category “Playing with expectations/surprising twist” among boys also stands in stark contrast to the moderate appeal of this category among girls (16.8% to 8.6%). Boys seem to recall and seek out the unpredictable and play with peripeties in film much more than girls. If one transfers the findings on the communication culture of the sexes to this result, one could come to the conclusion that girls do enjoy the sensorily perceptible, visual spectacle in a film plot, but only insofar as humorous surprises are kept within limits. The stability of high aesthetic humour is sought rather than its rupturing. This could also fit with what Götz (2013a) assumes in another context about the understanding of comedy among favourite TV characters, namely that for girls it is more about empathy than about being “moved” by them (cf. Götz 2013a, p. 607). According to the statements evaluated here, it appears that humorous films for girls must rather offer a secure framework in which others can be laughed at from a safe distance, while boys seek the humorous rollercoaster ride in films in which boundaries may be explored and crossed. In this respect, there is a case for seeing the popularity of incongruity as a function of gender when it comes to humour offerings in films, rather than making a blanket demand for it. Further research will be needed here to substantiate these findings (see also below the considerations on Fig. 4.84 regarding the different importance of hypotactic film humour for boys and girls, p. 383).

200

4  Empirical Part

4.2.7.3 Humour Categories by Age When evaluating the ranking by age, it should be noted that the number of children in the different age groups varied greatly. For example, group 1 of 8-year-olds had three boys and four girls, while groups 2–4 had a total of nine boys and eight girls. Thus, statements from seven 8-year-olds and seventeen 10-year-olds faced each other in the evaluation (Fig. 4.6).

20.7

Aesthetics Mishaps + misfortunes of others

17.2 18.8

Deviation from the norm/absurdity

15.5 18.8

Sound + noises

16.4

8.3

Playing with expectations/surprising turn

25

12.9 14.6 3.4

Confusion/misunderstanding

6.2 Expressions 10-year-olds (n= 116)

4.3 2.1

Pranks Imitation/parody

4.3

0 1.7

Delicate issues Language/wordplay/meaning

0

Degradation

0

Bad + non jokes

Statements 8-year-olds (n= 48)

6.2

2.6 0.9

0 0

Own mishaps/misfortunes

0 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fig. 4.6  Overview chart for the ranking of humour categories for cinema and DVD films by age. (Source: Own survey, data in percent, basis: all statements of 10- and 8-year-olds that could be assigned to a humour category, n = 116 (10-year-olds), n = 48 (8-year-olds))

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

201

It is noteworthy that the categories “Sound and noises,” “Pranks” and “Imitations and parodies” seem to play a lesser role for 8-year-olds compared to 10-year-­olds, while the category “Sensitive topics” gains more importance than for older children. However, due to the uneven distribution of the number of participants, no hasty conclusions can be drawn here; at best, one can speak of conspicuousness. Overall, it seems as if 8-year-olds are even more interested in norm-deviating, aesthetic comedy, even and especially when it concerns sensitive topics. One reason for this could be that 10-year-olds have already explored this humour repertoire sufficiently in movies, and so their humour preferences are fed by new sources, such as sounds, parodies, pranks, and word jokes. In the case of 10-year-olds, the tenuous retreat of the preference for humour grounded in the mishaps and misfortunes of others may provide evidence for McGhee’s (1979) theses (see above Sect. 3.4.1, p. 111), according to which younger children, because of their egocentrism, have not yet sufficiently internalised other perspectives and Schadenfreude is therefore more often found in them than in older children.

4.2.7.4 Humour Production of Girls and Boys If one relates the number of statements separately according to gender to the humour productions made in the process, it is noticeable that in the group discussions the girls (twelve 8–10 year olds) dominate in both. They express themselves more frequently than the boys (twelve 8–10 year olds) and also produce more humorous content than the boys (humour production is understood here as one, several or part of an utterance that together or individually fulfil at least one humour category, cf. code book in Appendix A 5).13 This result is at odds with the phenomenon of boys’ more active role when it comes to joking activities demonstrated by Branner (2003, p. 135) and McGhee (1979, pp.  210–212), among others (discussed here in Sect. 3.4.1, pp.  111 and 118). Indeed, in the group discussions, it was the girls who produced comedy rather than confining themselves to the role of listeners and evaluators compared to the boys as the following graph illustrates (Fig. 4.7). In the group discussions, therefore, long-standing relationships seem to have14 been reversed. Further research will have to prove whether this is a singular phenomenon that can only be attributed to the specific discussions that took place and the composition of the group, or whether there is a trend reversal here, i.e. whether girls nowadays are generally more active and more frequently engage in  Available at Springer.com.  According to recent findings, the differences in humour production between adult women and men are rather small (see Lampert 2014, p. 260; Earleywine 2014, p. 363, each with further evidence). 13 14

202

4  Empirical Part

Total statements (n= 1091)

562

529

Girls Boys

202

Utterances = humour production (n= 377)

175

0

200

400

600

Fig. 4.7  Number of all statements and of these all humour-producing statements in the group discussions by gender. (Source: Own survey, data according to frequency, basis: all utterances, n = 1091; all humour-producing utterances, n = 377)

initiative joke communication. Due to the development of society as a whole, through which women are discovering previously male domains for themselves in almost all areas of life, it does not seem entirely absurd that these changes are also reflected in the joke communication of children.

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

203

4.2.8 Context Specific Humour Description Through our own empirical procedure by means of the group discussions, it becomes clear that past theories and previous research are in correspondence with the humour categories chosen here, even if these categories were founded on the specific case of children’s humour. In the following it will be examined to what extent the theories of humour presented in Chap. 3 can explain at least individual categories of children’s humour, which could be obtained on the basis of the empirical study, and how an own context-­specific description of humour can be formulated for the children interviewed. As described in Sect. 3.1 on the theoretical discourse on humour and in Sect. 3.4 on the state of research on children’s everyday humour, the diversification of humour into categories and subcategories, its subdivision according to mode of action and function in medicine and sociology, is a relatively new procedure of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Prior to this time, thinkers and philosophers attempted all-encompassing, global definitions or essence definitions of humour. However, the resulting theories cannot describe humour in a universally valid way (cf. critique of humour theorems in Sect. 3.5, p. 135). Each theory is afflicted with the flaw of not being able to explain certain forms of humour. Some research results, such as those in medicine and sociology, on the other hand, are able to describe effects that are indisputably related to humour, for example with regard to group dynamics and mental and physical health. On the one hand, they expand our knowledge of new aspects of humour, but on the other hand they make a generally valid definition more difficult. It is obvious, for example, that theories of superiority and degradation find a counterpart in the almost identical humour category “degradation.” These theories can explain the essence of humour in this category, because it is all about degradation through laughter and one’s own elevation over another. These theories cannot explain the funny aesthetic phenomena often remembered by the children, the harmless jokes, sounds and noises, but above all their own misadventures in which the alterity is missing. Incongruence and discrepancy theories, in which, to put it simply, the discrepancy between imagination and reality is seen as determining the nature of humour, have a great deal of overlap with most of the categories of humour that have been formed. However, they do a poor job of explaining “imitations and parodies” and “one’s own misadventures” as sources of humor. In the case of imitation, comedy arises precisely through the imitation of something familiar; imagination and

204

4  Empirical Part

reality do not fall apart, because otherwise the parody would be incomprehensible (cf. Mikos/Töpper 2009, p.  26). And one’s own misadventures are usually only seen with humour afterwards, in the narrative. At this point, however, they are also known to the narrator. He can still laugh about himself. The saving of psychic energy, as expressed by Freud (1905/1992), can also form an explanatory background for many of the humour categories when it comes to the comic as defined by Freud. However, it is precisely the adult view that children lack, which for Freud is the essence of the comic and according to which laughter arises through the comparison “between the ego of the adult and the ego as a child”. In contrast to the comic, for humour, according to Freud, a strong, habitual, and undifferentiated emotional excitation is associated with a situation, which is then disappointed and replaced by a joke (see above Sect. 3.2.3, p. 52). In the case of children who, due to their age, have not yet formed any habits at all in many situations, but are rather in a phase of gathering experience and knowledge, even this theory comes into explanatory difficulties. Not least the studies by Piaget/Inhelder (1986) and McGhee (1979) have shown that, due to a lack of cognitive abilities, an understanding of humour is not present at all or only to a limited extent in certain age phases. Only Freud’s theorem on the joke that overcomes an educationally or socially conditioned taboo as resistance is well justifiable for children, especially in the humour category “language/word joke/meaning,” provided that a taboo is actually “overcome.” But even for the short riddle jokes that are very popular with children, a social taboo-breaking is a contrived insinuation. Nor is any educational resistance broken when children gleefully ask, “What’s red and flies in the air?” – Answer: “A mosquito with a sunburn.” Play theories, which see a playful attitude as a prerequisite for understanding but also for producing humour, can in principle serve as an explanation for a certain necessary basic mood for all categories of humour in children. But as mentioned above, situations are also conceivable that lack a playful attitude, but still encourage children to laugh. For example, in the case of unannounced tickling, which may not have been preceded by a playful situation on the part of the victim, but often by a concentrated, but in any case innocent situation. Tickling, which is popular with children and is counted as a “prank” in the context of this work, can therefore only be inadequately captured by game theories. The same applies in particular to mood-changing humour, which, for example, first puts a nervous or sad child in a playful attitude. Theories of relief, according to which humour can relieve a stressful emotional situation, can hardly explain laughter in unstressed situations. As already mentioned in the critical appraisal of humour theorems, there are many life situations

4.2 Questioning Children About Humour

205

in which a tense emotional situation cannot be assumed and in which laughter is nevertheless heard. Children, especially, tell jokes in a relaxed atmosphere. ­Randomly observed comedy in the category of “aesthetics,” such as people in funny costumes for children, is also not preceded by tension. The findings obtained primarily from sociological research can describe effects within a group and then also apply to all humour categories. However, they do not capture privately experienced humour. Whether or not humour of the individual categories is health-promoting or mood-influencing according to the latest medical findings has been little researched. If we take the studies on positive and negative humour as a basis, it is questionable, especially for the degradation category of humour, whether it can be an expression of positive and thus health-promoting humour. This can be assumed for affectionately mocking humour, but not for bitingly hurtful humour. Contrasting humour theorems and research with the humour categories used in this paper, the following picture emerges (Table 4.7). It can be seen here that although individual humour categories can be explained by the “classical” humour theories, on the other hand, childish humour has special features that cannot be grasped by these humour theories. One reason for this is that the focus of theories of humour, except for the representatives of game theory in Table 4.7  Theories of humour and the explanatory power of children’s humour Theory/research Superiority and degradation theories

Incongruence and discrepancy theories Freudian energy theory

Game theories

Theories of relief and liberation Medical and therapeutic research Source: Own survey

Humour category children Can explain the humour categories of “degradations” and “mishaps and misfortunes of others” Not explicable, however: own mishaps, (harmless) jokes, sounds and noises and forms of exhilarating aesthetics Cannot explain the following humour categories: “imitation/ parody” and “own mishaps” Can only explain humour categories as a function of a tension situation during reception Theorem on the joke can explain humour categories only in the case of breaking taboos Can explain child humour categories only depending on a certain state of mind. For the category “pranks” only under certain conditions Only possible as an explanatory model if the basic situation is actually tense for all categories Can explain health-related effects only for “positive” or “negative” humour for all categories. Difficult for degradations that cannot be clearly attributed

206

4  Empirical Part

the twentieth century, was almost exclusively on adult humour. Even where child behaviour has been used to justify a theory, as in Freud’s case, this has not been taken as an opportunity to address child humour and its possible specificities. Moreover, as has been seen, humour is always dependent on age, gender and environment, so that the definition of the term I have given on p. 213 can only be what it was announced to be: an attempt at an abstract description of the parameters influencing humour. A generalized theory of humour is not conceivable. Instead, the number of humour theories and descriptions grows with the number of target groups they concern and the medium through which humour is received or produced. The lack of a theory of humour in media studies may therefore be regrettable (cf. Prommer 2012, p. 124 f.) but can hardly be blamed on the impossibility of fulfilling it, which nevertheless leaves uncritical adoptions of humour theories from other disciplines questionable (cf. Sect. 3.5, p. 135). In addition to the general criticism of humour theories, it can therefore be stated for the case of children’s humour research and also for television research that not only new ways of thinking but also knowledge of all forms of expression are required in order to define children’s humour in relation to specific target groups and media. At this point, therefore, one can only attempt to describe humour for the surveyed age group of 8–10 year-olds as a function of areas of life and any media, whereby it should be noted that this group is very narrowly defined due to its middle-class educational background and its metropolitan socialisation in eastern Germany. The study showed the following: The children interviewed explore boundaries, but also (repeatedly) keep in mind the perspective of those who can become targets of humour and comedy. They prefer a protected setting in which comedy takes place, be it among friends and family or in the school environment. In the everyday sphere, they themselves enjoy being the protagonist and victim of comic events in their own anecdotes. In the field of television they enjoy exaggerating everyday events, while in the field of film they look for the audiovisually sophisticated fantastic. The humour of children in this group can therefore, in my opinion, best be described as an empathic-rebellious attitude which, in a protected environment, takes the unusual as an occasion for laughter without excluding the child’s own person from it.

4.3 Summary: Humour of Children of the Group Discussions Through the evaluation of the group discussions, the first part of the research questions (see above Sect. 4.1, p. 151) can be answered:

4.3 Summary: Humour of Children of the Group Discussions

207

Categories of Humour Found to Be Most Popular When Children Are Interviewed, and Children’s Definition of Humour Children define humour through remembered sample scenes, anecdotes and jokes. In this context, different preferences according to gender can also be determined for different areas of life. In everyday life, children enjoy not only linguistic and aesthetic humour, but also, for example, stories in which they themselves suffer a mishap. Children therefore also like to laugh at themselves, which should be taken into account before assuming that children enjoy Schadenfreude in a pronounced way. In film and TV, aesthetic humour and the misfortunes and mishaps of others occupy a notably prominent position. The enumeration of situations that children do not find funny, e.g. in TV blooper shows, has shown that the well-being and unhappiness of the victims of mishaps plays a decisive role. In movies, therefore, mishaps and misfortunes of others, although in second place of all mentions, also do not play as big a role as a source of humour as they do in TV shows. This is understandable when one considers the children’s remarks about the victims of these mishaps: at best, they themselves should still be able to laugh about their misfortunes. In the more emotionally involving film, which also differs in length from the clip-like mishap video, the misfortune of others is closer and probably therefore not quite as popular as a humour category, which may also explain why degradations are hardly preferred by children in the film medium: the depiction of serious injuries and insults are rejected by children. Cinematic Humour Elements Remembered and Retold by Children, and Interpretation and Understanding of Humorous Scenes Humorous film scenes that make the extraordinary or even the fantastic, that which is removed from everyday life, perceptible to the senses, are particularly often remembered and retold by children. Here we can see the decisive difference to preferred TV programmes, which are attached to everyday life and whose comedy tends to draw on real (mishap) situations in life. Children also enjoy the type of plot rather than the context of comic scenes in films, which is why confusion and misunderstandings do not superficially play a major role in the enjoyment of comedy in films. For example, Rapunzel is laughed at when she overpowers the intruder with a frying pan and puts him in the cupboard in the Disney film “Tangled” (2010, directed by Byron Howard, Nathan Greno), without any precise recollection of the motives for her previous whereabouts in the tower or the possible motive of the overpowered. The action in the sensorily perceptible is clearly the focus in the recollection of humorous film scenes. It is also consistent with this that language jokes do not acquire much significance for children in films, unlike what is the case for children in everyday life through joke

208

4  Empirical Part

telling. Deviating from the norm through punchlines conveyed by image is greatly enjoyed, which explains the popularity of animated films cited by children, in which unreal characters can carry out roles, animals behave like humans, or the caricaturing of human characteristics and the use of human products. It is often the surreal that exhilarates in contrast to the remembered and mentioned TV content, which also makes the extraordinarily high popularity of corresponding sounds and noises for the film sector understandable. Categories of Humour that Can Be Derived from the Children’s Answers From the children’s statements, 17 humour categories can be formed (see above Sects. 4.2.6, p. 167 and 4.2.7.1, p. 174), which provide information about the frequency of remembered funny situations in films, television programmes and everyday life for the three areas of life investigated here. As seen, this results in different preferences depending on the area of life. These humour categories form part of the following film analysis. The Role of Socio-demographic Aspects Such as Age and Gender of the Children Interviewed While boys seem to favour more norm-breaking and surprising humour in films, girls seem to favour the stability of humorous debate and enjoy laughing at others even more than boys. Aesthetic, i.e. visually perceptible humour is most important to both sexes, even if girls place even greater value on it than boys. Due to the uneven distribution of age cohorts (seven 8-year-olds, but seventeen 10-year-olds), even the relative count by percentage frequency of utterances can only be interpreted cautiously. According to this, the preference for the norm-­ deviating and surprising seems to decline with age in favour of more sophisticated parodies, which presuppose a certain background knowledge, and the preference for other sources of humour such as sounds and noises. Context-Specific Description of the Humour of the Interviewed Children Existing humour theories can only insufficiently capture children’s humour and their audiovisual humour preferences. Due to parameters dependent on age, gender and environment and related to media, humour can only ever be understood as a function of its context. The children interviewed here like to be protagonists and victims of comic events in their own anecdotes in the everyday sphere. In the field of television, they enjoy the exaggeration of everyday events, while in the field of film they seek out the audiovisually sophisticated fantastic. The produced and received humour of the children interviewed here can be described in a concise abstract form as an empathic-rebellious humour, which in a protected environment takes the extraordinary as an occasion for laughter without excluding its own person from it.

4.4 Film Analyses

209

4.4 Film Analyses To answer the second part of the research questions (humour characteristics in successful children’s films), the most popular film adaptations and, in the case of multi-part films, the most popular part (relevant here for: The Wild Guys 4 (Die wilden Kerle 4 – DWK4) of the years 2007–2010 were selected, which were15 listed by the FFA according to the Top 100 list of German films. In addition, the only16 children’s film based on an original screenplay and listed by the FFA for this period was examined in terms of humour (Paula’s Secret). Reference was made to live-action films because German children’s films are mainly produced in this genre  – in contrast to international, mainly American children’s and family films, which are almost exclusively released as animated films (cf. FFA Info 1, 2008–2011). The following film selection came about (Table 4.8): Table 4.8  Selection of the analysed films Visitorsb Yeara Adaptation 2010 Hanni and Nanni 868,888

2009 Lilly the Witch – The Dragon and the Magic Book Wicki and the strong men 2008

Original screenplay Visitorsb Directed by (–) Christine Kaufmann

1,220,288 (–)

4,891,161

Paula’s Secret 2007 The Wild Guys 4 2,454,325 (–)

54,548

Script Katharina Reschke, Jane Ainscough, Editing: Christine Hartmann Stefan Stefan Ruzowitzky Ruzowitzky, Armin Toerkell, Ralph Martin Michael Michael Herbig, “Bully” Alfons Herbig Biedermann Gernot Krää Gernot Krää Joachim Masannek

Joachim Masannek

Source: Own survey a Start and recording year of the number of visitors b Number of visitors in the year of recording incl. possible number of visitors in the previous year according to FFA Info 1/year

 cf. FFA Info 1/2008; 1/2009; 1/2010; 1/2011: http://www.ffa.de/studien-und-publikationen. html, last accessed 22.04.16. 16  According to the FFA listing. 15

210

4  Empirical Part

A conscious decision was made not to compare the films with less successful children’s films, as the choice of concentration corresponds to the authors’ own definition of a children’s film, which assumes an appropriate resonance with the target audience and therefore, within the framework of the explorative research approach, films were to be selected that could show corresponding audience figures (or prizes) and promised a high explanatory content. In addition, the selected films already show a large variance in audience figures among themselves, ranging from just under 54,548 viewers in the case of the film “Paula’s Secret” (2008, directed by Gernot Krää) to 4,891,161 viewers for the film “Wicki und die starken Männer” [Wicki] (2009, Michael “Bully” Herbig). In addition, the viewing of all other 20 films that were listed by the FFA as children’s17 films among the respective Top 100 German theatrical films during the survey period confirmed, with limitations, essential study results (cf. Sect. 4.4.11.12, p. 378; Table 4.9). A total of 2649 settings in 344 humour sequences were analysed with the help of 17 humour categories, ten film-related, six qualitative and three statistical parameters in three steps: 1. On the one hand, the results of the group discussions in the previous chapters and, in particular, the results of the television research (see above, Sect. 3.4.2, p. 123) were applied here in the film-analytical classification. 2. On the other hand, selected film technical means, which were mainly discussed in the presentation of the state of research in media studies (Sect. 3.3.3, p. 71), became part of the analysis. 3. Finally, the analysis was rounded off by a qualitative discussion of the individual films, which was also primarily based on parameters from the media studies literature (see above Sect. 3.3.3, p. 71) but also took into account production data. With the five films selected, a total of 4316 records, 2649 settings in 344 humor sequences were coded and analyzed.18 With the exception of “DWK 4”, which also

 The films “Die Wilden Hühner und Leben” (2009) as well as “Die wilden Hühner und die Liebe” (2007) do not belong to the children’s films but to the youth films according to the definition given here, as they primarily deal with first experiences of love (cf. Sect. 2.4, p. 26). 18  cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Potsdam-Babelsberg Film University), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx”, tab “Tables,” line 8 and tab “Fallzahlen” line 13. 17

4.4 Film Analyses

211

Table 4.9  Viewed German live-action children’s films of the years 2007–2010 Year 2010

2009

2008

2007

Adaptation The Crocodiles 2 (Vorstadtkrokodile 2) Devil’s Kickers (Teufelskickers) Here comes Lola

Visitorsa 698,917

Tiger Team – The Mountain of 1000 Dragons Wild Chicks and Life (Die wilden Hühner und das Leben) The Crocodiles (Vorstadtkrokodile) The Three Investigators and the Secret of Terror Castle (Die drei ??? – Das verfluchte Schloss) Lippel’s Dream (Lippels Traum) Stella and the Star of the Orient (Stella und der Stern des Orients) The Wild Soccer Bunch 5 (Die wilden Kerle 5) Red Zora (Die rote Zora)

307,009

Directed by Christian Ditter Granz Henmann Franziska Book Peter Gersina

995,864

Vivian Naefe

704,609

Christian Ditter Florian Baxmeier

Christian Ditter, Martin Ritzenhoff Philip LaZebnik, Aaron Mendelsohn…

227,617

Lars Büchel

Paul Maar, Ulrich Limmer

35,701

Erna Schmidt

Martin Dolejš

1,728,229

Joachim Masannek Peter Kahane

Joachim Masannek

Silly’s Sweet Summer (Blöde Mütze)

49,126

The letter for the king Wild Chicks in Love (Die wilden Hühner und die Liebe) The Three Investigators and the Secret of Skeleton Island (Die drei ??? und die Geisterinsel) Hands off Mississippi (Hände weg von Mississippi) Herr Bello Racing Pig Rudi Trunk 2 Toni Goldwascher

35,221 1,003,217 940,505

Florian Baxmeier

727,043

Detlev Buck

David Howard, Ronald Kruschak, Philip LaZebnik, Thomas Oliver Walendy Stefan Schaller, Maggie Peren

377,635 237,466 39,796

The Plane (Das Zauberflugzeug)

20,080

Ben Verbong Peter Timm Norbert Lechner Cédric Kahn

580,394 379,662

587,301

786,406

Script Christian Ditter, Neil Ennever Christoph Silber, Granz Henman Vanessa Walder, Uschi Reich Thomas C. Brezina, Peter Gersina Thomas Schmid, Uschi Reich, Vivian Naefe

Peter Kahane, Ronald Kruschak, Christian Zübert Johannes Philipp Budweg, Michael Schmid Demuth, Johannes Schmid, Thomas Schmid Pieter Verhoeff Pieter Verhoeff, Maarten Lebens Vivian Naefe Marie Graf, Uschi Reich

Ulrich Limmer, Paul Maar Peter Timm Rudolf Herfurtner Cédric Kahn, Ismaël Farroukhi, Raphaëlle Valbrune

Source: Own survey based on the Top 100 of FFA Info (1/2008, p. 12; 1/2009, p. 12; 1/2010, p. 12; 1/2011, p. 10 f.) a Number of visitors in the starting year according to FFA Info 1/2008–2011

212

4  Empirical Part

deals with teen film subjects in subplots (such as the courting of two boys for the female love interest), the films are presented in order of ascending humour density. “Paula’s Secret” (2008, Gernot Krää) is thus followed by “Hanni and Nanni” (2010, Christine Hartmann), “Lilly the Witch” (2009, Stefan Ruzowitzky), “Wicki” (2009, Michael “Bully” Herbig) and “DWK 4” (2007, Joachim Masannek). Due to this order, certain correlations can be shown particularly clearly in the later comparison of all films (cf. below Fig. 4.83, p. 379). Before the selection and methodology of the film analysis are presented and justified, however, it is necessary to clarify whether the films meet the definition of a children’s film followed here. According to the definition given at the beginning of this paper, a children’s film is considered to be a children’s film when the subject matter is appropriate for children and resonates with the target audience, i.e. when the intention of the filmmakers on the one hand, and the realisation and reception on the other, are in an appropriate relationship to each other (see above Sect. 2.4, p. 21).

4.4.1 Film Selection and Meeting the Children’s Film Definition In the following, we will briefly describe how the five selected films meet the definition of a children’s film given here, which was the decisive criterion for the selection (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 87). • Appripriate Resonance of the Films The characteristic of appropriate resonance is already fulfilled in the case of the adapted films due to the high audience figures, even if the FFA only records visitors from the age of 10 and thus the important group of 6–9-yearolds falls out of the statistics. Among 10–15-year-olds, “DWK4” achieved 44% of all visitors, “Lilly the Witch” and “Wicki” 19% and “Hanni and Nanni” 37% (cf. Nörenberg 2008– 2011, both p.  5). All adapted films were therefore also continued in subsequent years and brought to the cinema with further parts. For original children’s material, it emerged that the FFA Top 100 lists of German films for the years 2007–2010 only include one film that can be considered original

4.4 Film Analyses

213

children’s material, namely “Paula’s Secret”.19 Whether other titles outside of this FFA-managed listing can be considered must be disregarded here for reasons of research economics due to a lack of verifiability. For the film “Paula’s Secret,” with 54,548 spectators in 2008, one can doubt the appropriate resonance with the audience. However, this would shorten the term to the number of visitors. As mentioned above, it is necessary, rather, to determine on a case-by-case basis whether there is an appropriate resonance. In addition to economic factors, which are reflected in particular in the relationship between ­production costs and box office takings, cultural factors such as festival participation, awards and reviews must also be taken into account. In 2006, the film received the LUCAS at the children’s film festival of the same name in Frankfurt as best feature film. The Filmbewertungsstelle Wiesbaden also awarded the film the rating “Especially Valuable” and states: This is really a film for children and teenagers. It takes its target audience seriously, entertains in the best possible way and is interesting for both girls and boys. Eleven-­ year-­old Paula has her diary stolen, and the rather chubby classmate Toby helps her in her adventurous search. White knights and self-assertion, differences in origin and friendship are the themes of this cleverly constructed and absolutely age-appropriate film. Brilliantly cast and directed.20

The film is also praised in the reviews. Thus one can read in the Welt Online from 13.09.2007: This has pace, seriousness, tension. This has two excellent child actors in Thelma Heintzelmann and Paul Vincent de Wall, who are given more credit than they are allowed to show. This has everything a good children’s film should have. Except for the margarine prince charming, which Krää should have left where it belongs. In Paula’s diary.21

 Contrary to claims to the contrary (e.g. in Kinder und Jugendfilmkorrespondenz No. 1291/2012 Sonderteil Filmpolitik, p. 2), the film “Blöde Mütze” by Johannes Schmid, which was released in 2008, is not original material, but is based on the book of the same title written by Thorsten Schmid and published by Oettinger in 1999. 20  http://www.fbw-filmbewertung.com/film/paulas_geheimnis, retrieved 07/20/16. 21  “Paulas Geheimnis und der Margarine-Prinz”, Elmar Krekeler In: Die Welt.de on September 13, 2007. http://www.welt.de/welt_print/article1179730/Paulas-Geheimnis-und-derMargarineprinz.html, accessed May 7, 2013. 19

214

4  Empirical Part

The Dictionary of International Film [LIF] judged in 2007: All-round successful children’s and youth thriller in the best ‘Pünktchen und Anton’ tradition. Worth seeing from 10. (LIF 2007, p. 335)

Even if the responsible editor regrets the amount of visitors (see above in Sect. 2.4, p. 25), an adequate response can be assumed for the film “Paula’s Secret,” since in addition to the award ceremony at an important children’s film festival and the rating by the Film Rating Board, the reviews in the press also praised22 the film. • Intention of the Filmmakers to Produce a Children’s Film The FFA classification was only indicative of the filmmakers’ intention to produce a children’s film. However, in the case of the adaptations, the book drafts were already clearly aimed at a child audience. In addition, there were also no indications in the original material of “Paula’s Secret” that the production of a children’s film was to be avoided. For all films in the canon, therefore, it must be assumed that the filmmakers intended to produce a children’s film. • Child-Friendly Implementation (Adequate Themes and Cinematic Realisation) According to the definition of children’s film used here, it was also necessary to ask whether the selected films were appropriately adapted for children. For the child-friendly realisation of the films, it is necessary to focus on the one hand on child-friendly themes and on the other hand on their filmic child-­ appropriate realisation. In addition to the filmmakers’ intention to produce a children’s film and the given response, the selected films were also counted thematically as children’s films, because the themes of the films constiture almost a mirror image of the preferred film themes of children (cf. Wegener 2010, p. 22 ff.). “Hanni and Nanni I” (2010, Christine Hartmann) is about friendship in a girls’ boarding school. Intrigues must be overcome, teachers must be tricked and finally a tournament must be contested together against a rival school. But the thematic roundelay does not end there. In subplots, boy-girl and parent-child relationships play a role, among other things.

 The Farbfilm-Verleih has compiled further positive press reviews on its website: http:// www.farbfilm-verleih.de/repertoire/paula.html., retrieved on 31.01.14. 22

4.4 Film Analyses

215

“Lilly the Witch: The Dragon and the Magic Book (Hexe Lilli)” (2009, Stefan Ruzowitzky) tells of the unequal friendship between budding Lilly the witch and her mentor-like friend Hektor, a little dragon. Lilli has to assert herself at school against her unfriendly classmates and finally free her parents and the world from an evil sorcerer who wants to turn all humans into his slaves, bereft of their own will. In a metaphorical and fantastic way, the story deals with the coming of age, a time when children are not yet expected to make the right and important decisions. “Wicki and the Strong Men” (2009, Michael “Bully” Herbig) focuses on the friendship between Wicki and little Ylvi. When Ylvi is kidnapped along with other children by a hostile Viking tribe, Wicki secretly sneaks aboard with the adults who have set out to rescue the children. Alongside this, Wicki has to contend with the ignorance and rejection of his father, who never trusts Wicki to do anything. In the end, thanks to Wicki, the children are freed and Wicki even finds a treasure. Here, too, the themes of friendship, adventure, the problems of children and young people and, to some extent, love are in the foreground. In “Paula’s Secret” (2008, Gernot Krää), the child protagonist Paula loses herself in daydreams in which a prince charming whisks her away to an adult life and away from her parents, who are wealthy but very busy at work. When her diary is stolen by a gang of children, she becomes better acquainted with her classmate Tobi, who comes from humble beginnings. Adults must be outwitted and adventures must be had before Paula gets her diary back, can make friends with Tobi, and two children oppressed by criminals can get to their relatives. In addition to the theme of friendship and the problems of children and young people from different backgrounds, the film also addresses social issues such as disadvantage, crime and oppression. In addition to the sporting competitions in freestyle soccer against opposing teams, “The Wild Guys 4” (2007, Joachim Masannek) is primarily about loyalty to one’s own group (the wild guys). Subplots also deal with boy-girl relationships up to and including the first kiss. Although people kissing is one of the scenarios children and adolescents do not want to see in movies (cf. Wegener 2010, p. 24, discussed here in Sect. 2.3, p. 20), the defining themes of the film remain sport, friendship and group cohesion. All films therefore have their thematic focus in the complexes preferred by children. In contrast, films such as the book adaptation “Freche Mädchen” (1,015,608 viewers, 2008) and the original “Sommer – Für die große Liebe musst du kämpfen” in the same year (1,009,894 viewers) cannot be counted thematically as children’s films according to the definition used here, since the 14 and 15-yearold protagonists deal not only in subplots, but almost exclusively with the problems of the first great love, and the films therefore serve typical youth themes.

216

4  Empirical Part

It therefore remained to be asked whether the selected films were also realised in a way that was suitable for children. With the exception of the film “Paula’s Secret,” which was passed by the FSK from the age of 6, all films received an unrestricted age rating. Moreover, none of the selected films contained horror, shock or violent elements that would argue against their classification as children’s films. In conclusion, therefore, it could be said that all the films selected met the definition of a children’s film used here.

4.4.2 Scope and Methodology of Film Analysis The five films “Paula’s Secret,” “Hanni and Nanni,” “Lilly the Witch.” “Wicki” and “DWK 4” were to be examined for the density of their humour offerings and for the cinematic implementation of specific humour sequences. In doing so, it was necessary to ask with which components the analysis should be carried out in order to get to grips with its fundamental problems, which Mikos (2008) names with the fleetingness of the object, the principle endlessness or inconclusiveness of the analysis work and the lack of a universal method (cf. with further references Mikos 2008, p. 79). For Korte (cf. in the following Korte 2010, p. 28 f.), the ideal model of a film analysis consists of a context, product and reception analysis (Kurwinkel/ Schmerheim 2013, p. 153 ff., 288, also basically follow this three-step approach). In the contextual analysis, the contemporary reception background is illuminated, whereby the significance of the content-related problems of the film studied is compared, among other things, with other films and works from literature, the stage, the press and radio. The development of film history, measured in terms of organisation, politics and economics, as well as the general historical-social situation are evaluated against the background of the analysed film. In addition to the filmmakers’ intentions, the reception analysis also evaluates the locations and number of screenings, reviews in the press, and private sources on the film. Finally, the product analysis deals with the content-related and formal structures of the film, the attention-grabbing and identification guidance through dramaturgical means, the intended effect and the predominant reception offer. However, the decisive factor for the concrete design of the analysis is the given focus of the investigation (cf. Korte 2010, p. 75). The concrete research question can and must therefore also exclude film-analytical aspects (cf. Kurwinkel/ Schmerheim 2013, pp. 151, 153).

4.4 Film Analyses

217

Hickethier formulates five steps of film analysis (cf. in the following Hickethier 2012, p. 34). An initial understanding of the film should be formulated, which also articulates non-understanding and should make the subjectivity of seeing clear. One’s own way of reading and perceiving is then to be made conscious, before the analysis discusses the structure of the product, its forms of design and expression, taking into account the film tradition, and decoding potentials of meaning. As a penultimate step, the contexts will be taken into account, which should provide information about the genesis, production, distribution and reception. In the final step, all these findings will be placed in an interpretive context. With regard to context, Mikos (2008, p. 259 ff.) refers to the manifold contextual references that play a role in film reception and analysis. Not only the pre-­ existing knowledge of the respective film addressees and their socio-cultural milieu, which influences the understanding of a film text, is theoretically accessible to analysis but also the repertoire of genre and genre conventions used on the part of the filmmakers in intertextual reference to film history. Furthermore, films reflect social discourses with their plots and storylines, which, depending on the recipient, encounter different life worlds and are interpreted accordingly. A child, for example, will see, evaluate and understand the story of a single mother and her child quite differently from an adult woman, depending on her horizon of experience. In addition, there are discursive and social colourations due to the place and time of production. Finally, the way in which a film is evaluated and promoted, possibly in multimedia, in comparison to its success, allows a statement to be made about the relevance, popularity and consciousness of certain topics and discourses. Given the multiplicity of contextual references, Ang (2006) then also speaks of a project that is difficult to carry out and tedious, “if not megalomaniacal in its excessive ambition” (Ang 2006, p. 68). Even though no universal method has become established in film analysis and “there [is] no silver bullet of analysis” (Mikos 2008, p. 79), Mikos sees four steps as essential: describing, analysing, interpreting and evaluating (cf. Mikos 2008, p.  82). It is also undisputed that the more concrete the research question is, the more clearly its nature and scope can be narrowed down (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 80; Hickethier 2012, p.  29; Korte 2010, p.  75). Narrowing down the analysis to the actual research interest is absolutely necessary, because for reasons of research economics alone, getting out of hand should be avoided (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 81). It is therefore necessary to decide which aspects should be the focus of the analysis (cf. Geiger/Rutsky 2013, p.  1019). Structural points of view, for example, will focus more on the text or film itself, in contrast to historical approaches, which primarily require secondary sources for understanding

218

4  Empirical Part

(cf. Geiger/Rutsky 2013, p. 1022). Instead of examining all scenes or sequences, which borders on impossibility, structural analysis suggests capturing key scenes (cf. Geiger/Rutsky 2013, p.  1034). The components of the analysis of this thesis are therefore first and foremost aligned with the research questions: What role does humour play as a cinematic device in selected high-attendance German children’s film productions of the years 2007–2010? What types and categories of humour are found in the films? How is humour implemented in film? When analysing children’s films based on book adaptations and those based on an original screenplay, what are the similarities or differences in terms of humour? The presence of which cinematic humour features can be indicative of the successful production of children’s films? Is there a relationship between the presence of certain categories of humour and the attendance figures of the films studied? In order to answer the concrete research questions of this triangular study, an original model of analysis was therefore necessary, which aimed to reveal the filmic-­ humorous arsenal of offerings within the framework of a selective product analysis, against the background of the findings from the empirical part, the group discussions. This means that, in analogy to a qualitative content analysis, the humour-­ categorical film analysis had to limit itself to the investigation of category-­ ­ relevant texts through deductive-inductive category application (cf. Mayring 2015, p. 85 f.; Mayring/Hurst 2005, p. 438 f.). The humour categories preferred by children, their presence and their filmic design as well as the qualitative discussion of humour-relevant parameters in the selected films were therefore the focus of the analysis, excluding other aspects, also for reasons of research economy. A prognostic content analysis based on the films analysed was thus not attempted, as other, decisive factors and contexts that contribute to the audience success of a film were not the subject of this study (e.g. marketing, cast, number of copies, exploitation period, cross-media evaluation) and it was not the aim to predict an effect of the “media stimulus” (Wegener 2005, p. 205) of the formed humour categories for future films, even if strong indications for the successful use of humour techniques finally emerged (see below Sect. 4.4.11.12, p. 378). Rather, the findings obtained should help to clarify whether the specific comedy used corresponds with the great resonance with the audience. In terms of the research question, it was therefore only relevant which humour contents and categories were implemented with which cinematic means of staging,

4.4 Film Analyses

219

which structures humour sequences exhibit, whether there are differences or similarities between adaptations and the original material, and to what extent the coded humour categories of the films correspond with those from the empirical part, i.e. whether the films meet the children’s sense of humour. The cinematic-humoristic arsenal of effects of the films therefore also includes the concrete implementation of humor through selected elements of cinematic design as studied in media studies and presented above. These include the choice of motifs, number of cuts, camera movement, shot size, estimated focal lengths, perspectives, acting (performative styles), lighting, sounds and music, as well as any special features such as special effects. Furthermore, the genre affiliation of the children’s films in question and selected production data such as audience numbers, number of shooting days and production budgets should be addressed, as well as whether plot and narrative patterns provided humour offerings. An attempt was made to make a comparison of the different films possible by means of graphic representations, through which the respective humour density could be grasped at a glance. The information on the type, frequency, length and density of the humour sequences in question not only enabled a comparison to be made between the individual films, but also allowed derivation of the answers to the research questions posed at the outset. In the following, the humour content of the selected films is therefore examined in three steps: 1 . Described are the content, genre and production dates of the films. 2. The humour sequences are analysed for humour categories and their cinematic design. This results in initial interpretations when, for example, the cinematic design and the complexity of the humour are discussed. The overall humorous arsenal of the films in question is analysed statistically and graphically and contrasted with the preferences of the children interviewed. 3. A qualitative conclusion interprets the insights gained for the respective film as a whole. Finally, all films are compared with each other. Their humorous impact potential is also presented statistically and graphically. Here, correlations between humour-relevant parameters are examined. Finally, the research questions are answered on the basis of the evaluations and interpretations. In the following, the methodology of the three-part analysis will be presented, which is divided into a humour-categorical, a film-technical and a qualitative part.

220

4  Empirical Part

4.4.3 Components of the Humour-Structural Film Analysis The expected amount of data required a research method for the humour-specific film analysis that was efficient, comprehensible, reproducible and justifiable in terms of research economics. Among other things, it had to be clarified whether and how the logging of humour sequences had to be carried out. Hickethier is rightly critical of the necessity of logging (cf. on this in the following Hickethier 2012, p. 35 ff.) There is a danger that the analysis is already exhausted in logging. In view of the widespread use of video recorders and DVD players, Hickethier (2012) believes that the effort involved in complete logging can no longer be justified and that the distrust of the citability of audiovisual material is disorienting. Within limits, this is basically followed here. The film analysis software used, Akira III, enables the synchronous optical analysis of film sequences, i.e. action units usually consisting of several shots, which are distinguished from other sequences by an action continuum (cf. Hickethier 2012, p. 37). Akira thereby captures shots with an accuracy of up to 5 frames per second and thus makes it possible to display sequence logs digitally with the great advantage of playing back the corresponding film sequence. Thus, logging is linked to the unbroken audiovisual experience (similarly Mikos 2008, p. 99). The film experience is thus preserved, can be repeated at any time, and the synchronously displayed codes allow the analysis to be retraced. However, Faulstich’s (2013) prognosis regarding the time and effort required for attitude logging must be corrected significantly upwards after the experiences of the present work with a software-supported analysis and for the selected research design. Faulstich (2013) estimates four weeks for the complete creation of an attitude protocol for a 90-minute feature film, with five working days of eight hours per week (cf. Faulstich 2013, pp. 73, 78). In the humour-specific film analyses, the humour sequences “only” were recorded on the basis of 2649 shots, but the film-specific coding on the basis of ten parameters with almost 50 subcategories as well as the humour-categorical coding (13 categories) and the recording of qualitative parameters doubled the time required. Shortcomings of the analysis software, such as the overloading of the protocol function, which could not be remedied even by the developers’ service team, made additional data processing necessary, so that in the end 16 weeks of analysis activity had to be estimated per film. For subsequent research, the further development of a flexible film analysis software is therefore a worthwhile and desirable goal.

4.4 Film Analyses

221

For the analysis with Akira III it was technically necessary to convert the films into an MPEG 1 format. Subsequently, in several reception rounds, the places where film sequences suggested humour categories that corresponded to those identified in the group discussions with children were marked by hand. In several analysis runs, the corresponding sequences were then subdivided into humour sequences and coded according to the humour categories that appeared. The evaluation of exportable data (scores) from the programme was the prerequisite for comprehensive statistical data processing and its graphical representation, which could no longer be accomplished by the analysis programme. The score data were therefore exported by me as text files of the type “txt” and then processed by an external statistical service provider using the programs Microsoft Office Excel and IBM SPSS Statistics 19. First, the score data was transferred from the service provider to Excel. There, the texts were divided into the components to be evaluated using Excel functionalities. It was important to note that all the parameters I recorded with the help of the programme Akira III also remained provided with the time code, which marks the start and end time for a humour sequence, but also for each individual setting (Fig. 4.8). Using the information prepared in Excel, consisting of time code and the individual characteristics, the information was then read into IBM SPSS Statistics 19

Fig. 4.8  Representation of the data on the humour sequences in Excel, example for the film “Hanni and Nanni”. (Source: Own survey)

222

4  Empirical Part

by the service provider. Here, the information was used to create tables and graphs. Among other things, both the duration and frequency of the occurring characteristics were tabulated. Using the time codes, the different characteristics (humour categories, film technical parameters etc.) were linked again in the same way as they had been coded before by Akira III. After their creation, all tables were exported to Excel and further processed23 there. For this purpose, I specified a graphic design, which was implemented by the service provider. In this way, the chronological sequence of the features within the film could be visualized synchronously so that the question could be answered as to when which style was used. In the graphical representation of the humour category, for example, there were so-called overlap traces when humour offerings overlapped in content or time, which were represented as separate lines (for the definition of overlap, see below Sect. 4.4.3.2, p. 224). The graphical representation of the data I collected thus also allowed for an overall synchronic-optic graph that makes humour density and structure comparable between films (cf. below Fig. 4.40, p. 352). At all stages, I was in close consultation with the service provider in order to correct individual miscoding, for example, which is unavoidable given the large amount of data.

4.4.3.1 Definition of the Terms Humour Sequence, Humour Part and Humour Density In the course of data collection, but also during processing, the necessity arose to define a humour sequence as a context unit, i.e. as the largest text component to be coded, as well as the humour parts it contains as a coding unit, i.e. as the smallest unit falling under a category (cf. Mayring 2015, p.  61), in order to apply these codes to all films: For the purposes of this study, a humour sequence24 refers to an action context that can be based on location (in relation to the place of action), time or content. The necessary length of a humour sequence was defined as the shortest comprehensible unit.

 cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Filmuniversität Potsdam-Babelsberg), folder: “CC. Statistik Filmanalyse FINAL 24.03.16”. 24  In film studies, a distinction is sometimes made between scene and sequence. While the continuum of action cited above is often required for a sequence (Hickethier 2012, p. 37), time and place coincide in a scene and a continuous action takes place (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 92). In many cases, however, the two terms are also used synonymously (cf. with further references: Mikos 2008, p. 93). 23

4.4 Film Analyses

223

The first question asked was how much lead-in a sequence needs in order for the humour used in it to be comprehensible, and the second question was how long the sequence must be at most. The beginning and the end defined in this way determine the length of a humour sequence. However, a humour sequence can be broken down into even smaller components, namely into those humour parts that have their own canon of humour categories, which may differ from one another in the case of several humour parts. For example, a 1-minute chase scene might form the thematically based humour sequence “Verfolgung” (Pursuit). It would most likely begin with the start of the pursuit, i.e. from the moment when it is comprehensible who is pursuing whom, and it would end when the pursued person has been caught or has escaped. Within this humour sequence “Verfolgung.” however, various comical situations and gags can now take place. The pursued person may first flee on a child’s bicycle that is too small, then change to a donkey cart that is too slow, and finally go into hiding at a wedding party, where he has to talk his head off to avoid being discovered. All these situations belong thematically to the sequence “Verfolgung,” but have different local and thus thematic stations (=parts), each of which can have a different canon of humour categories. A further, even smaller breakdown was not possible, primarily for technical reasons, but also for reasons of research economy. For one thing, the analysis software could not display parts of less than 5 frames (= 0.2 seconds), so that in a few cases it was necessary to group together in humour parts those situations and gags that belonged to a humorous theme or plot. On the other hand, very short gestures, sentences or single words could be summarised in humorous parts. Wherever it was possible and required by a new humorous theme, however, short humorous offers were also recorded in a separate part. Statistically, this procedure does not result in any significant shifts, since in addition to the frequency of humour categories, the temporal length of their occurrence was recorded in each case and is also taken into account in the evaluation (cf. e.g. for the film “DWK 4”, p. 471). Humour parts thus include all situations and gags that belong to a humorous (sub)theme or storyline within a humour sequence. On the one hand, a humour part can be shorter than a shot, on the other hand, a humour sequence can consist of several parts or only one. This subdivision of humour sequences and parts will be exemplified in the following when considering the various manifestations of humour sequences. Humour density can be defined as the ratio of humour offerings per unit of time. The latter can be a humour part, a humour sequence or the whole film. Thus, for example, the number of humour categories occurring in a humour part can be recorded, or the number of humour parts and humour sequences in the whole film.

224

4  Empirical Part

The more parts, sequences and categories there are, the greater the humour density. Theoretically, a film can achieve a high humour density even with few humour sequences. However, in reality, sequences, parts and number of humour categories correlate (cf. Table 4.18, p. 353 and Fig. 4.83, p. 379).

4.4.3.2 Forms of Appearance of Humour Sequences Humour sequences could be detected in different forms in the five films. A comparison of the films then revealed different distributions of these forms, which ­provide information about the complexity and quantity of humorous sequences. The comparative graphs below clearly show these differences. The following types of humour sequences could be distinguished: Simple Humour Sequence A simple humour sequence exists, for example, when one or more humour categories can be combined into one humour part in an action or situation. This can be a single gag or a simple comic situation. The humour sequence “Wasser” (Water) from the film “Hanni and Nanni” (2010, Christine Hartmann) is an example of this: In this barely 12-second scene in the 29th minute of the film, Hanni washes a piece of clothing on a washboard while the antagonistic sports teacher scolds her and her sister. Hanni takes the piece of laundry from the trough and, while turning around, splashes the teacher with water, who then recoils (Fig. 4.9).

Fig. 4.9  Screenshot of a shot of a simple humour sequence from the film “Hanni and Nanni” (2010). (Source: Screenshot of own survey, “Hanni and Nanni” Universal Pictures International 2010)

4.4 Film Analyses

225

The screenshot shows the structure in Akira III. At the bottom left of the screenshot, the tracks containing the components of the film analysis are visible (“Title HS…”, “Category Humor,” Cat Humor ÜS 1” etc.). Here, only the track “Category Humor” should be of interest. This single, simple gag in the humour sequence meets the following humour categories (code numbers in parentheses): (1) “Aesthetics,” because the splashing of water and the teacher’s startled reaction represent an extraordinary visual change; (3) “Playing with expectations / surprising twist” because Hanni splashing the teacher is not predictable; (4) “Deviation from the norm / absurdity,” because for a student to splash a teacher with water violates the common pattern of behaviour; (9) “Pranks,” because Hanni’s action was premeditated, disguised as accidental. The humorous content of this sequence is only fed by Hanni’s prank. However, the splashing alone would not generate comedy, because it would not be clear in which relationship Hanni and the adult woman stand. So the humour part needs a lead-in. The humour sequence therefore starts from the moment it becomes clear that Hanni and the adult character are in a super-­ subordinate relationship to each other, i.e. a few seconds earlier. Since it is the only action that fulfills a humour category in this scene, the part and sequence coincide. Humour Sequences with Overlaps (Hypotactic) Overlapping of humour categories by humour parts on different levels can occur in two ways. Firstly, when several comic moments (parts) occur simultaneously in the plot. Examples of this are an event in the foreground and one in the background, or when a comic action (Part 1) is still continuing while a new one (Part 2) is already beginning. However, an overlap also occurs when the individual humorous parts of a humorous sequence take place one after the other, but build on each other in terms of content and can hardly be understood or separated from each other individually without the preceding part. A simple example of this is the humour sequence “Chef trösten” (comforting the boss) from the film “Wicki,” which will also be used to explain the difference between a humour sequence and a humour part (Fig. 4.10). In this 24-second humorous sequence, Wicki’s father mourns the supposed drowning of his son in the sea in the 40th minute of the film. One of the Vikings

226

4  Empirical Part

Fig. 4.10  Screenshot of a shot of a hypotactic humour sequence from the film “Wicki” (2009). (Source: Screenshot of own survey, “Wicki” Constantin Film 2009)

tries to cheer him up with jovial small talk (“Well boss, everything in the black?”) and the concluding words “…sometime they all come up again.” In response, he receives a punch, which we only hear off-screen at the sound level and which the rest of the crew watches with mimicked pain (contorted faces, surprised collective yelps). With a bleeding nose, the punched man limps back to his comrades, saying, “I think he’s feeling much better.” This humour sequence consists of two parts that relate to each other. Both belong to a temporally and thematically connected plot, namely the attempt of an individual team member to comfort his own boss. However, the humour sequence passes through different stages. The first part of this humour sequence, shown in the screenshot in the basic track “Category Humor,, is the comforting speech of a crew member to his boss. It culminates in the remark “…someday theyall come up again.” and the reaction of Wicki’s father by punching him. This first part fulfills the following humour categories: (1) “Aesthetics,” because both the Viking’s overly jovial demeanour looks funny because it’s completely inappropriate, and the reaction of his teammates to the fist bump (contorted faces); (2) “Mishaps and misfortunes of others.” The weepiness of the great Viking mourning his son seems comic and is the basis of all the comic elements that follow;

4.4 Film Analyses

227

(3) “Playing with expectations/surprising twists” because the subordinate Viking’s strategy of cheering up his boss with small talk and awkward words is ­unexpected; (4) A “deviation from the norm/absurdity” is present due to the inappropriate words of the team member to his boss; (5) “Language/wordplay/meaning” as a humour category is reflected in the obvious mismatch between the tone and content of the words and the given occasion; (7b) “Degradation because of. stupidity” is present because the consoling Viking and his lack of subtlety are here staged and he receives a punch from Wicki’s father for his remarks; (11) “Sound and noises” are to be found as a category here in the fist blow, which makes clear only on the sound level the punishment by Wicki’s father; (12) “Imitation/parody” is present in several respects, because on the one hand the strong boss is portrayed as all meek and whiny, and on the other hand the comforting Viking is only a caricature of a compassionate person. The second part, in the screenshot on a separate track under “Cat. Humor ÜS” (for category Humor Überschneidung [overlapping]), is the assessment of the events by the failed Viking consoler after the fist punch: “I think he’s feeling much better already.” The following humor categories are fulfilled by this part: (1) “Aesthetics.” The limping Viking holding his bleeding nose seems comical because it resolves as a pictorial punchline what the fist punch off screen only let us hear; (2) A “mishap/misfortune of others”, is present for the victim; (3) A “game with expectations” is given, because it was not foreseeable that it would turn out this way; (4) “Deviation from the norm/absurdity” is present because the entire plot and the commentary are exaggerated and do not correspond to the reality of life; (5) “Language, wordplay and meaning” are here means of interpreting violence as an expression of well-being or improvement of well-being; (7b) The punished person’s continued pain constitutes a “demotion for stupidity.” (12) “Imitation/parody” is fulfilled, for throughout the part Viking customs are greatly exaggerated and caricatured in their crudeness. This second part remains completely incomprehensible without the first. Just a Viking with a bleeding nose who says a sentence like “I think he’s feeling much

228

4  Empirical Part

better” leaves confusion in the absence of the preceding part of doltish consolation, and consequently it would not be funny either. Here, then, we have precisely the case described above of the overlapping of humour parts that relate to each other in terms of content. In the analysis software, this type of dependent part was therefore assigned its own track. The maximum number of tracks, namely five, was reached by the showdown scene in the movie “Lilly the Witch” in the 70th minute of its duration. Multi-track humour parts that relate to each other increase the complexity of a humour sequence as the number increases. This complexity of humour is highly variable in the films studied and has led to one of the most important findings in the analysis process: cinematic humour has a structure similar to linguistic grammar, even if one might object that cinematic structures are dominated above all by technical means not available to language (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 13 with further evidence). Interconnected and interdependent humour phenomena are well known to practitioners. Even the US director Frank Capra (1897–1991), who became famous among other things with his film “Arsenic and Old Lace” (1944), but who was already working as an author in Hollywood during the silent film era, recalls in his autobiography how he worked on the “gags” in the mid-1920s: “business on business” until you top it all off with the big one - the “topper.” (Capra 1971/1997, p. 51) […] a sequence of funny incidents with a topper - the “blow-off” - a big laugh at the end of the sequence. Toppers were what we knocked our brains out for - the unexpected wow that knocked them in the aisles. (Capra 1971/1997, p. 52)

US director Billy Wilder (1906–2002; including “Some Like It Hot,” 1959), who calls escalating, sequential gags “super jokes”, considers them the defining characteristic of films by Ernst Lubitsch (1892–1947): It [the Lubitsch touch] was the elegant use of the Superjoke. You had a joke, and you felt satisfied, and then there was one more big joke on top of it. The joke you didn’t expect. That was the Lubitsch touch. (Crowe 1999, p. 33)

In linguistics, Attardo (2001) uses the English term “hyperdetermined” as a humour technique for the simultaneous occurrence of humour sources (cf. Attardo 2001, p. 100 f.) and the English term “strand” for the reference of humour offers to an initial offer (cf. Attardo 2001, p. 29), although he assumes for the latter that, with exceptions, it consists of at least three parts.

4.4 Film Analyses

229

However, since Attardo (2001) himself admits that his humour theory GTVH (general theory of verbal humour) cannot explain hyperdetermined humour (cf. Attardo 2001, p. 100), and since the criticism of these theories already presented above is shared here, we will refrain from adopting these rather unwieldy English terms (see above Sect. 3.5, p. 135; critical of Attardo: Kotthoff 1998, pp. 48, 54; Hartung 2008, p. 53; criticizing Attardo’s terminology: Brock 2004, p. 71). Linguistically, Brock (2004) also approaches sequential humour. He distinguishes, among other things, “additive combinations of incongruencies” (Brock 2004, p. 192), “topping” and “gradual escalation of incongruencies” (both: Brock 2004, p. 194). However, this also places hardly surmountable obstacles in the way of understanding for the inclined reader, because in all three types the incongruencies refer to each other and it remains nebulous what the decisive difference is supposed to be. Moreover, Brock, like Attardo (2001), whom he criticises, focuses exclusively on incongruities. Thus he himself writes: “A breach of expectation can only occur if there is an expectation” (Brock 2004, p. 29). However, especially for the film field, in many cases a certain expectation cannot be assumed. Moreover, Brock (2004) does touch on cases in which incongruities are mediated by images, but avoids examples that do not involve language (cf. Brock 2004, pp. 202 ff., 213; similarly, Marszalek 2016). In the film field, however, speechless humour is precisely the special design device of comedy. The subtitle of the author’s publication (“A linguistic study of British television comedies”) is therefore literal and largely excludes film-specific visual comedy. Brock (2004) takes the term “topping” from Palmer (1994) (cf. Brock 2004, p. 181), who in turn explicitly describes the sequential humour structure in his publication, also using film clips. The basic structure of “topping” can be seen in the dependence of the humour parts: … each stage in the development of the gag builds on the previous one and each is calculated to produce an increment in laughter, creating a crescendo effect. (Palmer 1994, p. 111) … they are organised into a tightly linked sequence in such a way that each one lays the ground for the next. (Palmer 1994, p. 112)

In the absence of an established term and due to the terminological and content-­ related diffuseness, we will refrain from adopting the presented terminology for the humour structure analysis and instead distinguish between hypotactic and paratactic humour. Similar to how subordinate clauses relate to a main clause, hypotactic humor is characterized by the fact that overlapping humor parts relate to each other. For example, an initial gag may be followed by several escalation stages and thus by further humour offerings, but these presuppose the understanding of the first

230

4  Empirical Part

gag. However, an interlacing of content does not only exist in temporal sequence, but also if, for example, an action in the foreground is commented on humorously by a simultaneous one in the background. Paratactic humour offers, on the other hand, can be understood individually, similar to a series of main sentences; in this case, gags that follow one another in time are not necessarily related to one another in terms of content and therefore represent individually understandable humour parts, similar to a revue number. Whereas hypotactic humour parts can overlap in terms of time (through simultaneity or overlapping) or content (through thematic reference) and can hardly be separated without the narrative structure of time or meaning being lost, paratactic humour parts can theoretically be understood individually and retain their humorous offer potential independently of the preceding or following events. The limits of the division into humorous parts can also be well explained with the sample scene from “Wicki:” In the scene at hand, the opening of the consoling crew member with the words: “Well boss, everything in the black?” may, among others, already fulfill the humor category (5) “language/word joke/meaning”. Apart from the above-mentioned technical hurdle of not being able to display parts of less than 0.2 seconds, it would have been beyond the scope of the research to categorise each individual sentence or gesture separately. This is not necessary, because all statements of the character can be mentally summarised to a subtopic (=part) (address to the boss and his reaction), in the analysis marked with the part designation “They all come up again”. Moreover, this restriction has hardly any significance for the subsequent evaluation, because the temporal length of the recorded humour categories is not statistically influenced by it. Only the frequency of the humour categories is slightly influenced by the definition of humour parts. Thus, without summary parts in the present case, the first (“Well, boss…” etc.) and the last utterance (“They all come up again sometime.”) would each have fulfilled humour category (5). Thus, the humour category would have occurred twice. The temporal length of the humour category (5) in the humour sequence, however, would not have changed, because both parts would have been added together. Humor Sequences as a Revue (Paratactic) A mere stringing together of individual comic moments, each of which has its own understandable humorous content, but which belong to a unit because of the course of action in terms of time, content or location, is what I call a humour sequence in the form of a revue number by means of paratactic humour parts.

4.4 Film Analyses

231

Unlike the overlaps, the individual parts here can also be understood separately from each other and retain their humorous content. A simple example of this is the humour sequence “Lillis Schulweg” (Lilli’s way to school) from the film “Lilly the Witch” (Fig. 4.11). In this sequence of the 26th minute of the film, Lilli rides her bicycle through the city. She has previously set off from home, but this is not part of the sequence, as this, just like arriving at school, is not relevant for the understanding of humour in the following. The humour sequence is therefore limited to the length necessary for humour comprehension and only includes a little more than the part of her way to school in which comic situations occur. Lilli drives across a sidewalk and causes a surprised waiter to stagger. She then drives over a manhole cover that is about to rise and a swearing sewer worker emerges from underneath it. The scene with the waiter represents the first humour part, the scene with the sewer worker the second. Both humour parts within the sequence “Lillis Schulweg” fulfil the same humour categories: (1) “Aesthetics.” Cycling in unusual places and the reactions of waiters and sewer workers seem visually unusual; (2) There is a “mishap / misfortune of others” because the waiter almost loses his balance with his tray and the sewer worker gets angry;

Fig. 4.11  Screenshot of a shot of a paratactic humour sequence from the movie “Lilly the Witch” (2009). (Source: Screenshot of own survey, “Lilly the Witch” Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 2009)

232

4  Empirical Part

(3) The sequence is a “play on expectations/surprising twist” because this type of cycling is unusual; (4) “Deviation from the norm / absurdity” is given, since it is unconventional to drive through the city in this way. Both parts are merely a stringing together of comic situations that are understandable and funny independently of each other. Unlike, for example, the scene from “Wicki” discussed above, the second part with the sewer worker retains its independent humorous content even without the first. It is thus a revue of comic situations that have a paratactic structure. Humour Sequences in Mixed Forms In addition to these pure forms, mixed forms also appeared in the films. Thus, a humour sequence can begin as a revue number and end with dependent humour parts or vice versa.

4.4.4 Components of Technical and Qualitative Film Analysis In addition to the analysis of the filmically implemented humour categories, the aesthetic-creative implementation for all humour sequences was examined in a second analysis step through the use of film-technical means. Since, among other things, camera angles and perspectives were also to be recorded, a subdivision into shots was necessary. Each humour sequence was therefore broken down into its settings. In this way, a total of 2649 shots in 344 humour sequences of the five films were analysed. The cinematic components of the analysis resulted in part from the state of research elaborated in the first part (cf. the summary in Sect. 3.5, p. 135), partly from the literature (here especially Mikos 2008, p.  191  ff.; further in-depth literature references in the following at the relevant place) and also from my own practical experience as a filmmaker. For example, a category “acting” was introduced in order to be able to analyse performative elements (cf. Vogt 2007, p. 142) and to clarify the question of whether there are certain forms of performance that decisively determine or accompany humour offerings. The technical film elements were to provide information in the evaluation about the question of whether there are specific implementations of humour in children’s films with a high number of viewers, i.e. whether a film is distinguished by a special film humoristic signature. This includes, for example, the use of certain shot sizes, perspectives, camera movements, lighting, sound, music and equipment.

4.4 Film Analyses

233

Here is an overview of the ten selected categories of film technical analysis along with their 49 subcategories25 and their coding units (Table 4.10). These cinematic categories are explained in more detail below: • Motif (a) The motif designates the place of action of the setting. A humour sequence, which usually consists of several shots and humour parts, can therefore also take place in several locations. In addition to the location of the action, whether it is an indoor or outdoor motif and at what time of day the action takes place were also taken into account. In this way, it can be determined whether a film takes place predominantly during the day or at night and whether this occurs in outdoor or indoor motifs. By recording the motifs that occur in humour sequences, it should be investigated whether there are recurring “comic” motifs or those that occur particularly frequently in humour sequences. Corresponding subcodes are: A-T (Outdoor, Day) A-N (outdoor, night) I-T (indoor, day) I-N (indoor, night) I/A-T (indoor and outdoor, day) A-N/T (outdoor, night and day)

• Setting Size and Subject Matter (b) The setting size refers to the image detail of the filmed subject. The size of the shot specifically influences the viewer’s attention, as the distance to the object controls the empathy process (cf. Korte 2010, p. 34; Maiwald 2010, p. 168). Thus, closeups, long shots and detail shots often also make viewers emotionally closer to the

 The subcodes for the categories “settings,” “perspective” and “movement” were partially combined. In the course of the film analysis with the help of the Akira III software, all types of pans in camera movement were coded first, i.e. a distinction was made between pans to the left, to the right, and so on. In this and the table at the end of this chapter as well as for the graphics in Sect. 4.4.11.3, p. 354 ff., this small-scale distinction has been abandoned in favour of better representability. For the categories mentioned, the (summarised) subcodes before the parentheses apply here (e.g., for the category “movement”). The complete subcodes can be found in the corresponding Excel tables for the individual films in the digital appendix in the folders “CCC1” to “CCC5”. 25

234

4  Empirical Part

Table 4.10  Overview of all film technical analysis components including their coding units Category film technology/style Code Subcodes Motif a A-T = Outside, Day, A-N = Outside, night, I-T = Inside, Day, I-N = Inside, Night, I/A-T = Inside and Outside, Day, A-N/T = Outdoor, night and day. Setting sizes and b Detail, subject matter G = Large, N = Close up, HN = Medium close up, Am = American, HT = Medium long shotl, T = Long shot, W = Wide, Compression (e.g. from far to near), Extension (e.g. from near to far), Mixed forms according to actual occurrence (e.g. progression from long shot to medium close up to American = T-HN-Am). Picture subject = name of the figure or object: Protagonist, Antagonist, Rest. Perspective c N = Normal, Unt = Low angle, On = High angle, Frog, Bird’s eye, Perspective progression (e.g. from bottom view to top view = Unt-Auf), diverse perspectives. Move d St+A = Static with compensation, Zoom (zoom in and zoom out), St = static, Pan (up, down left right, rip zoom and various pans), Travel (up, down, right, left, back, towards, behind and parallel), Flyover.

Encoding unit Shot

Shot

Shot

Shot

(continued)

4.4 Film Analyses

235

Table 4.10 (continued) Category film technology/style Code Subcodes Focal length e N = Normal, L = Long, W = Wide. Sound/Music f Primary Sound, Score, Dynamic/Dramatic Music, Special/Live Music, Voice-over, Sound Effects. Number of g Numeric settings Light h LK = Low-Key, MK = Mid-Key, HK = High-Key. Acting Guide i Real, overdone, parodic. Special features j According to occurrence

Encoding unit Shot

Humour part

Humour sequence Humour sequence Humour sequence Humour sequence

Source: Own survey

action and the characters than distanced medium long shots or long shots (cf. Mikos 2008, p.  207). The comic effects of close-ups were already described by Müller (cf. Müller 1964, p. 164; discussed here in Sect. 3.3.3.2, p. 78). The following common variables were considered (see also Mikos 2008, p. 194 ff.; Hickethier 2012, p. 57 ff.; Maiwald 2010, p. 169; Fig. 4.12). Shot sizes are variable. They can change within a shot due to movement of the camera or actors or objects. Where size shifts occurred due to camera movements, these were taken into account by naming the start and end size, e.g. the course “T-­ G” for an approach from a long shot that ends in a close-up. Size changes, which for example resulted from movements of the actors, were not taken into account, as they do not represent camera stylistic devices, but stem from “staging and blocking,” i.e. the scene-setting. The main shot size was then taken into account here. In cases of doubt, for example in the case of intermediate sizes that did not clearly correspond to one of the selected shot sizes, the one that came closest to the

236

4  Empirical Part Detail The setting size Detail usually shows only a part of an object or a figure. (Here a part of an hourglass from: “DWK 4”, minute 24) G = Large The Large setting often shows a person’s face almost filling the picture, up to about the shoulders. (Here Lilli from the movie “Lilly the Witch” minute 29)

N = Near The close-up piercing shows a human being mostly including the upper arms. But this screenshot also shows another special feature, namely the So-called “overshoulder” shot, which is filmed “over the shoulder” of another figure, i.e. it shows this figure in a cut.

Fig. 4.12  Coded shot sizes in the analyses. (Source: Screenshot of own survey/film; “The Wild Guys 4” Buena Vista Int. 2007; “Lilly the Witch” Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 2009; “Paula’s Secret” Farbfilm-Verleih 2007, “Wicki” Constantin Film 2009; “Hanni and Nanni” Universal Pictures International 2010)

4.4 Film Analyses

237

Over-shoulder settings were not recorded separately; instead, the insertion size was determined by the character or object that was in focus (in this case, Wicki). ( Wicki, minute 22 ) HN = Half close One setting size that is often chosen and that represents an intermediate size is the half close-up. It shows a figure approximately up to the belt. (“DWK 4”, minute 57)

Am = American The American one is the size of a shot that goes up to the imaginary pistol holsters on the belt of a figure, that is, it ends at knee height. (“Paula’s Secret”, minute 50)

Fig. 4.12 (continued)

238

4  Empirical Part HT = Half-total The half-total shows a figure roughly from head to toe, bounded by the upper and lower edges of the picture. (“Wicki”, minute 44) T = Total The long shot shows a figure or a place from a greater distance. (“Hanni and Nanni”, minute 36)

W = Wide The wide angle is the extreme form of the long shot from a very long distance. (“DWK 4”, minute 50)

Fig. 4.12 (continued)

one in question was coded. Since the analysis program was unable to form units of less than 5 frames, shots were recorded that had at least 5 frames. However, shorter shots hardly occurred. Their total number is in the single digits for all films together. In addition to the shot size, what the shot depicts was also recorded, i.e. the subject of the picture. For the evaluation, the image objects were then divided into three categories:

4.4 Film Analyses

239

(1) Protagonists This refers to the characters of the respective film, from whose main point of view and perspective the story is told. Protagonists serve as identification figures. They have an inner, possibly unconscious need and a concrete goal. Usually, both an inner and an outer conflict prevent them from achieving this goal until the end of the story (cf. Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p.  305; Stutterheim 2015, p.  162; Hickethier 2012, p. 126). The following protagonists emerged for the selected films: “Paula’s Secret:” Paula and Tobi. Paula wants to find her stolen diary again. Her initial dislike of Tobi, who comes from a simple background, makes it difficult for her again and again, because Tobi can actually help her. Tobi, on the other hand, doesn’t want to be expelled from school and needs Paula for English tutoring. But his somewhat lazy nature gets in the way. Both are ultimately concerned with recognition and wish fulfillment. So at the end of the story, Paula is able to say goodbye to the prince charming she daydreams about and help Tobi with his transfer. “Hanni and Hanni:” Hanni and Nanni The siblings Hanni and Nanni have to prove themselves at a new school after they were falsely suspected of theft in a department store through the scheme of a classmate. Nanni is able to settle into the new school better than Hanni, but neither of them can keep up at all in French lessons, for example. Only through joint actions with the new students do they gradually gain recognition. After a dispute between the siblings has been settled, they are able to defeat the opposing school team in hockey, which also includes the girl who framed them for the department store theft. “Lilly the Witch:” Lilli, Dragon Little Lilli has the task of proving herself as a candidate for the new super witch. But her own character always gets in the way. She likes to take revenge on her classmates with witch tricks or she doesn’t pay attention to the consequences of uncontrolled witchcraft. Together with the dragon who judges her, she also has to fight against an evil wizard who gradually threatens to take over the whole world. With responsibility, discipline, and in community with others, she is finally able to defeat him and pass her test. “Wicki:” Wicki, Ylvi Wicki wants to find and free his girlfriend Ylvi and the other children. In addition, he has to fight again and again with the demands of his father, who does not trust him with anything and relies more on strength than on thinking. But it is Wicki’s intelligence that helps him to get out of seemingly hopeless situations again and again and to defeat the hostile Vikings. In the end, he also wins the approval of his father.

240

4  Empirical Part

“DWK 4: all members of the wild guys The wild guys have the peculiarity that the protagonists consist of a group, the wild guys football gang. Although the subplot of the brothers courting the same girl takes on its own weight in the second half of the film, it is always about the feelings and cohesion of the whole team. The group of wild guys have to play against two opposing teams. Inside, however, they struggle with jealousy and loyalty issues. It is only when everyone joins the group that the hoped-for victory against the so-called Silver Lights is achieved. (2) Human Antagonists This refers to the human antagonists of the respective main story, who try to prevent the main characters from achieving their goals (cf. Mikos 2008, p.  164; Stutterheim 2015, p. 163). This does not include characters who develop antagonistic forces only in individual scenes. For example, Wicki also has to confront or even confront his own father every now and then. However, the actual antagonistic forces that, from a dramaturgical point of view, keep the story moving until the end are the evil Sven and his henchmen, who have kidnapped the children from the village whom Wicki has set out to free. Not all films consistently develop the figure of the antagonist from the beginning of the story to the end, or actively influence the progress of the story against the will of the protagonists (for example, in “Paula’s Secret” and “Hanni and Nanni”). Here then the main human antagonists were counted. Therefore, the following antagonists emerged for the individual films: “Paula’s Secret”: adult boss of the gang of children. The adult criminal and his henchman, both of whom have the Romanian gang of children working for them, are the hurdles against which Paula and Tobi must prove themselves. However, as later addressed, this character is a rather weak human antagonist, in part because he does not knowingly act against the protagonists. The two members of the gang of children who stole Paula’s diary from her backpack turn into allies and those in need of help, respectively, in the middle of the film. “Hanni and Hanni:” Sports teacher, opponent from Berlin. Hanni and Nanni have a rival who is also responsible for their expulsion from school after she frames them for stealing from a department store in the very first minutes of the film. This rebounds on her at the end of the story when Hanni and Nanni defeat her and her team in hockey. At their new school, it’s mostly the strict gym teacher who makes life difficult for the two, always threatening to catch on to the twins’ deliberately orchestrated mix-ups. Other antagonistic figures, such as a roommate who is not initially sympathetic to the two,

4.4 Film Analyses

241

soon become allies in the course of the story through forbidden nightly games such as a mattress race (minute 33), thus losing antagonistic significance. “Lilly the Witch:” the evil wizard and his assistant turned into a dog. The clear antagonists are these two characters, as they repeatedly act against Lilly and her dragon from the beginning of the story to its end. The evil wizard wants to build a world domination machine using the spell book he steals from Lilly. Unless sherecovers it and thwarts his plans, Lilly cannot pass her probation as a candidate to become the new super witch and save the entire world, including her family. There are clearly two opponents facing off here. “Wicki:” the evil Sven and all his helpers. Even though the figure of the evil Sven appears rather late in the film (minute 33), prior to which only his henchmen act, he is the driving antagonistic force of the story due to the kidnapping of the children from Wicki’s village. Wicki wants to free Ylvi and the children, but Sven, who has his own plans for them, wants to prevent that. “DWK 4”: first and second opposing football teams. The main human antagonists in this sports film are the opposing teams, on whose physical and psychological manipulation attempts the inner strength of the group of wild guys must prove itself. Here, too, the teams face each other as opponents. The first opposing team is that of the Wolves, which is replaced in the second half (from minute 50) by the so-called Silver Lights and their leader “Horizon.” In the software-based analysis Akira III, simplifying terms such as “Feindl. Viking” (for the film Wicki) or “Adversary” and “Evil” were used for these antagonistic figures. In a second analysis procedure, these were then coded as antagonists in an Excel-based manner. (3) Remainder All remaining figures were combined in the collection category (rest). For all films except DWK 4, these include the parent characters. In the movie “DWK 4,” where there are no actors except for the rival teams, this is mainly the character of a girl (“Klette”), who goes from being an initial opponent to a friend of the smallest member of the wild guys. • Perspective (c) Perspective refers to the viewing position of the camera and thus of the viewer (cf. Hickethier 2012, p. 60 f.; Maiwald 2010, p. 169), regardless of the chosen shot size. The following encodings for the camera perspective were chosen (Fig. 4.13):

242

4  Empirical Part N = Normal In the normal perspective, the camera is at about eye level with the figure in focus. Here, the viewer can get the feeling of participating in the event as an equal observer (cf. Mikos 2008 p. 201). (“Lilly the Witch”, minute 41) Unt = Bottom view In the bottom camera position, the camera films from bottom to top. Due to the obscurity, the depicted things or people can appear powerful or significant (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 201; Korte 2010, p. 49). ( DWK 4, minute 1 )

Fig. 4.13  Coded camera perspectives in the analyses. (Source: Screenshot of own survey/ film, “The Wild Guys 4” Buena Vista Int. 2007; “Lilly the Witch” Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 2009; “Paula’s Secret” Farbfilm-Verleih 2007, “Wicki” Constantin Film 2009; “Hanni and Nanni” Universal Pictures International 2010)

Camera perspective gradients were taken into account in the same way as for shot sizes. Thus, the perspective gradient “Unt-N” represents a change from an low angle camera to a normal perspective.

4.4 Film Analyses

243

On = Supervision The top-down camera position is filmed from the top down. The top view can be used to show the inferiority, weakness or dependence of a figure (cf. Korte 2010, p. 49; Mikos 2008, p. 200). ( Wicki, minute 71 ) Frog In the frog perspective the Ka- mera takes the position of an observer who looks up from the ground, just like a frog. It can have the same effect as an under-view perspective (see above). (“DWK 4”, minu- te 95)

Fig. 4.13 (continued)

• Movement (d) Ten camera movements were recorded in the movement category. Camera movements, especially tracking and panning shots, often relate to the action or the inner state of a character (cf. also Mikos 2008, p. 204; Korte 2010, p. 36 f.; Hickethier 2012, p.  62). This is the case, for example, with chase scenes, in which getting

4  Empirical Part

244

Bird In bird’s-eye view, the camera hovers above the scenery and films almost vertically downwards. It is the extreme form of the view perspective and can, for example, show a figure as very small and inferior in relation to its surroundings. show (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 200; Korte 2010, p. 49). (“Paula’s Secret”, minute 90)

Fig. 4.13 (continued)

closer and gaining distance can bring relief to the viewer (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 203) or create exactly the opposite, namely tension (cf. Bienk 2006, p. 51). However, Korte rightly points out that the choice of camera movement, like the choice of shot sizes, often “pursues much more ‘mundane’ purposes”. For instance, it can also simply serve to make action scenes appear more rapid or to speed up the flow of the plot (cf. Korte 2010, p. 37). The following camera movements were recorded: Track forward:

Reverse track:

Here the camera moves towards an object or a person. This is often accompanied by a change in the size of the shot, for example, when a person is approached from an American shot until he or she can be seen in a wide shot The retverse movement represents the opposite camera movement to the forward trackapproach. It often leads to a wider shot in perspective, but can also leave the shot size unchanged, e.g. when a person walks towards the camera and the camera recedes in front of him at the same pace. This tracking shot is often used in dialogues between two walking people

4.4 Film Analyses

245

Parallel track:

When moving in parallel, the camera moves with the person or object in focus, usually filming them from a 90-degree angle. For example, when a football player is filmed from the sidelines running into the opponent’s half Follow track/ If a person or object moves away from the camera and the camera Chase drive: follows it, it is a follow track. This camera movement is often used when following film characters entering a building Track up, below, Tracking can also take place independently of moving objects in right various directions. Impressive is the crane shot upwards, where, for example, a location is introduced or, as in the final scene of “Wicki”, the action is left at the end of the story. Therefore, tracks into height or depth are often used as so-called “Establishing shots” Pan: When panning, the camera does not move from the spot, but is rotated around its center, roughly comparable to the rotation of one’s own head when standing (cf. Korte 2010, p. 36). This type of camera movement is then often used to simulate a pursuing gaze Static (St): If the camera does not move, but films from a still position, it is called a static camera. Very often a static camera is chosen when two people are facing each other and talking. Each person is filmed individually – statically – and in the finished film the camera then cuts back and forth between the persons (shot-counter-shot, cf. Korte 2010, p. 47) Static with The camera is often held flexibly to compensate for the actors’ compensation movements. In a close-up, it sometimes only takes half a step and the (St+A): actor would have stepped out of the very tight frame. To avoid this, the camera is not locked on the tripod, for example, but kept moving. These balancing movements, often barely perceptible, do not represent camera movements motivated by staging, but are purely technical and pragmatic Zoom in: Not strictly speaking a camera movement is the zoom in, in which an approach can be simulated by changing the focal length from small to large values. This stylistic device is used, for example, in the simulation of a human gaze when we follow what a character has discovered Zoom out: The opposite focal length change from large to small is the zoom out

Mixed forms are also often created from the movements mentioned in the film. For example, pans can be made in different directions within a shot, such as when tracking a football on a pitch as in the film “DWK 4”. Travelling shots can be combined with panning shots. Where these combinations were found, a clear coding had to be made, with the more technically complex one winning out. As a result, combinations with tracking, for example, were coded as such (even if they contained technically less elaborate pans) and combinations with pans as just that (despite any additional zooms).

246

4  Empirical Part

• Focal Length (e) The focal lengths of the camera settings were estimated. The focal length indicates the distance between a lens of a camera and its focal point. If the focal length roughly corresponds to the diagonal of the respective recording format (or the size of the chip in the case of digital cameras), it is referred to as a normal focal length. It roughly corresponds to the image section of the human eye. In analogue photo cameras, the focal length f = 40 or 50 mm corresponded to the normal focal length (cf. Hickethier 2012, p. 67). If the focal length is smaller, it is called a wide-angle lens. The image shows more than the human eye can grasp, at the same time things appear further away. Large or long focal lengths, on the other hand, act like binoculars. Objects that are far away are magnified and appear closer. The image detail is reduced and less of the surroundings become visible. Hickethier puts the significance of different camera lenses into perspective. He assumes that the viewer only becomes aware of extreme distortions that no longer correspond to the perception by the human eye, such as when an extreme wide angle (fish-eye) is used (cf. Hickethier 2012, p.  68). In the interpretation of the analysis, it will be discussed whether and to what extent this is to be followed here for humour sequences (see below Sect. 4.4.11.8, p. 365). The following three focal length sizes were recorded (Fig. 4.14). Typically, certain focal lengths often coincide with similar shot sizes. For example, a wide shot is often shot with a long focal length. A close shot is often shot with a long or normal focal length. However, if a close shot, such as of an actor’s face, is filmed with a wide-angle focal length, the typical alienation effects familiar from looking through a peephole in a door are created, which are often stylistically intentional in film: the face looks strangely deformed, the nose unnaturally large. The estimates regarding focal length are subject to the inaccuracies associated with them. However, this is put into perspective by the fact that a division into only three focal lengths was chosen and applied uniformly in the coding of all films. • Sound/Music (f) An important stylistic device in film is sound and music (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 235 ff., Hickethier 2012, p.  93  ff.), especially when the recipients are children (cf. Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 85), which is also the result of the evaluation of the group discussions (cf. Sect. 4.2.7.1, p. 174). Voice-over, i.e. the commentary of a character that cannot be seen but can be heard, positions the viewer’s attention on an auditory level in a kind of observer role (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 239). For humour-­

4.4 Film Analyses

247 N = Normal The estimated normal focal length was taken if the image was neither compressed (indicating long focal length) nor had bending lines at the edges of the image (specific to wideangle settings). (“Wicki”, minute 74) Long A long focal length was used when the image appeared compressed, i.e. when distant parts of the image appeared unnaturally close to the foreground, as in this shot. Here, the bath tub looks as if it has been merged. (“Paula’s Secret”, minute 42)

Fig. 4.14  Coded focal length sizes in the analyses. (Source: Screenshot of own survey/film; “Lilly the Witch” Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 2009; “Paula’s Secret” FarbfilmVerleih 2007, “Wicki” Constantin Film 2009)

specific analysis, this can become relevant, for example, when the voice-over commentary and the actual events in the picture diverge, thereby creating comedy, or when – as in the film “Wicki” – the commentator has a strong, parodic accent. Sounds, which in film are usually created afterwards and inserted during editing, can also have an effect that underlines or comments on the plot (cf. Hickethier 2012, p. 93 ff.; Maiwald 2010, p. 170) by influencing moods (dark tones) and creating ambience (buzzing insects in a summer meadow). In this context, the skilful

248

4  Empirical Part W = Wide A focal length was judged to be wide if, for example, it showed falling lines on the outer edges as they are typical for wide-angle shots or if the shot showed more than a person in the position of the camera would be able to see with his eyes. (“Lilly the Witch”, minute 30)

Fig. 4.14 (continued)

use of sounds is even able to create audiovisual comedy on its own, for example when tennis balls being hit sound like pistol shots (cf. Rabenalt 2014, p. 119) or when, as in the example of the analysed film “Wicki,” an underwater scene is accompanied by stereotypical Hawaiian harp music (cf. humour sequence “window open” and “way out under water” in the 38th minute). Here, image and sound complement each other, creating comedy (cf. Butzmann/Martin 2012, p.  215). Since children also increasingly named “funny” sounds in the group discussions (cf. Sect. 4.2.7.1, p. 174), this stylistic device was included in the analysis. To a greater extent, music can not only underscore, illustrate or comment on the mood of a film scene, but also, as probably no other film tool, arouse emotions (cf. Mikos 2008, pp. 241, 243; Hickethier 2012, p. 96; Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 127; Bienk 2006, p. 85). For this purpose, common patterns up to the stereotypical have developed, which are characteristic for genres (e.g. Western music), for certain emotions (dissonant tones e.g. for fear and danger, string music for love scenes, harp sounds for dream sequences, etc.) or also that match certain landscapes (e.g. pan flute music for images of rain forests). The influence of sounds and music on the perception and interpretation of media content is so great, especially among children, that media pedagogy sometimes calls for preference to be given to settings that do not dramatise too much, in order to “encourage children to reflect and think” rather than “imposing” a feeling on them (cf. Götz et al. 2012, p. 29).

4.4 Film Analyses

249

National or regional affiliations can also be assigned through the appropriate use of music, although there is also a danger of drifting into clichés (also critically Hickethier 2012, p. 97 f.). The imitation of movement through music, which originates from the cartoon tradition, is disparagingly referred to as “Mickey Mousing”, although it is precisely these movements that make them comprehensible to the child audience (cf. Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 133). Recognition melodies, theme music and songs as well as leitmotifs, which always accompany certain characters and can also announce their appearance, represent further possible uses in the cinematic context (cf. Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, pp. 128, 132; Hickethier 2012, pp. 98 f.; Mikos 2008, pp. 241 f.). For the analysis, music was simplistically divided into three types (score, dynamic/dramatic music, special music). The sound was recorded in the categories primary sound, voice-over and sound effects. This resulted in a total of six ­categories: Primary sound:

Score:

Dynamic/ dramatic music:

What is meant here is the sound audible in the film, with the exception of the music, which results from the actions and dialogues of the corresponding humour sequence. This sound has of course been post-edited and supplemented in the studio, since not all the necessary sounds can be recorded on location during filming or are even available. In the case of the film “Wicki,” for example, it can be assumed that the clashing of swords was added later because the weapons actually used may only have been dummies made of wood or plastic and could not produce a metallic sound This does not mean the primary sound, which according to the online dictionary of film terms was26 actually produced during the recording, but the final mixed sound, which can be heard in the finished film with the images shown The score is understood here as an underscoring film music that is adapted to the respective scene (cf. Monaco/Bock 2011, pp. 219, 59). Sad scenes are given a mournful musical background, cheerful scenes a more upbeat one, and characters are given musical leitmotifs (cf. Kurwinkel/Schmerheim 2013, p. 128; Schwab 2006, pp. 172, 176). It is characteristic of the purely underscoring function of the score that it allows for the understanding of dialogues In contrast to the score, dynamic or dramatic music almost always dominates the soundtrack. Dialogues are rarely to be understood in its presence, mostly only exclamations made by the characters, for example during fight scenes. When appropriate, the music is briefly mixed down a bit for dialogue before swelling again. Dynamic music enhances the emotional focus of a scene, such as when enemies clash

 cf. http://filmlexikon.uni-kiel.de/index.php?action=lexikon&tag=det&id=6430, accessed 08.12.15. 26

250

4  Empirical Part

Special/ live music

This category was established because there were many scenes in the films in which either no typical film music was used, there were (apparently) live performances in the scene itself (for example, when the characters were singing) or very special music was used to achieve a certain effect (for example, as a parody in “Wicki,” where Hawaiian sounds were mixed into an underwater scene, cf. the humour sequence “Open the window” and “Escape under water” in the 38th minute) Voice-over Voice-over is the term used to describe speech or dialogue that comment on a scene without speakers being visible in the picture. Voice-over is particularly suitable for quickly introducing a scene and the acting characters through a commentator. This creates security for the viewer, but the authority of the commentator can be weakened by accents and dialects in favour of comedy (cf. Butzmann/Martin 2012, p. 80). Voice-over is therefore primarily a dramaturgical device Sound The category sound effects only covers those effects that were very effects noticeable in the analysis of the films examined and were obviously added to the film later on the sound level. In the post-production of a film, almost every shot is edited in the editing room and later in the sound studio. Sound effects are therefore to be assumed throughout every film. Therefore, only extreme, strange noises and sounds should be recorded here, which indicated a staging style or intention

• Number of Settings of the Cut Sequence (g) The number of shots was counted for each humour sequence. This refers to the number of cut shots as seen in the finished film in the respective sequences, i.e. “what is between two cuts in a film” (Hickethier 2012, p. 54). • Light (h) The lighting mood of each humor sequence was divided into three categories (Fig. 4.15). • Acting Guide (i) The acting as a means of staging has an influence not only on the possibility of identification of the spectator, but in particular also on possible comic effects (cf. Vogt 2007, p. 142, discussed here in Sect. 3.3.3.6, p. 102). The extensive, type of acting with broad gestures, such as in expressionist films, which was still very much influenced by the expressive forms of the theater can be historically justified (cf. Hickethier 2012, p. 166 ff.). Nowadays, exaggerated representation can still be found above all in comic figures:

4.4 Film Analyses

251 LK = Low-Key With low-key lighting, the dark components of the image are the dominant ones. The scene is dark Night scenes are typical for this. The lighting style is often used for dramatic scenes, mysterious events or crimes (cf. Hickethier 2012, p. 78; Kandorfer 1994, p. 298ff.; Bienk 2006, p. 59). (“Lilly the Witch”, minute 74) MK = Mid-Key The mid-key lighting corresponds to a medium brightness. It leaves the film scene largely unaffected dramaturgically (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 210; Kandorfer 1994, p. 297). (“Wicki”, minute 58)

Fig. 4.15  Coded lighting scenes in the analyses. (Source: Screenshot of own survey/film; “Lilly the Witch” Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 2009; “Wicki” Constantin Film 2009, “Paula’s Secret” Farbfilm-Verleih 2007)

252

4  Empirical Part HK= High-Key With high key lighting, the bright parts of the image predominate. “High-key is characterized by a friendly underlying mood that emphasizes hope, confidence, happiness, and problemlessness” (Kandorfer 1994, S. 303). It is therefore often used in comedies, musicals and romantic films (cf. Bienk 2006, p. 60). (“Paula’s Secret”, minute 51)

Fig. 4.15 (continued) These characters play with the representational order by acting contrary to social norms and values, both the norms and values of the narrated, diegetic world and the world in which the audience lives. (Mikos 2008, p. 151)

In the following Mikos counts Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Heinz Erhardt, Otto Waalkes or Mr. Bean among the comic figures. What dominates nowadays is a style of representation that puts intensity before its opposite and focuses above all on the credibility of the characters (cf. Hickethier 2012, pp. 166, 169). Of interest to the present analysis was what type of acting was used in humour sequences. Therefore, the actors’ staging in the humour sequences was divided and defined into three categories: Real: For acting that is classified as real, a performance is characteristic that corresponds to the reaction patterns, gestures, voice pitch and volume of a person in a comparable situation that can be experienced in everyday life. This does not

4.4 Film Analyses

253

exclude loud, gestural and idiosyncratic actions if they are conceivable in reality. A good example of this is, among others, the portrayal of Paula’s parents in the film “Paula’s Secret”. They behave and act as caring parents would when their daughter is at a holiday camp. Affected reaction patterns are dispensed with here. Exaggerated: An exaggerated form of representation is assumed here, on the other hand, when actions or reactions, gestures, facial expressions and tone of voice occur in an exaggerated form that would not be visible in reality under normal circumstances. One example is the portrayal of the security guard played by Oliver Pocher in “Hanni and Nanni,” who uses clownish facial expressions to hunt down would-be department store thieves in order to impress a saleswoman. Parodistic: In contrast to exaggerated representation, a parodistic one makes reference to a well-known figure, stereotype, cliché or general idea by imitating it in a caricaturing or mocking way (cf. Müller 1973, p. 66; Dynel 2013, p. 37). This can be assumed for almost all the Viking characters in the film “Wicki.” Here, the idea of the rough-and-tumble male warrior is played with in a satirical way by portraying the characters as either over-simplistic and strong or surprisingly emotional, sensitive and partly childlike. In many humour sequences, the acting varies depending on the character. Parodic performances mix with real ones and often only create comic effects through this contrast. Without anticipating results at this point, it should be mentioned here that the childlike main protagonists in all films are very often staged realistically, whereas antagonists and secondary characters are often exaggerated or parodistic. • Special Features (j) In the category “special features,” conspicuous features of a humour sequence were recorded and collected without a definition pattern. These could be special image and sound effects, stunts or the mention of a film quote. All 27 humour-related and film-related categories of the analysis with their respective codes and subcodes are summarised here once again (Table 4.11). • Further Qualitative Parameters of the Film Analysis, Consideration of Budget, Shooting Days and Number of Visitors Some components of the analysis relevant to humour are dealt with in an introductory and concluding discussion of the respective film. These include, for example, the parameters of the film’s affiliation with a particular genre, plot structures used, the presence of comic characters, the use of suspense (cf. Sect. 3.5, p. 135) as well as the associations and moods associated with motifs and costumes, such as milieu

Code 1

Mishaps/misfortunes 2 of others

Category humour Aesthetics

Code a

Humour part Shot sizes and subject b matter

Encoding Category film unit technology/style Humour part Motif Subcodes A-T = Outside, Day, A-N = Outside, night, I-T = Inside, Day, I-N = Inside, Night, I/A-T = Inside and Outside, Day, A-N/T = Outdoor, night and day Detail, G = Long, N = Cloe-up, HN = Medium close-up, Am = American, HT = Medium long shot, T = Log shot, W = Wide, Compression (e.g. from far to near), Extension (e.g. from near to far), Mixed forms according to actual occurrence (e.g. progression from total to semi-normal to American = T-HN-Am) Picture subject = name of the figure (or object): Protagonist, Antagonist, Rest

Table 4.11  Overview of humour categories and film technical parameters of the film analyses

(continued)

Shot

Encoding unit Shot

254 4  Empirical Part

Humour part Sound / Music

5a

Voice sound

Humour part Movement

Humour part Focal length

4

Deviation from the norm/absurdity

Encoding Category film unit technology/style Humour part Perspective

Language/wordplay/ 5 meaning

Code 3

Category humour Playing with expectations/ surprising twist

f

e

d

Code c

Subcodes N = Normal, Unt = Low angle, On = High angle, Frog, Bird’s eye Static with Compensation (St+A), Zoom (zoom in and zoom out), Static (St), Pan (up, down left right, rip zoom and various pans), Travel (up, bottom, right, left, back, in, Follow and parallel trackdrive), Flyover N = Normal, L = Long, W = Wide Primary sound, Score, Dynamic/ Dramatic Music Special/ Live music, Voice-over, Sound Effects Humour part

Shot

Shotetting

Encoding unit Shot

4.4 Film Analyses 255

Humour part

Humour part

Humour part Humour part Humour part Humour part Humour part

7c

8

9 10 11 12 13

Source: Own survey

Humour part Special features

7b

Demotion because of stupidity Degradation as compensatory justice Own misadventures (not applicable to the movies) Pranks Delicate issues Sound and noises Imitation/parody Bad + non jokes

Humour part Acting Guide

Humour part Light

7

7a

Encoding Category film unit technology/style Humour part Number of shots

Code 6

Degradation of authority

Category humour Confusion/ misunderstanding Degradation

Table 4.11 (continued)

j

i

h

Code g LK = Low-Key, MK = Mid-Key, HK = High-Key Real, overdone, parodic According to occurrence

Subcodes Numeric

Humour sequence

Humour sequence

Encoding unit Humour sequence Humour sequence

256 4  Empirical Part

4.4 Film Analyses

257

Fig. 4.16  Screenshot of the Akira III analysis software showing a humour sequence from the film “Hanni and Nanni” (2010). (Source: Screenshot of own survey, “Hanni and Nanni” Universal Pictures International 2010)

and period affiliations. Editing and montage, i.e. the transition of shots (editing) and the joining of shots (montage; cf. Maiwald 2010, p. 170) are only dealt with if they achieve effects of a quantitative nature that are relevant to humour, i.e. if they increase the amount of humour parts coded with humour categories. The number of shooting days, the budget and the number of viewers attained are finally put in relation to the humour-categorical and film-technical parameters.

4.4.5 Exemplary Case Study for Film Analysis Before a characteristic humour sequence is analysed as an example for each film, the coding procedure will first be explained again on the basis of a simple humour sequence. Here’s a simple humour sequence from the movie “Hanni and Nanni” (2010), feature minute 27 (Fig. 4.16). In the humour sequence, which lasts just under 18 seconds, one of Hanni and Nanni’s roommates watches a boy from behind a book held up to her from the edge of a fountain in a quaint small town. Completely engrossed in her surreptitious adoration, she doesn’t notice that she’s holding her book upside down and the title is clearly visible upside down. Hanni, observing the whole thing, goes over to her

258

4  Empirical Part

and turns the book right side up, saying, “Little hint: a little cooler.” The girl caught in this way is embarrassed and the handsome boy can’t help grinning. At the bottom left of the screenshot from the analysis, the tracks containing the components of the film analysis are visible. There are two tracks for occurring humour categories to show overlaps (see “Category Humour” and “Cat. Humour ÜS” for overlap). In the film “Hanni and Nanni”, for example, there are at most two parallel or interlinked humour levels and the corresponding humour parts, while other films such as “Wicki and the Strong Men” (2009) work with up to five humour levels within one sequence. There are five humour categories in the present sequence: (1)27 “Aesthetics”, because it is visually unusual to see someone reading who is obviously not holding their book the right way up; (2) “Mishaps/accidents of others” because the girl did not intend this faux pas; (3) “Play with expectation/surprise twist” because how the scene resolves is not predictable; (6) “Mistaken identity/misunderstanding” as the roommate in question realizes that she was mistaken about the quality of her cover; (10) “Touchy subjects” because, after all, the scene serves as a humorous approach to girl-boy relationships and the awkwardness that can result. It may be debatable whether degradation (7) is also a motive. However, the reaction of the roommate, who is more annoyed about her own mishap than about its discovery, as well as Hanni’s friendly tone, indicate that degradation of a character is not the theme here. The third, as well as the following, tracks in the screenshot of the analysis belong to the aesthetic-creative film analysis and show the cinematic realization structured from (a) to (j). The girl with the upside-down book is thus photographed in a (b) medium close-up shot, and (c) slightly low-angled, from a (d) static camera position, with a (e) focal length judged to be normal. Furthermore, the sound (f) provides the sequence with courtly piano music (=special music), the total number of cuts is (g) eight, the acting is (i) realistic in the sense of a lifelike portrayal of the characters without exaggerations.

27

 Code numbers of the humour categories according to the Table 4.11 on p. 254.

4.4 Film Analyses

259

For each of the films analysed, a humour sequence will be discussed below as an example in the context of this thesis. The selection of the sample scene does not necessarily depend on its correspondence to an average or typical humour sequence of the film in question, as the range of the humorous arsenal of effects is also to be shown.

4.4.6 Paula’s Secret (2008) According to producer Lars Büchel, the film had a budget of around €2.628 million and was shot in 40 days in Hamburg. The director was Gernot Krää, who also wrote the screenplay. The most prominent actor among the adult characters is Jürgen Vogel, who plays Tobi’s father. The film was released on September 13, 2007 and had a total audience of 54,548 by the end of 2008.

4.4.6.1 Content and Genre In the film “Paula’s Secret”, Paula, who comes from a middle-class background, has her diary stolen from her backpack in the subway. In this diary she confides her thoughts to a fictitious prince charming. Her classmate Tobi, who comes from a humble background and is so bad at English that his transfer is threatened, suspects who might have stolen the diary and proposes a deal to Paula: Paula should tutor him in English during the holidays, and in return he will help her get her diary back. But since Paula is supposed to spend the summer holidays at an expensive holiday camp by the sea, Tobi’s sister is unceremoniously sent to the camp as Paula’s double, while Paula secretly and reluctantly moves into a cramped new apartment with Tobi, whose parents have gone on holiday alone. Together they find the hideout of the Romanian children who are forced by criminal adults to go on a thieving spree for them. Paula gets her diary back and, together with Tobi, helps two of the children escape to the port of Hamburg, where they are supposed to take a ferry to England to meet a relative in London who will take care of them. Pursued by the gang’s brutal boss, the scheme ultimately succeeds through disguise and the spirited use of a fire extinguisher aboard the ferry. The adult villain lands in the harbour and is arrested by the police. Tobi passes his holiday English exam and is eligible for transfer. Paula returns to her family and also rehabilitates the housekeeper, who was suspected of stealing due to Paula’s secret visits to her own house.

28

 This refers to the pure production costs without any advertising expenses.

260

4  Empirical Part

The film mixes different genres in a manner typical of children’s films, which exemplifies the character of a children’s film as a “hyper” or “meta-genre” (see above Sect. 2.4, p. 25). On the one hand, elements of the crime film can be found, for large parts of the film are about who stole Paula’s diary. The fact that two unequal partners try to solve the mystery is found in many films of this genre. Fundamentally, the crime film is about “transgressions of socially given rules and the prosecution and punishment of lawbreaking” (Hickethier 2005, p. 11). Lange (2007) sums it up like this: The term crime film summarizes a whole number of subgenres that have in common the typical subject of the criminal case as a crime that transgresses order, as well as a narration that ideally reconstructs the crime, unmasks the perpetrator, and restores order by bringing him to his just punishment. (Lange 2007, p. 109)

At the same time, the film also addresses social issues such as different classes of income and education and their effects on the fate of the characters, which are formative for social drama. According to Elm (2004), these elements, among others, can be found in social drama: Everything that happens in social drama is primarily socially based. … The fate of the characters depends rather on the conditions imposed on them by the communal institutions and conventions of their sphere of life, their status, their class, their social location (Elm 2004, p. 11); … the characters are not self-determined, but quite the opposite – they are determined by the human community or historically: by the society in which they live. They are determined by social norms, laws, conventions. Strong, self-confident characters, radiant heroes with dazzling charisma are therefore rarely found in social drama (Elm 2004, p. 15); It is not the problem-solving event that the social drama aims at, but the miserable condition… (Elm 2004, p. 287); In social drama there is no resolution, therefore there is no happy ending. (Elm 2004, p. 292)

In connection with films by Andreas Dresen such as “Sommer vorm Balkon” (2006), Glasenapp (2008) defines socially engaged cinema as one that is dedicated to the losers and the socially disenfranchised and critically accompanies socio-­ political changes (cf. Glasenapp 2008, p. 304). These elements can also be found in the present case. Here, the main character Paula comes from the affluent middle class and lives in a large house with a garden on the outskirts of the city. Tobi comes from a simple background and lives in a prefabricated building. Television, poor nutrition and a latent neglect by his blustering, bulgar parents dominate his everyday life. The Romanian child thieves

4.4 Film Analyses

261

stand for migration and failed integration by criminal elements. This theme is mirrored in Paula’s Italian housekeeper, who, as an employee in the upper middle-­ class household, is suspected of having stolen and is subsequently dismissed by Paula’s parents. Both the children of the gang of thieves and the housekeeper become victims of hasty convictions. Only Paula (and Tobi) are able to clarify the children’s predicament and clear up the misunderstanding regarding the ­housekeeper. Different social conditions and origins thus serve in the film as a dramatic driving force and a justification for the conflict-rich clash between the main characters Toby and Paula as well as the general play with them and the insignia, behaviour and status symbols of the other characters in the film.

4.4.6.2 Sample Humour Sequence As an example for the use of humour in this film, the humour sequence “Trick mit Taxi und Verkleidung” (Trick with taxi and disguise)” with the two humour parts “Taxi bestellt” (Taxi ordered)” and “Platztausch dr Mädels” (Exchange of places of the girls)” will be presented, beginning at minute 25. In this sequence, which lasts a good minute and a half, Tobi’s sister assumes Paula’s identity for the holiday camp on Sylt by disguising herself. The humour sequence has eighteen shots. It is one of the longest humour sequences in the film, the average for which is only 25.4 seconds in29 length (Fig. 4.17).

4.4.6.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene The sequence “Trick mit Taxi und Verkleidung” contains six humour categories and two humour parts (“Taxi bestellt” and the overlapping “Platztausch der Mädels”). The screenshot shows that each humour category was assigned a track (for the other films, the humour categories were coded with numbers in the analysis software to save space). The film has a total of only three hypotactic humour sequences, i.e. sequences in which humour parts relate to30 each other in multiple layers (Fig. 4.18).

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx”, tab “Tables”, line 9, column C. 30  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx”, tab “Paulas Geheimnis” (hypotactic humor sequences are marked in yellow). 29

262

4  Empirical Part

--- Beginning of the humor sequence “Trick with taxi and disguise” ----- Start of the first humor part “Taxi ordered” ---

We see the front door of Paula’s house with a taxi in front of it honking. 1

PAULA (OFF) I called a cab. MOTHER You what? PAULA You know, Mom, I kind of don’t like these goodbyes at the station. Paula hugs her mother, the housekeeper and her father, who comes rushing out of the house on the phone. PAULA I always get so sentimental. Bye, Dad. We’ll talk on the phone.

2

Paula hugs her father.

3 Fig. 4.17  Screenshots of all shots of the sample humour sequence “Trick mit Taxi und Verkleidung” from the film “Paula’s Secret (2009). (Source: Screenshots own survey, “Paula’s Secret” Farbfilm-Verleih 2007)

4.4 Film Analyses

263

While Paula is now walking towards the taxi, the housekeeper thinks of something (shot 5).

4

Paula forgot her tennis racket.

HOUSEKEEPER Your Racket.

5

Paula gets into the taxi and the parents follow her towards it.

MOTHER (to Paula’s father) Did you know anything about this?

6

FATHER No. But leave it. She does that already.

TAXI DRIVER I’ll see your daughter safely to the station. The shortest way. Paula’s father hands Paula the bat in the taxi, which then leaves. Fig. 4.17 (continued)

264

4  Empirical Part

Paula waves after her parents from the moving taxi.

7

Arm in arm, Paula's parents wave after their daughter. --- End of the first humor part “Taxi ordered” ---

8

--- Beginning of the second humor parts “Swapping places of the girls” ---

In the taxi, Paula takes a piece of paper out of her pocket.

9

10 Fig. 4.17 (continued)

PAULA [to taxi driver]. I don’t think I can take the shortest route. I have to pick something up. Here’s the address. Paula hands the paper to the taxi driver. The taxi stops in front of Tobi’s new building.

4.4 Film Analyses

265

Paula leaves the taxi. PAULA I’ll be right back.

11

12

13

14 Fig. 4.17 (continued)

Paula walks out of the picture.

The taxi driver observes an old man with his dog in the rearview mirror while waiting for Paula.

A girl who looks like Paula comes back to the taxi. She’s carrying a bag.

266

4  Empirical Part

We see that it is Tobi’s sister who is wearing Paula’s clothes.

15

The taxi driver turns to the back seat and pauses. TAXI DRIVER All right?

16

17

Tobi’s sister is silent only on this question.

The taxi driver then continues the journey with a nod. --- End of the second humor part “Swapping places with the girls” ----- End of the humor sequence “Trick with taxi and disguise” ---

18 Fig. 4.17 (continued)

4.4 Film Analyses

267

Fig. 4.18  Screenshot of the humour sequence “Trick mit Taxi und Verkleidung” from the film “Paula’s Secret” (analysis programme Akira III – view: humour categories). (Source: Screenshot of own survey, “Paula’s Secret” Farbfilm-Verleih 2007)

The sample scene meets the following humour categories (code numbers in parentheses): (1) “Aesthetics” because, on the one hand, the exaggerated nature of the disguise (sunglasses, hat, long coat on a summer day) in both parts creates a comic effect, and on the other hand, because two girls use the same disguise and can only be distinguished from each other by their faces; (3) “Playing with expectations/surprising twist” because the audience’s expectations are played with from the moment Paula announces in the first part that she has ordered a taxi, which is unusual for a child her age alone. In the second part (“Platztausch der Mädels”) the game with the viewer’s expectation is continued, because although Tobi hints in the previous scene that he has an idea, a connection with the scene in front of Paula’s house is not recognisable at first. Also, until the moment we realize that Tobi’s sister is now wearing Paula’s clothes and pretending to be her to the taxi driver, we don’t know what the purpose of the whole action actually is. The twist and resolution of the identity swap is therefore surprising; (4) “Deviation from the norm/contradiction” because children do not normally order a taxi on their own without an agreement (Part 1) and also because they do not normally deliberately deceive their parents about an agreed, holiday of several weeks (Part 2);

268

4  Empirical Part

(5) “Language/wordplay/meaning”, because in both parts the actual circumstances are also concealed by means of language (“I ordered a taxi” – “Oh you know mum, somehow I don’t like these goodbyes at the station”). Even when Tobi’s sister remains silent in the face of the taxi driver’s question, this is a game with language, namely with the avoidance of it in order not to give oneself away; (9) “Pranks,” because the adults’ desired intentional reaction is their belief that their daughter Paula has gone to summer camp as planned. Firstly by ordering the taxi in the first part, and also by Tobi’s sister disguising herself as Paula in the second part; (6) “Confusion/misunderstanding”, because in the first part Paula’s parents think their daughter is going to the station, in the second the taxi driver thinks his passenger in front of the new building district is still the Paula who got on at the beginning in the villa district. The intensity of humour is not taken into account in its categorisation, as discussed, because it is not possible to measure how funny the individual parts are, i.e. how intense the comic effect is, within the framework of this work and on the basis of the definition of humour followed here, since the comic content eludes detection due to its subjective determinant (see above Sect. 3.5, p. 139 ff). Thus, the fact that a child independently orders a taxi to the surprise of her parents may not be as funny to some viewers as the successful misleading of an adult taxi driver about the identity of his passenger during the course of the ride. For others, however, it may be precisely this unusual sovereignty of a child ordering a taxi that inspires laughter, because something incongruous is happening here. Whereas pranks involving disguises might just be perceived as childlike and therefore less funny. It remains to be said that six humour categories are fulfilled in each case. In the following, we will examine how these have been implemented through cinematic means:

4.4.6.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour Categories in the Example Scene For the individual film-technical and stylistic means, one track each was taken up in the analysis software for the film “Paula’s Secret” (as with the humour categories, code names and numbers were used instead for the four other films; Fig. 4.19). The humour sequence “Trick mit Taxi und Verkleidung” gets by with three motifs: Paula’s and Tobi’s house, each from the outside, and the taxi from the inside. The most frequently used shot size is the close-up, which is used eight times. It focuses primarily on Paula and her parents, as well as Tobi’s sister, who is dressed as Paula. In this way, the sequence also establishes, in terms of camera technology, whose story is being told here, namely Paula’s. This is also reflected in the subject matter of the image: in twelve of the eighteen shots, it is Paula and her parents who

4.4 Film Analyses

269

Fig. 4.19  Screenshot of the humour sequence “Trick mit Taxi und Verkleidung” from the film “Paula’s Secret” (Analysis programme Akira III – View: Film technical means). (Source: Screenshot of own survey, “Paula’s Secret” Farbfilm-Verleih 2007)

are seen. The camera perspective in fifteen of the eighteen shots is a normal one, i.e. roughly at the eye level of the protagonists. In the case of the two low angle perspectives of shots No. 2 and 5, it can be assumed that they are due to practical rather than narrative considerations: the low angle allows both adults, mother and housekeeper, and Paula to be filmed in one frame. Often a low angle shot is used to make a character appear larger and more powerful, but here this would not reflect the actual relationships between the characters, as the mother and housekeeper are not in control at this point. The low angle shot No. 3, in which Paula hugs her father goodbye, seems like a counterpoint. In terms of content, it does not convey any new aspect, since there is no special relationship between Paula and her father, who is also only visible in a cutaway in this shot. The sequence is shot mostly static with only a few compensating camera ­movements. A single pan that follows Paula’s hand movement as she pulls Tobi’s address out of her pocket in the taxi is the exception. This static camera style thus conveys a calmness that runs counter to the humorous content of the sequence in the evaluation and interpretation of the means, for, after all, Paula is playing a superb prank on her parents here, and the entire progress of the story depends on its success. The focal length alternates between a long one, which is used especially in front of Paula’s house when she says goodbye, and one that appears as normal. The long focal length at the farewell puts the viewer in a distanced, observing position, although something very exciting is happening: the outwitting of the parents. The slight zooming in on the parents in the sixth shot seems almost arbitrary, but prob-

270

4  Empirical Part

ably betrays a technical production reason: with only one camera position and one zoom lens, the entire scene in front of the house could probably be managed in a time-efficient manner without having to break it up into several shots. On the sound level, it is noticeable that only a rather melancholic “score” was chosen, i.e. background music that is very restrained. The tension and excitement of a big prank played on the parents is not emphasized by the rather sustained music. It could also fit a scene in which a character is thinking about something or pondering a difficult decision. The sequence is shot in a medium lighting situation. The acting is realistic. The characters act in accordance with the reality of life without exaggerated gestures or facial expressions. No special features could be identified. Overall, it can be said that the one-and-a-half-minute humour sequence “Trick mit Taxi und Verkleidung” offers great humorous potential, both in terms of the number of verifiable humour categories and in terms of content, but the cinematic means of implementation tend to have a restraining effect. Especially the use of neutral music and the static nature of the sequence shouldo be mentioned here.

4.4.6.5 The Film “Paula’s Secret” and Its Humour The sample scene has some humour-specific features that are also relevant to31 the rest of the film. For example, a static camera is used32 in a good 50% of all humour sequences in the film “Paula’s Secret.” When used at all, the music is in the background (score). There is no dramatic or special music in the humour sequences.33 The action is overwhelmingly (74%) resolved34 in close-ups or American shots. The acting is realistic35 in all but one of the humour sequences.

 For all films in the following, frequency in the sense of a measured number is always meant when the use of a relevant cinematic humour device is given as a percentage. 32  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder “CCC1. Paulas Geheimnis 24.03.16”, file: “18.03.16 Paulas Geheimnis Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen einzeln,” line 178 f., column D. 33  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder “CCC1. Paulas Geheimnis 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 Paulas Geheimnis Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen einzeln,” line 225 ff., column D. 34  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder “CCC1. Paulas Geheimnis 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 Paulas Geheimnis Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen einzeln,” line 119 f., column D. 35  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder “CCC1. Paulas Geheimnis 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 Paulas Geheimnis Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen einzeln,” line 285 f., column D. 31

4.4 Film Analyses

271

Unlike in the example, complex humour structures are also rare. Thus, including the aample scene, there are only three hypotactic humour sequences with ­overlaps. With only 9 minutes, the share of all humour sequences in the total running time of 94 minutes is ultimately also very low. 36 Stylistically, cinematically and atmospherically, the film thus employs means in its humour sequences that impede the intended laughter, as would be the intention in a comedy, for example (cf. Faulstich 2013, p. 53). The sample scene has shown that the filmmakers use stylistic means to support humorous sequences very cautiously. This often leads to a weakening of comic effects through distancing, but it is also justified by the exaggerated way in which social themes are presented. For example, when Tobi’s sister goes to the expensive holiday camp on the island of Sylt instead of Paula, her expressions reveal her social origins, but arouse sympathy rather than encouraging laughter (e.g. in the humour sequences “Pink horse and ‘face’”). Tobi’s sister herself says in the film in the 52nd minute during a telephone conversation with her brother in a tear-stained voice that she is worn out and that it is not a dream vacation, but “stinking poop.” The problems are thus staged in a very real way, leaving out playfulness or parody almost entirely. Even in scenes where classic slapstick is possible, such as the “tennis talent” humour sequence in the 51st minute, which ends with the dedicated tennis instructor taking a failed ball in a sensitive area, exaggerated reactions are dispensed with, although the music here strikes an underlying tone that is rarely cheerful for the film. Tobi’s sister is shocked by her own failure. The film also otherwise completely refrains from establishing comic figures, whose exaggerated portrayal illustrates the fictionality of the film (cf. for comic figures Mikos 2008, p.  151). There are also no discernible scenes that use the means of suspense to achieve a comic effect. This film also demonstrates quite well that plots are not, per se, the sole preserve of comedy. For example, Paula’s getting involved in a social milieu that is completely foreign to her can be compared to a so-called “fish-out-of-water” plot, just as Tobi’s sister finds it difficult to exist in the bourgeois world of the real Paula as her doppelgänger in an exquisite holiday camp. However, to the extent that the situations that arise are handled humorously, it is tentative. The scene with the tennis instructor and the accidental blow from the ball may serve here as an example of the comical situations it can lead to when Tobi’s sister pretends that she can actually play tennis, i.e. the foreign environment and its demands provoke a character into comical reactions.

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Tables,” line 4, column C. 36

4  Empirical Part

272

3 Playing with expectations/ surprising twists 1 Aesthetics 5 Language / Wordplay / Meaning 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others 4 Deviation from the norm / absurdity 11 Sound and noises 7c Degradation as compensatory justice 7a Degradation of an authority 6 Confusion / Misunderstandings 10 Delicate topics 7 Degradation 7b Degradation because of stupidity 9 Pranks 5a Speech sound

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.20  Temporal duration of the use of humour categories in the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey, data according to duration, basis: all humour categories appearing in the film “Paula’s Secret” (multiple answers possible), n = 75)

Even when dealing with plots that could be staged humorously, the film is more committed to a realistic realisation. This shows once again that there is no such thing as a comic plot, because the dramatic situations can be staged just as well without humour (see above Sects. 3.3.3.2, p. 78 and 3.5, p. 138 ff.). For almost the entire last 20 minutes, the film completely dispenses with humour. Only the overcoming of the villain by the two oppressed children on the ferry, which is to bring them to safety, contains once more an act of compensatory justice, which end with the antagonist in the sea. In the final scene, Paula unabashedly burps in front of her parents as only Tobi has hitherto done. But here, too, there is no exaggeration, the characters seem real and – like the whole film – serious. This explains why “Paula’s Secret,” with its realistic and serious staging of social differences and characters, has a clear and, almost without exception, simple paratactic humour content, which, spread out according to the humour categories that occur, is graphically represented as follows (Fig. 4.20).

4.4 Film Analyses

273

Table 4.12  Frequency of humour categories in the film “Paula’s Secret” “Paula’s Secret”: frequency of the humour categories (multiple answer) in the film Humour category 1 Aesthetics 1 Aesthetics ÜS1 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS1 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS1 4 Deviation from the norm/absurdity 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS1 5 Language/wordplay/meaning 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS1 5a Voice sound 6 Confusion/misunderstandings 6 Confusion/misunderstanding ÜS1 7 Degradation 7a Degradation of an authority 7a Degradation of an authority ÜS1 7b Degradation because of stupidity 7c Degradation as compensatory justice 7c Degradation as compensatory justice ÜS1 9 Pranks 9 Pranks ÜS1 10 Delicate topics ÜS1 11 Sound and noises 11 Sound and noises ÜS1 Total

N 7 1 7 2 12 3 8 1 9 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 7 2 75

% 9.3% 1.3% 9.3% 2.7% 16.0% 4.0% 10.7% 1.3% 12.0% 1.3% 1.3% 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 2.7% 1.3% 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 9.3% 2.7% 100.0%

N

% (total, rounded)

8

10.7%

9

12.0%

15

20.0%

9

12.0%

11

14.7%

3

4.0%

7

9.3%

3 1

4.0% 1.3%

9

12.0%

Source: Own survey, data according to frequency and in percent, basis: all humour categories appearing in the film “Paula’s Secret” (multiple answers possible), n = 75

The graphic makes it clear that humour as a means of storytelling in the film “Paula’s Secret” is used rather sparingly and also not consistently. Especially in the last third of the film, humour is completely omitted for almost 20 minutes. If we combine the overlaps and subcategories into the respective main category, it becomes clear that the categories “Playing with expectations/surprising twist” (20%), “Language/wordplay/meaning” (14.7%), “Deviation from the norm/contradiction” (12%), “Aesthetics” (10.7%), “Mishaps/misfortunes of others” (12%) and “Sound and noises” (12%) are most frequently implemented in the film (Table 4.12).

274

4  Empirical Part

If we now compare the analysed humour categories of the film with those mentioned by the children from the group discussions, the following graph (p. 384), which shows not only the frequency but also the duration of the humour categories used in percent, in relation to the so-called “total humour time multi” is the result.37 For the sake of graphic comparability, the “humour time multi” was used here for all films, as this also allows the humour categories used in parallel to be taken into account, even if this is not linear real time. Moreover, the humour times multi and single differ only slightly from each38 other in four films. In the film “Paula’s Secret,” humour categories are not used in parallel, so that the humour times single and multi have the same value (Fig. 4.21). Almost congruent correspondences between the children’s favourite humour categories named in the group discussions and the analysed humour categories from the film are found by frequency for “sound and noises” (12% in the film, 14% in the group discussions), “confusion and misunderstandings” (4% in the film, 4.3% group discussion) and “pranks” (4% film, 3.7% group discussion). For all other humour categories, it can be seen that the film falls short of the children’s favoured humour from the group discussions. This is particularly noticeable for the important humour category “aesthetics” (10.7% in the film compared to 22% in the group discussions), even if the time duration for this category approaches the preference value in percentage terms (14.1% to 22%). The few parts that fall under the humour category “aesthetics” thus achieve this convergence through their temporal length. Larger deviations are also found – by frequency – for the categories “language/wordplay/meaning” (14.7% film to 1.8% group discussion) and “degradation” (9.3% film to 0.6% group discussion). Taking the children’s responses from the group discussions as a yardstick, the film’s humour can be described as too word-heavy, too degrading and not in keeping with the children’s aesthetic preferences.

 The time of humour (multi) refers to the time in which multi-layered (hypotactic) humour occurs, taking into account multiple used playing time through temporally parallel or overlapping humour parts. It is therefore a theoretical playtime. In contrast, humour time single refers to the time in which humour occurs in the film in the sequences regardless of the multilayered structure due to overlaps. Temporal overlaps are not taken into account. It is therefore the linear real time. 38  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Tables,” lines 4 and 6. 37

4.4 Film Analyses

275

Aesthetics

10.7

22 14.1

Mishaps + misfortunes of others

12 11.5

Deviation from the norm/ absurdity

12 11.4

Sound + noises

9.2

Playing with expectations/surprising turn

12

17.7

16.5

14

13.4

Confusion/misunderstanding

4.3 4

Pranks

3.7 4 6

Imitation/parody

20 21.1

6.7 Paula's Secret (2008) Humour categories according to frequency (n=75)

3

0 0

Paula's Secret (2008) Humor categories according to time Duration (total time humor single/ multi= 00:09:18 = 558 seconds)

3 1.3 1.1

Delicate issues

1.8

Language/wordplay/meaning

Cinema + DVD films + TV broadcasting (statements in group discussions: n=164)

14.7 14.2

0.6

Degradation

4.6

Bad + non jokes

0 0 0

Own mishaps/ misfortunes

0

0

5

9.3

10

15

20

25

Fig. 4.21  Ranking of humour categories for “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcast” in the group discussions compared to the occurrence in the film Paula’s Secret (2008). (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all statements concerning films that were seen in cinemas, on DVD or on TV, n = 164; all humour categories appearing in the film “Paula’s Secret” (multiple answers possible), n = 75; for the statements according to duration, basis: all humour categories appearing in the film “Paula’s Secret” (multiple answers possible), n = 75)

276

4  Empirical Part

4.4.7 Hanni and Nanni (2010) According to UFA Filmproduktion, the film was shot in 43 days39 with a budget of €4.640 million. The film opened in German cinemas on 17 June 2010 and had 868,888 viewers by the end of 2010 according to FFA figures. The characters are based on those of the well-known book series by the English author Enid Blyton, which was first published in England in the 1940s and in Germany in a version adapted to the country of publication in the 1960s by Franz Schneider Verlag.41 The film was directed by Christine Hartmann and written by Jane Ainscough and Katharina Reschke. The film series was continued with Hanni and Nanni II (2012) and Hanni and Nanni III (2013). The adult roles include Katharina Thalbach as a music and French teacher, Susanne von Borsody as a strict sports teacher, Hannelore Elsner as the director of the boarding school and Heino Ferch and Anja Kling as Hanni and Nanni’s parents. Comedian Oliver Pocher has a small role as a department store detective.

4.4.7.1 Content and Genre At the beginning of the film, the twins Hanni and Nanni organise a high-spirited hockey game inside a department store. They manage to beat the best time of their classmate Oktavia. However, Oktavia takes revenge on them by blaming them for stealing a piece of clothing. The theft is then the subject of a serious discussion between the headmaster and Hanni and Nanni’s parents. Since the theft seems to be proven, the two are expelled from school and now end up in the financially stricken boarding school Lindenhof, where Nanni, is more able to come to terms with the new environment than her sister Hanni. The twins’ father is soon able to prove his daughters’ innocence with the help of recordings from the department store cameras. While Hanni would like to go back to her old school, Nanni has settled in and wants to stay at the boarding school, where the classmates hold nightly mattress races and bizarre horse rescue operations, and always have to be on their guard against teachers, especially the strict sports teacher, who soon keeps a close eye on Hanni and Nanni. The two sisters get into arguments with each other as the story progresses. Nanni is upset because she feels she always has to do what her hockey-­playing sister Hanni wants.

 Information UFA from 03.07.14 via email.  Information UFA from 08.04.15 via email. 41  Cf. article Rheinische Post: “Hanni and Nanni werden 50” of 20.08.15, at: http://www.rponline.de/kultur/buch/enid-blyton-hanni-und-nanni-werden-50-aid-1.5326479, retrieved on 26.10.15. 39 40

4.4 Film Analyses

277

When it comes to a hockey game of the boarding school team against their old school, the twins have to decide. Nanni, who wants to play for the boarding school but is less talented at hockey than her sister, steps in for her because Hanni wants to join her old team and Oktavia after the fight. Oktavia’s deviousness comes to light, Hanni returns to help the Lindenhof boarding school team win, while Nanni is successfully able to participate in an internal school orchestra exam. A fundraising campaign by former students, initiated by Hanni and Nanni’s mother, who herself once attended this boarding school, ultimately secures the school’s existence. It is questionable to which genre the film “Hanni and Nanni” belongs. As shown above, the children’s film as a hypergenre can combine set pieces of different genres. For all the difficulties that have arisen in defining comedy via plot structures and themes (see above Sect. 3.3.3.2, p. 78), it can be clearly stated on the basis of the proven humour structures in the film “Hanni and Nanni” that due to the humorous treatment of the “fish-out-of-water” theme, i.e. the fact that the siblings Hanni and Nanni have to assert themselves in an unfamiliar environment, it can be assumed that it is a comedy. Other genres are not apparent. The film is not about solving a criminal case, no treasure is sought, no mystery is solved and unreal worlds are not explored. It could be asked whether the film also qualifies as a sports film due to its reference to the sport of hockey. The definition of the genre sports film established by Sicks/Stauff (2010) states: A film can… be understood as a sports film if the specific subject area of sport contributes to the structuring of the film – be it to its appearance or to its dramaturgy.… A sports film uses the specific aspects of sport (and usually of a specific sport) to give its story a certain course, to give its images a particular striking aspect. (Sicks/Stauff 2010, p. 14)

It is true that hockey plays a role at the beginning and end of the film and frames the film. But to assume a dramaturgical structuring here would be going too far, because the specific aspects of hockey play no role in the film. Even the training sequence “Zwerge” (Midgets) in the 43rd minute, in which Hanni/Nanni practices shots and passes with her awkward classmates, does not provide any deeper insights into the sport of hockey. Rather, the game merely serves as a means to highlight the siblings’ divergent interests. Therefore, the scenes in which Hanni/ Nanni plays the cello and is interested in painting do not make the film an artist’s or musician’s film. The course of the film is also not determined by a sport and an upcoming competition, but by the development of the two main characters in the unfamiliar environment and the degree of their assimilation or their acceptance by the representatives of this environment. The film is therefore not to be classified as a sports film.

278

4  Empirical Part

Ultimately, the defining plot theme is friendship and sibling solidarity in daunting surroundings. This environment, changes in the course of the production, as does the castle-like school building itself. Whereas Hanni and Nanni arrive at the boarding school during a thunderstorm and the building appears grey, powerful and uninviting, almost threatening, the school is filmed in the most beautiful sunlight during the final hockey game. The change of the characters is thus also reflected in the different staging of the plot’s venue. Since the boarding school is already introduced in the 8th minute of the film as a new location that will determine the following plot, the association is made that the latter will revolve around settling into the new school community.

4.4.7.2 Sample Humour Sequence Two scenes from the film “Hanni and Nanni I” have already been presented above. In the scene to be discussed here, which lasts just under 15 seconds in the 11th minute of the film, the siblings are introduced to the other pupils by the sports teacher at the edge of a hockey field. In the previous scene, Hanni and Nanni have just been taken to boarding school by their parents. This is the first time they meet other students. The scene is a fairly typical one for the film in terms of its length as well as its delivery and also the complexity of the humour. The film has a42 total of only two hypotactic humour sequences. The average length of a humour sequence in the film “Hanni and Nanni” is 16.4 seconds43 (Fig. 4.22).

4.4.7.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene The “Begrüßung” sequence contains five humour categories (code numbers in parentheses): (1) “Aesthetics” is given by the change in Hanni’s (or Nanni’s) appearance caused by the mud hitting her; (2) “Mishaps/misfortunes of others” because Hanni is the victim of the mud attack here; (3) Play with expectation/surprise twist” because nothing has prepared the audience or the characters for it in any way;

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Hanni and Nanni” (hypotactic humour sequences are marked in yellow). 43  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Tables,” line 9, column D. 42

4.4 Film Analyses

279

1

--- Beginning of the humor sequence “Greetings”----- A humor part We see Hanni and Nanni with the sports teacher in front of the ghoulish-looking school on the edge of the hockey field.

2

SPORTS TEACHER Jenny? The teams are in the middle of the game. Some players look up.

SPORTS TEACHER (OFF) Come over here and say hello to your... 3

SPORTS TEACHER (OFF) ...both new team cameras.

4

A hockey stick misses the ball and sends mud flying upwards.

Fig. 4.22  Screenshots of all shots of the sample humour sequence “Begrüßung” from the film “Hanni and Nanni” (2010). (Source: Screenshots own survey, “Hanni and Nanni” Universal Pictures International 2010)

280

4  Empirical Part

5

Hanni (or Nanni) gets a load of mud in the face. Her sister and the sports teacher step aside, startled.

6

The players laugh. Jenny grins.

JENNY I’m really sorry.

7

Hanni (or Nanni) is still frozen, looking down at herself.

SPORTS TEACHER Good thing we have your school uniforms ready.

8

The sports teacher raises her finger admonishingly in the direction of the hockey-playing girls. HANNI (or NANNI) School uniforms? --- End of the humor part “greeting” ---

Fig. 4.22 (continued)

4.4 Film Analyses

281

(4) “Deviation from the norm/resistance,” since the attack on the part of Jenny was, if not intentional, at least condoned, because such behaviour does not correspond to the usual greeting, as the admonishing reaction of the sports teacher also reveals; (9) “Prank(s),” because annoyance is the guiding motive here and it is to Hanni’s disadvantage: her clothes, which do not conform to school standards, are ruined for the time being.

4.4.7.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour Categories in the Sample Scene The humour sequence “Begrüßung” has just one motif, namely the hockey field in front of the boarding school. The school building in the background towers mightily and grey into the sky and is probably not entirely coincidentally reminiscent of the castle-like wizard school from Harry Potter. Despite the threatening atmosphere that emanates from the building, there is also something aristocratic about it (Fig. 4.23). School uniforms, not typical for Germany, are alluded to in the scene; Hanni and Nanni will then be seen in them in the subsequent scenes. All of this contributes to the overall picture of a special place, which is more likely to be located in the upper middle-class milieu.

Fig. 4.23  Screenshot of the humour sequence “Begrüßung” from the film “Hanni and Nanni” (analysis programme Akira III). (Source: Screenshot of own survey, “Hanni and Nanni” Universal Pictures International 2010)

282

4  Empirical Part

The American is the most frequently used shot size. In total, the scene uses the American shot four times, close-up twice, longl shot once, and detail shot once. The American and close-up shots have the same subjects in the picture, namely Hanni and Nanni and the PE teacher. Due to the frequency of focus, namely six out of eight shots, and the shot sizes, Hanni and Nanni become the centre of the scene along with the PE teacher. However, in practice, several shot sizes of the same action are often filmed in order to be able to cut back and forth better later in the editing. This can also be assumed in the present case. Although the closer shots towards the end underline the drama when Hanni/Nanni are covered in mud, this climax is undercut with an American shot, which means a jump back and actually leads away from the action again, but from an editing point of view it could hardly have been solved otherwise. While Hanni and Nanni can still be seen in their leisurely city clothes, the sports teacher wears an untypical black, strict-looking dress which emphasises the personality of her character. Until shortly before the end of the film, the sports teacher is presented as a humourless, rule-fixated and strict teacher, and her appearance corresponds with this, even if it seems out of time and more reminiscent of teacher figures of the 1950s than those of the present day. In the American shot sizes, Hanni and Nanni are shot low angle, emphasizing the characters’ perceived superior character. In the close-ups, the low angle almost blends into a normal camera perspective, putting them nearly on a par with the attacker Jenny, who is shot at eye level. The detail shot of the hockey stick, shot from a frog-like perspective on the ground, is extraordinary. But it is only through this detail that the cause-and-effect principle of the attack by Jenny is conveyed and the whole scene becomes understandable in the first place: a supposedly normal hit at the ball swirls up the dirt. The camera movement is static throughout the scene. The dynamics of the hockey game, which could have been underlined by a moving camera as in the scene before, is thus clearly not the subject of the cinematic realisation here. It is not the game but Hanni and Nanni who are at the centre of the action. This is not only implemented in a clean narrative manner on a small scale, but also opens up the possibility for the filmmakers to make use of a moving camera over longer narrative stretches in the course of the film, which will then also happen in the final hockey game at the end of the film, among other things. The estimated focal length is normal throughout the scene. The differences in the settings are probably due to a positioning of the camera rather than a change of optics, but this cannot be clearly determined due to the rather small differences in the compression of the backgrounds. The scene plays more with closer shots than with the means of strongly different focal lengths and in this respect also concen-

4.4 Film Analyses

283

trates on the story to be told, which is determined by the action and is more accompanied than reinforced on the part of the camera technique. The sound is dominated by the fading dynamic song of the scene before, where we experienced a bit more of the speed of a hockey game, and is otherwise dominated by the realistic tones, noises, and volume of the voices in the game’s action. There are no unusual sound effects. The sequence is shot in a medium lighting situation. The acting is realistic and special features were not discernible. All in all, the approximately 15-second sequence “Begrüßung” has humorous value primarily through a single action, namely the attack with the flying mud. Multi-track, hypotactic humour with overlapping sequences is not to be discerned. Cinematically, the humorous potential is clearly and effectively realized.

4.4.7.5 The Film “Hanni and Nanni” and Its Humour As a typical humour sequence, the scene chosen as an example shows many characteristics that are also symptomatic for the other humour sequences in the film “Hanni and Nanni”. As in the sample scene, a good 80% of the rest of the film, by frequency, uses44 a static camera in the humorous sequences. The American shot size is predominant in 111 of a total of 407 humour-relevant shots. This means that this shot size is chosen45 in almost 30% of all shots of a humour sequence in the film. On the sound level, more than 50% use the tonal and sound features provided by the game plot. 30% of all humour sequences use underscoring score and dynamic or special music only plays a role46 in about 15% of the sequences. There is little complexity in the humour of the film “Hanni and Nanni.”. There are only two sequences where hypotactic humour could be identified and even this

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC2. Hanni + Nanni 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 Hanni + Nanni Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen Einzeln,” line 183 f., column D. 45  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC2. Hanni + Nanni 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 Hanni + Nanni Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen Einzeln”, line 115, column D. 46  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC2. Hanni + Nanni 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 Hanni + Nanni Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen Einzeln,” line 239 ff. column D. 44

284

4  Empirical Part

only resulted from parallel plots. Thus, in the humour sequence “Lehrerin verfolgt Hanni und Nanni” (Teacher pursues Hanni and Nanni) in the 28th minute of play, in addition to the comical portrayal of the sports teacher struggling for balance, there is an off-screen commentary by the French teacher, whose French accent fulfils the humour category of speech sound, among others. In the humour sequence “Zur Rede gestellt” (A talking to) in the 41st minute of play, different actions are used in the foreground and background: While Hanni is justifying herself to the principal, her classmates are caught eavesdropping at the door. Of the total 1:22 hour length of the film, humorous sequences account for about 17  minutes (about 20% of the total running time). Thus, in direct comparison, “Hanni and Nanni” has almost twice as much humorous playing time as the film “Paula’s Secret,” analysed above. The acting throughout the film is over 70% realistic. Just under 30% can be classified as exaggerated. So, unlike the film “Paula’s Secret,” “Hanni and Nanni” works significantly more with exaggerated, comical characters. The French teacher played by Katharina Thalbach and Oliver Pocher in a supporting role as the department store detective, are particularly noteworthy here. While Thalbach, with a French accent, strongly exaggerates her character’s origins and underlines them with risible gestures, the department store detective portrayed by Pocher is mainly characterised in slapstick interludes, most of which are preceded by a boast that turns out to be hubris. Both characters can be considered comic figures because, as in the case of the department store detective, they contrast with the world that is superior to them, in Schramm’s (2012) sense (cf. Schramm 2012, p. 84) or they underline the fictionality of the film through their exaggerated portrayal (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 151). It is debatable whether this is an exaggerated portrayal of characters or already over the line into parody. The latter falls back on pre-existing ideas (cf. Sect. 3.1, p. 32 f.). However, the French teacher and the department store detective are, in my opinion, not pre-existing figures of the collective imagination, who are generally assumed to have certain characteristics that do not already result from their professional, ethnic or national activity alone. It is different, for example, with figures such as “the Viking” or “the Wizard”, for whom, among other things, courage, toughness, strength and mysterious sophistication are defining characteristics. This argues for assuming an “exaggerated” representation here instead of a “parodistic” one. In addition to the acting, the set and costume selection underscore the characters. While Pocher as a department store detective in a suit embodies supposed seriousness and authority, Thalbach as a French teacher wears flowing skirts and

4.4 Film Analyses

285

dresses with eye-catching ornaments that render her almost cherubic. This costume is underlined by her hairstyle, which is reminiscent of the French chanson singer Mireille Matthieu. The analysed humour categories of the film “Hanni and Nanni” can be represented graphically as follows (Fig. 4.24). What is striking about the humour structure of the film is its even temporal distribution, at least for the most frequent humour categories. In contrast to the previously analysed film “Paula’s Secret,” there are no major gaps in the humour density. The film’s “one-track,” simple and paratactic humour structure is also clearly visible. Humour is used very linearly here, i.e. one joke or gag follows the next with or without a time gap, without any references to each other. Suspense is a rarely used means of humour in the film. Rather, the viewer experiences the events along with the characters, without having an edge of knowledge. Isolated scenes do not change this overall impression. For example, in the humour sequence “Bad” (Bath) in the 51st minute, the viewer knows for a brief moment

3 Playing with expectations / surprising twists 3 Playing with expectations / Surprising twists US1 1 Aesthetics 1 Aesthetics ÜS1 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others 4 Deviation from the norm / absurdity 4 Deviation from the norm/ absurdity ÜS1 5 Language / Wordplay / Meaning 11 Sound and noises 5a Speech sound 5a Speech sound ÜS1 9 Pranks 11 Imitation / Parody 7 Degradation 13 Bad + Non Jokes 6 Confusion / Misunderstandings 10 Delicate topics 7a Degradation of an authority 7b Degradation because of stupidity" 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.24  Temporal duration of the use of humour categories in the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey, data according to duration, basis: all humour categories appearing in the film “Hanni and Nanni” (multiple answers possible), n = 263)

286

4  Empirical Part

before the French teacher that a horse has just entered her bathroom and is nibbling at the bathing cap of the teacher singing to herself before she opens her eyes, becomes aware of the grotesque situation and begins to scream. Another scene works with a knowledge advantage on the part of the viewer: for example, in the humorous sequences “Französisch Nachhilfe I + II” (French Tutoring I + II), the sports teacher fails because she can’t tell the twins apart, which the twins exploit so that Nanni, despite being grounded in the village, can call her fake friend Oktavia for help. The humour in the film is mainly determined by the plot and by surprising twists, which are often accompanied by slapstick interludes. For example, when Hanni and Nanni play hockey in a department store in the opening scene, they hit the security guard, played by Oliver Pocher, with the ball and he then falls into a tower of cardboard boxes. If we combine the overlaps and subcategories into the respective main category, it becomes clear that the category “Playing with expectations/surprising twist” is most frequently implemented in film (20.2%), followed by “Aesthetics” (18.7%), “Mishaps/misfortunes of others” (15.2%) and “Deviations from norms/adversity” (12.5%). “Language/wordplay/meaning” (11.4%) such as the exaggerated accent of the French teacher, also play a role (Table 4.13). If we now compare the analysed humour categories of the film with those mentioned by the children in the group discussions, the following graph emerges (again according to frequency and duration of the humour categories used; Fig. 4.25). While one can assume a more or less large coverage ratio for the categories “Aesthetics,” “Mishaps/misfortunes of others” and “Deviations from norms/ Consistency,” among others, it becomes clear that “Playing with expectations/ Surprising twists” occurs much more frequently in the film “Hanni and Nanni” than it is favoured by the children in the group discussions on the basis of the mentions (20.2% in the film, 13.4% in the group discussions). The same is strikingly true for the category “language/wordplay/meaning” (11.4% in the film, 1.8% in the group discussions) and “degradations” (5.7% film, 0.6% group discussion). Thus, more comedy is generated by language and degradation in film than is preferred by children. If we now consider the above-mentioned peculiarity that girls in films show no liking at all for the last two categories “language/wordplay/meaning” and “degradation” – at least in the group discussions (cf. Fig. 4.5, p. 198), this suggests that here humorous potential largely elided the mainly female target group. The fact that in this case other criteria did not detract from the film’s success is proven by the high audience figures, which may serve as evidence that humour is at best one component among many that determine the success or failure of a film.

287

4.4 Film Analyses

Table 4.13  Frequency of individual humour categories in the film “Hanni and Nanni” (2010) “Hanni and Nanni” : Frequency of humour categories (multiple answer) in the film

Humour category 1 Aesthetics 1 Aesthetics ÜS1 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS1 4 Deviation from the norm/absurdity 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS1 5 Language/wordplay/meaning 5a Speech sound 5a Speech sound ÜS1 6 Confusion/misunderstandings 7 Degradation 7a Degradation of an authority 7b Degradation because of stupidity 9 Pranks 10 Delicate topics 11 Sound and noises 12 Imitation/parody 13 Bad + non jokes Total

N 47 2 40 52 1 33 1 19 10 1 7 9 5 1 10 3 10 7 5 263

% 17.9% 0.8% 15.2% 19.8% 0.4% 12.5% 0.4% 7.2% 3.8% 0.4% 2.7% 3.4% 1.9% 0.4% 3.8% 1.1% 3.8% 2.7% 1.9% 100.0%

N

% (Total rounded)

49 18.6% 40 15.2% 53 20.2% 34 12.9%

30 11.4% 7 2.7%

15 10 3 10 7 5

5.7% 3.8% 1.1% 3.8% 2.7% 1.9%

Source: Own survey, data according to frequency and in percent, basis: all humour categories appearing in the film “Hanni and Nanni” (multiple answers possible), n = 263

4.4.8 Lilly the Witch: The Dragon and the Magic Book (2009) The film is based on the successful book series by the author Knister. Since 2004, an animated series was already produced, which is still being made and is currently broadcast on KiKa. According to the production company “blue eyes,” the film had 45 shooting days with a budget of between 8.5 and 9 million euros.47

47

 Information from production company blue eyes via email dated 10/30/15.

288

4  Empirical Part

Aesthetics

18.6 18.4

22

17.7 15.2 16.1

Mishaps + misfortunes of others Deviation from the norm/ absurdity

12.9 12.2

16.5

14

Sound + noises

3.8 5.2

Playing with expectations/surprising turn

13.4

Confusion/ misunderstanding

4.3 2.7 2.1

Pranks

3.7 3.8 3.9

Imitation/parody

3 2.7 3.5

20.2 19.1

Cinema + DVD films - TV broadcasting (statements in group discussions: n= 164) Hann and Nanni (2010) Humor categories by frequency (n= 263) Hanni and Nanni (2010) Humor categories by duration (total time humor multi: 00:17:01 = 1021 seconds)

3 1.1 1.4

Delicate issues

1.8

Language/wordplay/ meaning

0.6

Degradation

0

Bad + non jokes

11.4 10.9 5.7 5.1

1.9 2.1

0

Own mishaps/misfortunes

0 0

5

10

15

20

25

Fig. 4.25  Ranking of the humour categories for “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcast” in the group discussions compared to the occurrence in the film “Hanni and Nanni” (2010). (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all statements concerning films that were seen in cinemas, on DVD or on TV, n = 164; all humour categories appearing in the film “Hanni and Nanni” (multiple answers possible), n = 263; for the statements according to duration, basis: all humour categories appearing in the film “Hanni and Nanni” (multiple answers possible), n = 263)

4.4 Film Analyses

289

The film opened on 19.02.09 and had 1,220,288 viewers by the end of the year. The film was directed by Stefan Ruzowitzky, who was nominated for an Oscar for his 2007 film “The Counterfeiters,” winning it in 2008. The screenplay was written by Stefan Ruzowitzky, Armin Toerkell and Ralph Martin. In 2011, the sequel “The Journey to Mandolan” was released in German cinemas.

4.4.8.1 Content and Genre The girl Lilli, who lives in a normal urban environment in the present, is visited by the little dragon Hektor from a fairy-tale world. Hector is looking for a worthy successor on behalf of the old witch Surulunda. Surulunda wants to retire and rescue the valuable witch’s book, which contains all the spells, from the evil wizard Hieronymus and entrust it to a successor. Hieronymus plans to use the witch’s book to construct a world domination machine. At first Lilli doesn’t know anything about all this, thinks the dragon is a cuddly toy belonging to her little brother and accidentally repeats spells from the book, which almost leads to a collision with a conjured-up monster or to a concert by an upside-down orchestra in her room. When Hektor reveals himself and tells Lilli about his mission, she begins a probationary period as a witch candidate. She has to learn how to use the witch’s spells carefully, but she doesn’t always succeed: she conjures up monkeys in her room, attaches tails to the buttocks of annoying classmates and accidentally floods the classroom with water by casting a spell. Even a boy she secretly fancies is bewitched and unintentionally becomes a beloved fool. Meanwhile, Hieronymus is hot on her heels and tries to get hold of the witch’s book, which he eventually succeeds in doing. With magic he subdues the whole town and turns the adults into beings bereft of their own will. Everything is suddenly dominated by shades of grey and at school the teachers only order the pupils around in sharp tones or with whistles. Drawing and gymnastics are abolished, but now twice as much mathematics is to be taught. Hieronymus is now about to put his world domination machine into operation. Together with her little brother, three school friends and the dragon Hektor, Lilli wants to oppose Hieronymus before he actually rules the whole world. Together they defeat Hieronymus and the world domination machine is destroyed. Lilli passes her probation thanks to Hector’s destruction of the list of her transgressions. The adults awaken from their grey alienation, the city becomes colourful again and parents and their children cavort happily in the playground. It seems obvious that “Lilly the Witch” should be assigned to the genre of the fantasy film. Friedrich (2003) uses the following standard for his film canon, which can serve as a definition of fantasy and fairy tale films and which is followed here:

290

4  Empirical Part

… I therefore finally decided to record films, (1) which are based on a fairy tale, folk tale, legend or mythical story, or in which their central motifs or characters (e.g. witches, wizards, ghosts, angels, demons) play a leading role, (2) which (possibly on the basis of a literary model) consciously draw on the traditions of fairy tales, sagas, legends or myths in terms of story, characters and staging. (Friedrich 2003, p. 10 f.)

Witches, wizards and fantastic creatures like the dragon Hektor make the film “Lilly the Witch” undoubtedly a representative of a fantasy film in the guise of a children’s film. Once again, this shows the children’s film as a hypergenre. Adult viewers will notice that the adults enchanted by Hieronymus at the end of the film all perform movements familiar from zombie movies. The film also draws on the horror genre, which can also be read in the overarching plot structure: the ideal world is turned into “hell” by the appearance of Hieronymus, and it is only through Lilli’s intervention that normality is restored. In addition, “Lilly the Witch” is of course also a comedy, because all genre set pieces are also parodied in one way or another, or the plot structures and themes here offer comedic potential: the heroine, Lilli, has to cope with a difficult task, namely to pass the witch’s exam and save the whole world at the same time. As shown above, this in itself would not be enough to justify a comedy, because such a plot could also be staged as a drama or tragedy. Here, however, the focus is clearly on the humorous treatment of these topics with a happy ending, which is why the film is also a comedy.

4.4.8.2 Sample Humour Sequence The almost 15-second humour sequence “Lilli spricht zum ersten Mal mit Drachen” (Lilli talks to dragon for the first time) from the 20th minute of the film combines almost all humour-relevant structural features that are decisive for the film, although it is shorter than the average of the other humour sequences (26.8 seconds). In this scene, Lilli discovers the dragon Hektor shivering in the refrigerator. Up to this point, she had taken him for an inanimate toy belonging to her younger brother. She is accordingly surprised when he begins to speak. She had already tried out the witch’s book she had inexplicably found on her desk in the previous scene, conjuring a horde of monkeys into her room to her own surprise. In order to calm the monkeys, she wants to feed them and opens the refrigerator for this purpose (Fig. 4.26).

4.4.8.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene The sequence “Lilli spricht zum ersten Mal mit Drachen” contains eight humour categories distributed over four overlapping humour parts. The film has a total of

4.4 Film Analyses

291

1

--- Start of the humor sequence “Lilli talks to dragons for the first time” ----- four humor parts --- Beginning of the first humor part “Bibbernder Drache” --Lilli opens the fridge and freezes.

2

Hector sits next to Tupperboats and bowls in the refrigerator compartment, clutching his wire tail and shivering. --- End of the first humor part “Jittering Dragon” ---

3

--- Beginning of the second humor part “Dino?” --LILLI Dino?

Fig. 4.26  Screenshots of all shots of the sample humour sequence “Lilli spricht zum ersten Mal mit Drachen” from the movie “Lilly the Witch – The Dragon and the Magic Book” (2009). (Source: Screenshots own survey, “Lilly the Witch” Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 2009)

31 such hypotactic humour sequences in which there is48 at least one overlapping humour part. The sample scene is thus representative of the complex humour structure of the film (Fig. 4.27).

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Hexe Lilli” (hypotactic humour sequences are marked in yellow). 48

292

4  Empirical Part

4

HEKTOR (No. Dragon.)

--- End of the second humor part “Dino?” ----- Beginning of the third humor parts “ice fire” --Hector exhales a cloud of breath, his little dragon wings opening briefly in return.

5

--- End of the third humor part “Ice Fire” ----- beginning of the fourth humor parts “door closed” --Lilli gasps for air and closes the fridge door, screaming.

6

LILLI Aaaahhh. Hector’s trying to hold the door open.

Fig. 4.26 (continued)

In the first part (“Bibbernde Drache”), which is implemented in the first two shots, the categories are Aesthetics (1), Mishaps/misfortunes of Others (2), Playing with Expectations (3), Deviations from Norms/Consistency (4) and Confusion/

4.4 Film Analyses

293

7

Lilli tries to push the door shut, but Hektor resists.

HEKTOR Let me out of here. I am Hec- tor, keeper of the witch- book.

LILLI What? The grimoire is yours?

HEKTOR (squeezed) Yeah.

8

Lilli lets go of the door. HEKTOR In a manner of speaking. --- End of the fourth humor parts “door closed” ----- End of the humor sequence “Lilli talks to dragons for the first time” ---

Fig. 4.26 (continued)

Misunderstanding (6). The humour categories in detail (code number in parentheses) met are: (1) “Aesthetics,” as the mere sight of the freezing dragon in the refrigerator and Lilli’s facial expressions are visually unusual; (2) “Mishaps/misfortunes of others” because Hektor accidentally ended up in the refrigerator; (3) “Playing with expectations/surprising twist”, because finding him there in this way, clutching his own tail in a shivering way, is surprising. The viewer and also the character Lilli were not prepared for this sight we have of him through Lilli;

294

4  Empirical Part

Fig. 4.27  Screenshot of the humour sequence “Lilli spricht zum ersten Mal mit Drachen” from the movie “Lilly the Witch” (analysis programme Akira III – view humour categories). (Source: Screenshot of own survey, “Lilly the Witch” Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 2009)

(6)“Mistaken identity/misunderstanding”, as Lilli addresses Hektor as “Dino,” thus confusing him with her little brother’s toy; (4) “Norm deviation/contradiction”, because having a talking dragon sitting in the fridge contradicts real life experience, especially since the world of the main character Lilli was introduced as realistic. The second humour part of the sequence (“Dino?”) is a short exchange of words in two settings and contains the humour categories playing with expectations/surprising twist (3), norm deviations/contradiction (4), language/wordplay/meaning (5), and confusion/misunderstanding (6). The following humour categories are met in detail (code number in brackets): (3) “Playing with expectations/surprising twist” is given by the dialogue in which Lilli, assuming that Hektor is her younger brother’s toy, asks: “Dino?”; (6) “Mistaken identity/misunderstanding” because Lilli thinks Hektor is her brother’s toy; (5) “Language/wordplay/meaning,” for Hektor’s curt reply, “No, dragon,” with which he comically corrects the biological classification of his being, proves wordplay; (4) “Norm deviations/contradictions,” because a talking dragon in the refrigerator represents a new variant of the previous norm deviation.

4.4 Film Analyses

295

The third part of the sequence (“Eisfeuer”) consists only of the second part of the last shot of the previous part, when instead of a flame, Hektor can only exhale an icy breath. This makes the category (1) “Aesthetics” given and (2) “Mishaps/misfortunes of others” on Hektor’s part, because his dragon skills don’t work in the cold fridge either. In the fourth and final humour part of the sequence (“Tür zu”), the following humour categories are served over four settings: aesthetics (1), mishaps/misfortunes of others (2), playing with expectations (3), norm deviations/contradictions (4), speech sound (5a), and sound and noises (11). The fulfilled humour categories are (code numbers in parentheses): (1) “Aesthetics,” because when Hektor braces himself with his small figure against the refrigerator door and Lilli holds against it, it already seems funny because of the different proportions; (2) “Mishaps/misfortunes of others,” because the threat of being trapped and Lilli’s disbelief that she is actually dealing with a real dragon are unfavourable circumstances for Hektor; (3) “Playing with expectations/surprising twist,” because the fact that the scene would come to such a pass could not have been foreseen; (4) “Norm deviation/contradiction” because in the real world, you don’t fight off dragons from your own fridge; (5a) “Speech sound,” because Lilli’s cry, but especially Hektor’s squashed voice between the door and the frame of the refrigerator seem to deviate from the normal speech sound; (11) “Sounds and noises,” as non-linguistic sounds such as groans and moans punctuate the grotesque scenery.

4.4.8.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour Categories in the Example Scene The humour sequence “Lilli spricht zum ersten Mal mit Drachen” takes place exclusively in Lilli’s kitchen. The kitchen and the contents of the fridge are very colourful and friendly. The first scene of the film in which we meet Lilli is also set in the kitchen. In this scene, she is sitting with her younger brother eating spaghetti and talking about magic, when her brother messes up a magic trick and Lilli gives him advice. So the motif of the kitchen as a haven for family and good food tends

296

4  Empirical Part

to have pleasant associations. And since Hektor as a greedy dragon was already introduced at the beginning of the film, his first communicative meeting with Lilli is well situated in this location. The décor and design betray an educated bourgeois milieu with a modern twist. The most frequent shot size is the medium close-up (four out of eight shots), which mostly shows Lilli. The dragon is shown in two medium long shots and two close-ups due to its size. In terms of proximity to the protagonist, the scene is still Lilli’s, even though she is only dominant in the picture in four out of eight shots and the rest are devoted to the dragon Hektor. With the exception of two shots, the camera perspective is at eye level with the protagonists. The two half-length shots of the dragon sitting in the refrigerator represent Lilli’s POV (point of view, cf. Hickethier 2012, p. 129) and are therefore logically kept slightly high angle, since she is looking into the refrigerator and Hektor is sitting a little lower in one of the refrigerator compartments. Lilli, on the other hand, could have been shot from the dragon’s point of view in a low angle shot. But that was avoided. Only her line of sight reveals that she discovers something in the refrigerator, which is positioned a bit lower. This also strengthens Lilli as the main character of the scene from a camera point of view: we remain at eye level with her and do not switch to Hektor’s perspective. The clear camera perspective, which supports Lilli as the main character, does not diminish the suspense content of the scene, however, because the viewer knows from the previous scene that Hektor has locked himself in the refrigerator. The viewer is therefore prepared for an encounter between the two and has a knowledge advantage over Lilli, which increases the comedy of the scene. The camera is a static one. Only minimal compensating movements can be registered. The surprising discovery that Lilli makes here, namely that her brother’s supposed toy is in fact a living dragon, is therefore not emphasised in terms of camera technology, for example through fast approach movements or zoom effects. This leaves room for the dialogue. The estimated focal length is a normal one in all shots and does not reveal any particular creative motifs. The sound is a mix of primary sound and light score. The latter stays very unobtrusively in the background. On the contrary, the encounter with Hektor is the occasion to switch from the musically dynamic scene before to a quiet musical section, at the very moment when Lilli opens the refrigerator door. Here, the quietness creates a comic counterpoint to the chaos that Lilli is trying to clear up in her room with the monkeys she has conjured up. The music thus also tells us that Hektor will bring calm back into everything. This is exactly what happens afterwards, when Hektor helps Lilli to conjure the monkeys away again before Lilli’s mother, summoned by her brother who has seen the monkeys, can discover them.

4.4 Film Analyses

297

At eight shots, the sequence is almost average for a humour sequence for this film (nine shots).49 The lighting atmosphere is of a medium type, i.e. it can neither be described as particularly dark or rich in contrast, nor as particularly bright. In the case of Lilli, the acting can be described as realistic, because her reaction pattern corresponds to that of a real situation. In contrast, the animation of the dragon Hektor is parodistic. Based on the image of a dragon, which one associates with strength and fire, he represents the exact opposite as a small, shivering dragon that only emits icy breath. This kind of acting is suitable for awakening identification potential in young viewers, because the main character remains attached to real, comprehensible behaviour. Special features, beyond the animation of the dragon, are not apparent in the sequence. In summary, the humour sequence “Lilli spricht zum ersten Mal mit Drachen” is characterised by a balanced style, which allows the humorous plot to be driven forward in a restrained manner by the two protagonists and does without emphasising effects. The complex hypotactic humour structure creates a very high humour density in a short time, which also skilfully uses the device of suspense.

4.4.8.5 The Film “Lilly the Witch” and Its Humour Like the sample scene, the entire film “Lilly the Witch” uses a static camera for more than 75% of the other humour sequences (by frequency). In contrast to the film “Hanni and Nanni”, for example, the predominant shot size is not American, but medium close-up (25.7%) or close-up (21.3%).50 As a viewer, you are therefore “closer” to the humorous sequences in the film “Lilly the Witch” than in “Hanni and Nanni”. Around 55% of all humour sequences make do with the sound resulting from the film’s plot. In about 37% of the cases, underscored music is used. The low use of dynamic music (6%)51 is striking.

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Tables,” line 20, column E. 50  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC3. Hexe Lilli 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 Hexe Lilli Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen Einzeln,” line 233 f., column D. 51  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC3. Hexe Lilli 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 Hexe Lilli Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen Einzeln,” line 429, column D. 49

298

4  Empirical Part

The complexity of cinematic humour is immense. 31 humour sequences use hypotactic humour on several levels.52 The resulting level of humour density is very high. Of the film’s total length of 01:25 h, humour sequences account for around 35 minutes (more than 40% of the running time).53 This means that humour occurs twice as often in this film and also in significantly higher complexity than in the film “Hanni and Nanni.” The acting is realistic in 65% of all humour sequences and parodistic in 33% (multiple answers possible due to several characters in the scenes).54 The parodistic characters are mainly those who are entirely from the magic world like the dragon Hektor, the antagonist Hieronymus (evil wizard) and adults who have been enchanted in some way. The main character, Lilli, is realistically enacted throughout, thus enhancing the comic effect as she, representing the real, stable world, must return an enchanted world that has gone off the rails to its original state. In this, Hektor is not only a parody of powerful magic dragons, but also imitates other figures and objects himself, for example when he wants to escape discovery by Lilli’s younger brother by imitating a technical robot toy with choppy movements and a technical-sounding voice in order to make his speech plausible (e.g. in the humour sequence: “Arbeitsaufteilung Lilli + Bruder” (Division of work Lilli + brother), 41st minute). The evil wizard Hieronymus, portrayed by Ingo Naujoks, is not only a caricature of a talented magician, but is also portrayed in the film through all kinds of slapstick interludes. Be it that he gets his fingers caught in the window frame while secretly eavesdropping on Lilli (humour sequence: “Finger einklemmen” [Finger jammed] in the 25th minute), flies into the air together with his occupied factory in the grand finale or is shrunk into a small preserving jar by Lilli at the end (humour sequence: “Showdown,” 70th minute). Hektor and the evil wizard therefore represent comical characters, because they not only break with the rules of the world they are used to, but also repeatedly fail

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Hexe Lilli” (hypotactic humour sequences are marked in yellow). 53  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Tables,” lines 4 and 11, column E. 54  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC3. Hexe Lilli 24.03.16,, file: “18.03.16 Hexe Lilli Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen Einzeln,” line 513, column D. 52

4.4 Film Analyses

299

in an exaggerated way at the tasks of their own world. Hektor, for example, is a dragon but has trouble flying until the end of the film. Hieronymus would like to rule the world as a powerful wizard, but doesn’t even manage to undo his magic mistake and turn his assistant back into a human, so that the latter has nothing left to do but continue to comment grumpily on his partner’s actions as a dog. This comic effect is further enhanced by the use of costumes. For example, at the beginning of the film Hieronymus changes back into his true form, whereas before he had tricked his way into Surulunda’s house as a woman, pretty, blonde and needy. As his magic skills are not very developed, he soon grows male hair on his legs and a moustache on his face again. A similar parody takes place when Hieronymus enters Lilli’s mother’s bookstore as a supposedly attractive bodybuilder and his leg muscles soon go limp again due to a lack of magic power (humour sequence: “Männerbeine” (Man legs) in the 39th minute of play). The central theme of the story is the test that Lilli has to pass, namely to prove herself a worthy successor to Surulunda. In the process, she must throw her own prejudices overboard and realize that she can only successfully fight the evil wizard Hieronymus together with others. Childish vindictiveness also stands in her way at first: Lilli can’t resist trying out her magic skills on her disagreeable rivals. So it’s all about a process of maturing and initiation, at the end of which she gets along better with her brother and her classmates than she did at the beginning of the story. The analysed humour categories of the film “Lilly the Witch” can be represented graphically as follows (Fig. 4.28). What is striking at first glance is the break in the humour flow around minute 55 to 65. In these 10 minutes, Lilli is given an important hint in Surulunda’s dream: only together can children stand against the evil wizard Hieronymus, for his magical powers do not work so well on children. Meanwhile, the town and the adults have changed greatly under the influence of Hieronymus: people walk around aimlessly in grey clothes like zombies, everything seems painted grey, no birds sing, the playground is torn down, signs at the shops now advertise computers, drills with whistles prevail at school, the teachers wear grey, only the children still have their colourful clothes on, drawing and gymnastics are abolished as subjects, instead twice as much mathematics is now to be taught. Lilli remembers her conversation with Surulunda after waking up from the dream and has to choose her companions. They are, of all people, the ones she didn’t like very much before. Together they track down Hieronymus’ headquarters and sneak into a sinister factory. Here, Hieronymus works with his subdued slaves on his world domination machine. The book of witches serves as a catalyst. These 10 minutes before the brilliant showdown, which uses humour on five hypotactic levels in 57 shots and thus belongs to the most complex humour se-

4  Empirical Part

300 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS1 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS2 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS3 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS4 4 Deviation from the norm/absurdity 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS1 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS2 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS3 1 Aesthetics 1 Aesthetics ÜS1 1 Aesthetics ÜS2 1 Aesthetics ÜS3 1 Aesthetics ÜS4 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS1 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS2 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ASCs3 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS4 12 Imitation/parody 12 Imitation/parody ÜS1 12 Imitation/parody ÜS2 12 Imitation/parodle ÜS3 6 Confusion/misunderstandings 6 Confusion/misunderstanding ÜS1 6 Confusion/misunderstanding ÜS2 6 Change/Mssverständnlsse ÜS3 5 Language/wordplay/meaning 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS1 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS2 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS3 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS4 9 Pranks 9 Pranks ÜS1 9 Pranks ÜS3 9 Pranks ÜS4 11 Sound and noises 11 Sound and noises ÜS1 11 Sound and noises ÜS2 11 Sound and noises ÜS3 5a Speech sound 5a Speech sound ÜS1 5a Speech sound ÜS3 10 Delicate topics 10 Delicate topics ÜS1 10 Delicate topics ÜS2 10 Delicate topics ÜS3 7a Degradation of an authority 7a Degradation of an authority ÜS1 7a Degradation of an authority ÜS2 7a Degradation of an authority ÜS4 7 Degradation 7 Degradation ÜS1 7 Degradation ÜS2 7 Degradation ÜS4 13 Bad + non jokes Degradation as compensatory justice Degradation as compensatory justice ÜS3 Degradation as compensatory justice ÜS4 7b Degradation because of stupidity 7b Degradation because of stupidity ÜS2 7b Degradation because of stupidity ÜS4 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.28  Frequency of humour categories in the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey, data according to duration, basis: all humour categories appearing in the film “Lilly the Witch” (multiple answers possible), n = 808)

quence of all five films analysed, tell of a threat without any humour. The images used, people bereft of their will going about some prescribed activity in grey, shops that only sell computers or legal literature, and schools where only rules and mathematics are taught, can also be understood as a critique of a neoliberal world in which only what can be represented numerically has value. This connotation will probably escape child viewers for the most part, but the menace emanating from such a coldly staged world does not lack impact as a message. It’s a clear stance by the filmmakers not to rely on humour in these 10 minutes. When it gets serious, the film is indeed serious.

4.4 Film Analyses

301

Suspense is used irregularly as a means of humour, especially in the first third of the film. This starts with one of the first scenes in which we meet Lilli. In the humour sequence “Prügeln mit Dino” (Fighting with Dino) in the film’s 12th minute, Lilli mistakenly believes that her younger brother is responsible for the chaos in her room. However, the viewer knows that it was Hektor, who has come crashing down from the Wizarding World, who has messed up Lilli’s model world. When Lilli then grabs Hektor and, thinking he is one of her brother’s toys, beats him up, it’s another comical misunderstanding as poor Hektor now suffers quite a beating. It is a similar story in the humorous sequences, in which Lilli incredulously tries out the spell book and does not notice that the conjured orchestra and later a grim monster actually appear in her room (humorous sequences “Unbewusstes Zaubern I + II” (Unconscious Spells I and II) from the film’s 14th minute). Meanwhile, the audience witnesses that the witch’s book and its spells actually work. Suspense is also used in the sample scene analysed above in minute 20. Among the main sources of comedy in the film “Lilly the Witch” are, of course, the magical spells and incidents, which sometimes unintentionally, sometimes intentionally achieve their effect and are usually implemented cinematically by elaborate special effects. Houses can move, unpleasant classmates grow dog tails, Lilli’s secret love interest becomes a silly minstrel, Hektor has to struggle with his fear of flying and time and again Hieronymus fails due to his lack of magical skills. The adults are completely eliminated as rescuers in time of need, the world has turned upside down: the little ones have to save the big ones. Apart from the caesura between minute 55 and 65, the complex humour density of the film is also evident in the above diagram. The hypotactic humour structure, its multitrackedness, clearly emerges. If we combine the overlaps and subcategories into the respective main category, the most frequent humour categories in the film “Lilly the Witch” are above all: “Playing with expectations/surprising twists” (17.3%), “Deviations from the norm/contradictions” (15.6%), “Aesthetics” (14.9%) and “Mishaps/misfortunes of others” (12.4%). Linguistic humour is also strongly represented (11.6%) (Table 4.14). If we now compare the analysed humour categories of the film with those mentioned by the children from the group discussions, the following graph emerges (according to frequency and duration of the humour categories used; Fig. 4.29). The children’s mentions from the group discussions correspond above all with the humour categories “deviations from the norm/misunderstanding,” “confusion/ misunderstanding,” “pranks” and “sensitive topics” identified in the film. The magical setting and spells that confound the real world favour the occurrence of these humour categories. “Delicate issues” are addressed in the film primarily by the fact that the boy onwhom Lilli has a slight crush is transformed by a spell into a love-­

302

4  Empirical Part

Table 4.14  Frequency of individual humour categories in the film “Lilly the Witch” Frequency of humour categories (multiple answer) Humour category 1 Aesthetics 1 Aesthetics ÜS1 1 Aesthetics ÜS2 1 Aesthetics ÜS3 1 Aesthetics ÜS4 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS1 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS2 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of other ASCs3 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS4 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS1 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS2 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS3 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS4 4 Deviation from the norm/absurdity 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS1 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS2 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS3 5 Language/wordplay/meaning 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS1 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS2 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS3 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS4 5a Speech sound 5a Speech sound ÜS1 5a Speech sound ÜS3 6 Confusion/misunderstandings 6 Confusion/misunderstanding ÜS1 6 Confusion/misunderstanding ÜS2 6 Confusion/misunderstanding ÜS3 7 Degradation 7 Degradation ÜS1 7 Degradation ÜS2 7 Degradation ÜS4 7a Degradation of an authority 7a Degradation of an authority ÜS1

N 77 23 13 6 1 58 24 12 5 1 85 33 13 8 1 76 30 13 7 31 19 9 3 1 20 7 4 23 10 3 3 6 4 1 1 8 3

% 9.5% 2.8% 1.6% 0.7% 0.1% 7.2% 3.0% 1.5% 0.6% 0.1% 10.5% 4.1% 1.6% 1.0% 0.1% 9.4% 3.7% 1.6% 0.9% 3.8% 2.4% 1.1% 0.4% 0.1% 2.5% 0.9% 0.5% 2.8% 1.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.7% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 1.0% 0.4%

N

% (Total rounded)

120 14.9%

100 12.4%

140 17.3%

126 15.6%

94

11.6%

39

4.8%

(continued)

4.4 Film Analyses

303

Table 4.14 (continued) Frequency of humour categories (multiple answer) Humour category 7a Degradation of an authority ÜS2 7a Degradation of an authority ÜS4 7b Degradation because of stupidity 7b Degradation because of stupidity ÜS2 7b Degradation because of stupidity ÜS4 7c Degradation as compensatory justice 7c Degradation as compensatory justice ÜS3 7c Degradation as compensatory justice ÜS4 9 Pranks 9 Pranks ÜS1 9 Pranks ÜS3 9 Pranks ÜS4 10 Delicate topics 10 Delicate topics ÜS1 10 Sensitive topics ÜS2 10 Delicate topics ÜS3 11 Sound and noises 11 Sound and noises ÜS1 11 Sound and noises ÜS2 11 Sound and noises ÜS3 12 Imitation/parody 12 Imitation/parody ÜS1 12 Imitation/parody ÜS2 12 Imitation/parody ÜS3 13 Bad + non jokes Total

N 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 25 9 1 1 10 7 3 2 32 7 7 2 35 9 4 1 2 808

% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 3.1% 1.1% 0.1% 0.1% 1.2% 0.9% 0.4% 0.2% 4.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.2% 4.3% 1.1% 0.5% 0.1% 0.2% 100.0%

N

% (Total rounded)

32

4.0%

36

4.5%

22

2.7%

48

5.9%

49 2

6.1% .2%

Source: Own survey, data according to frequency and in percent, basis: all occurring humour categories (multiple answers possible), n = 808

struck jerk who continuously compliments her in an overly flowery medieval style. Even the evil wizard becomes thusenchanted towards the end and literally tame (e.g. humorous sequences “Angebetete” [Beloved] in minute 37 and “Liebeszauber” [Spell of love] in minute 71). Large deviations from the mentions in the group discussions are evident in terms of frequency for the categories “sound and noises” (5.9% in the film, 14% in the group discussions), “language/wordplay/meaning” (11.6% in the film to 1.8% in the group discussions), “imitation/parody” (6.1% film, 3% group discussions)

304

4  Empirical Part

Aesthetics

14.9 14.2

Mishaps + misfortunes of others

22

17.7

12.4 12

16.5 15.6 15.2

Deviation from the norm/ absurdity Sound + noises

5.9 5.2

14

13.4

Playing with expectations/surprising turn

17.3 16.3

4.3 4.8 6.6

Confusion/misunderstanding

3.7 4.5 5.5

Pranks

3

Imitation/parody

Cinema + DVD films + TV broadcasts (statements in group discussions; n= 164)

6.1 6.4

3 2.7 3.3

Delicate issues

1.8

Language/wordplay/meaning

0.6

Degradation

Lilly the Witch (2009) Humour categories according to frequency (n= 808)

11.6 11.5

Lilly the Witch (2009)Huntor categories by time duration (total time humor multi= 00:37:55 = 2.275 seconds)

4 3.2

0 0.2 0.4

Bad + non jokes

0 0 0

Own mishaps/misfortunes 0

5

10

15

20

25

Fig. 4.29  Ranking of the humour categories for “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcast” in the group discussions compared to the occurrence in the film “Lilly the Witch” (2009). (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all statements concerning films that were seen in cinemas, on DVD or on TV, n = 164; all humour categories appearing in the film “Lilly the Witch” (multiple answers possible), n = 808; for the statements according to duration, basis: all humour categories appearing in the film “Lilly the Witch” (multiple answers possible), n = 808)

and “degradations” (4% film, 0.6% group discussions). So, on the one hand, humour is less often created through sounds, but at the same time more humour is expressed through language than children list in the discussions. The film also has

4.4 Film Analyses

305

twice as many humorous scenes in which imitations and parodies play a role than children generally mention for films. “Degradations” play a disproportionately large role in comparison to the mentions in the film, even if the count value is low at 4% by frequency. Medium deviations are found for the categories “aesthetics” (14.9% in the film, 22% in the group discussions) and “mishaps/misfortunes of others” (12.4% in the film, 17.7% in the group discussions), both of which thus occur somewhat less frequently in the film than mentioned by children for films. The category “playing with expectations/surprising twists,” on the other hand, occurred more frequently in the film than in the group discussions (17.3% film, 13.4% group discussion).

4.4.9 Wicki and the Strong Men (2009) According to the producing company Ratpack, the film was shot in 61 days and had a calculated budget of €14.555 million. The film was released on 09.09.2009 and by the end of the year had been seen by 4,891,161 viewers. The film was directed by Michael “Bully” Herbig, who also took on the supporting role of the Spanish court journalist and wrote the screenplay with Alfons Biedermann. Other roles are played by Jürgen Vogel, Günther Kaufmann, Christoph Maria Herbst and Nora Tschirner. The character of young Wicki is based on the book by Swedish author Runer Jonsson (Wicki und die starken Männer), for which he won the German Youth Literature Prize in 1965. In the 1970s, the character became known primarily through an animated series on ZDF.

4.4.9.1 Content and Genre Right at the beginning of the film, the chief’s son Wicki rescues a doll from a wolf’s den for his girlfriend Ylvi. During the subsequent pursuit by the wolf, Wicki successfully distracts the beast in a cunning way with the help of a pair of stuffed trousers. For Wicki’s father Halvar, however, who has just returned from a raid with his men, courage and brawn count for more than cleverness. In a competition with his son Wicki to carry heavy stones across a stream, Wicki again proves that, even as a small boy, with the right idea you can win against the big ones and you don’t even have to be particularly strong to do it. Only reluctantly can Halvar concede defeat, because he wants to convince his son that strength and muscles are the most important things for a Viking, especially for the chieftain’s son.

55

 Information from the production company Ratpack via email from 03.07.2014.

306

4  Empirical Part

During the night, the village celebrates the return of Halvar’s men. Early in the morning, Wicki, who is trying out a kite with the help of Ylvi, discovers enemy ships approaching. Masked warriors attack the village and kidnap all the children, while Wicki is carried away by his flying kite and lands in a tree after Ylvi accidentally lets go of the safety line to warn the village. Chief Halvar and his men take up pursuit, unaware that Wicki has also snuck aboard. By the time he is discovered, it is too late to turn back. Wicki finds out that the terrible Sven is behind the kidnapping of the children. According to legend, only a child who has never told a lie can sound the Horn of Toele, which points the way to a treasure. That’s why the terrible Sven has kidnapped the children: He hopes that among them is one who has never lied to get to the treasure. Subsequently Wicki has some adventures with the crew, getting lost on a sinking ship. His father Halvar is devastated because he believes Wicki has drowned. Unfortunately, in a chest that washes up one finds not Wicki, but the beautiful, shipwrecked Chinese woman Lee Fu, whose family has been abducted and whom she fears she will never see again. Wicki, meanwhile, falls into the clutches of the terrible Sven, but manages to free himself and, pulled by dolphins, water skis back to Halvar’s ship, where he is gushingly embraced by his father. Together with Lee Fu they set off for Treasure Island. There they get into a scuffle with terrible Sven’s men. Through Wicki’s ideas, involving an improvised cable car and the use of flying kites, the children, including Ylvi, can be rescued and the treasure recovered. They all escape on Halvar’s ship, which can now fly. Back home, Wicki lobbies for Lee Fu to get the treasure so she can ransom her family. The film “Wicki and the Strong Men” is on the one hand a parody. The exaggeratedly comic portrayal here refers less to the children’s animated series from the 1970s, but works off stereotypical ideas of masculinity, being a warrior, a Viking and an adventurer, courage and fearfulness, courtship, national stereotypes and male-female relationships. Linguistic accents are exaggerated, music is used ironically, and pictorial punchlines are used abundantly, for example, to caricature the weight of men (an entire rowboat lifts out of the water in the “Kleines Boot” {Little Boat] scene, minute 58 of the play, so that the oar blades can no longer reach the water because the chief of the enemy Vikings, the “terrible Sven,” is so heavy). Historical incidents are intentionally misrelated to the Vikings and caricatured, such as the spoils of the returning men at the beginning of the film (Indian jewelry, the Mona Lisa with a Viking helmet, Greek columns, etc.). Contemporary vocabulary is used parodically in the context of the crude Vikings: Thus, in the scene “Eltern als Angestellte” (Parents as Employees) (50th minute), the “terrible Sven” complains that the “employees” are getting older and older. Michael “Bully”

4.4 Film Analyses

307

Herbig as the clerk of the “Royal Spanish Dispatch Service” asks the assembled village community about the “robbery yield compared to the last quarter” (“Festmahl im Festsaal” [Feast in the Banquet Hall], minute 20). The comedy of this question here also gains colour from the heavily exaggerated Spanish accent. In addition to this affiliation with parody, however, the film must also be clearly counted as belonging to the adventure genre (so also Tatsch 2010, p. 160). With Wulff (2004), the rudimentary prerequisites of an adventure film can be named: Travel is associated with adventure like no other activity. One who sits at home will not be able to attain adventure. Moving out of one’s home, a movement that may span the whole world and in any case leads to regions where dangers threaten: these are prerequisites for the adventurous to occur at all. (Wulff 2004, p. 12)

Lange (2007) takes a similar view: The characteristic plot of an adventure story comprises three equally stereotypical situations: the setting out into an uncertain foreign land, the encounter with various dangers, which he heroically passes, and the success at the destination, be it a treasure, the triumph of a just cause, the fulfilment of a mission, the longed-for return home. (Lange 2007, p. 100)

Wicki and his strong men set off by ship to find the kidnapped children of the village. They have to fight against enemy warriors and, in addition to the kidnapped children, eventually find a treasure. Action is clearly at the forefront for this genre: … the inner life of the actors, their inner conflicts, but also their drives and motives play a rather secondary role. The character of the figures is shifted entirely to action and the athletic, “fisticuffs” their primary characteristic. (Wulff 2004, p.16)

All these action components can also be found in the film: there is scuffling, fighting with enemies, rappelling, arguing, running, escaping and finally flying with an entire ship as if it were an airplane. Here the genre is ironised in many ways, not least by the infantilisation of the male adults.

4.4.9.2 Sample Humour Sequence The selected humour sequence “Wicki als blinder Passagier” (Wicki as a stowaway) from the film “Wicki and the strong men” (Michael “Bully” Herbig, 2009) starts in minute 30. In the morning, after the men in the village have set out with their ship to find the kidnapped children, Wicki’s mother enters the remains of the house destroyed by the enemy attack and wants to wake Wicki. Instead of her son,

308

4  Empirical Part

however, there is only a straw doll in bed, while at the same time Wicki is discovered on the ship in a barrel as a stowaway. The scene is a good 50 seconds longer and, with 22 shots, more extensive than an average humour sequence in the film (17.8 seconds with 6.8 shots).56 However, this humour sequence can be used very well to illustrate the peculiarities and cinematic implementation of humour in the film. The humour sequence has four overlaps, thus offering hypotactic humour on four levels (Fig. 4.30).

4.4.9.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene The humour sequence “Wicki als blinder Passagier” contains eight humour categories, which are hypotactically distributed over four overlapping humour sections by means of a clever montage. In total, the film features57 47 hypotactic humour sequences (Fig. 4.31). In the first part “Wickis Versteck,” which is implemented in shots 1–5, the humour categories Mishaps and Misfortunes of Others (2), Playing with Expectations/ Surprising Twists (3), Mistaken Identity/Misunderstanding (6) and Pranks (9) are fulfilled (code numbers in brackets): (2) “Mishaps/mosfortunes of others,” because the charred house with its destroyed front, although announcing the raid of hostile Vikings, serves as a backdrop for a comic view through grotesque use: although one could easily get into the house through the completely burnt wall, Wicki’s mother carefully opens the front door, which is the only one left standing; (3) “Playing with expectations/surprising twists” because, for one thing, the destroyed house is still entered as if it were complete. For another, because of the exposition, the audience has already seen Wicki several times as an intelligent and cunning child. The wake-up scene and especially the approach to the bed Wicki is supposedly lying in will therefore make most viewers suspect that Wicki will most likely not be lying in his bed;

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Tables,” line 9, 19, column F. 57  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Wicki,” line 144, column J (hypotactic humour sequences are marked in yellow). 56

4.4 Film Analyses

309

1

— Beginning of the humor sequence “Wicki as a stowaway” — — four humor parts — — Beginning of the first humor part “Wickis Versteck” — Wicki’s mother approaches the half-charred house, but enters it through the door anyway, even though the entire front of the house is missing, and peers into a corner of the room. MOTHER (Wicki.

2

We see Wicki’s bed in the corner. The ceiling is vaulted, but it remains hidden who lies underneath.

3

Vicki’s mother closes the squeaky door and approaches the bed with a bowl. MOTHER Honey, you really need to...

Fig. 4.30  Screenshots of all shots of the sample humour sequence “Wicki als blinder Passagier” from the film “Wicki” (2009). (Source: Screenshots from own survey, “Wicki” Constantin Film 2009)

310

4  Empirical Part

4

We’re approaching the bed. MOTHER ...eat.

5

The mother pulls away the thwart and pauses in astonishment. MOTHER (Wicki. --- End of the first part of “Wicki’s Hideaway” —

6

--- Start of the second Humor parts “A fish” We see Wicki sitting in a barrel. A man is standing in front of the barrel. Wicki looks at the man from below, holds his index finger in front of his mouth and by this gesture tells him not to betray him. WICKI Pssssst.

Fig. 4.30 (continued)

4.4 Film Analyses

311

7

A fat Viking (Faxe) looks into the barrel. In the background we see the red and white striped sail of the Viking ship. FAXE (to Wicki) What are you doing?

8

Wicki’s father sees Faxe working on the barrel and comes rushing over. WICKIS FATHER Faxes. I said hands off the bread barrel. Wicki’s father reaches for the barrel lid.

9

Wicki’s father slams the lid shut with an imperious gesture. Wicki’s fingers are clamped on the edge. Faxe grimaces. WICKI (OFF) Ow-a.

10

Suspiciously, Wicki’s father pauses. WICKIS FATHER What was that?

Fig. 4.30 (continued)

312

4  Empirical Part

11

Faxe thinks about it. Then he comes up with an answer. FAXE A fish.

12

Wicki’s father looks at Faxe knowingly, but seems to be content with the answer, when suddenly a voice is heard from the barrel. WICKI (OFF) (distorted in pain) Oah.

13

Wicki’s father looks at Faxe admonishingly and opens the lid again.

14

Wicki’s father and Faxe bend over the edge of the barrel. WICKIS FATHER (dumbfounded) Oh. --end second humor part “A Fish”---

Fig. 4.30 (continued)

4.4 Film Analyses

313

15

--- Beginning third humor part “Wickis Puppe” We see a straw doll lying in Wicki’s bed. MOTHER (OFF) This...

16

Wicki’s mother is standing in front of the bed, still holding the bowl. MOTHER ...you’ve got to be kidding me. --- End of third humor part “Wickis Puppe” ---

17

--- Start of the fourth Humor parts “Delighted” Wicki’s father and Faxe look into the barrel. Wicki’s father shakes his head in disbelief. WICKIS FATHER If that Ben- gel sneaks onto the ship...

Fig. 4.30 (continued)

314

4  Empirical Part

18

Wicki’s father and Faxe bend over the barrel. Wicki looks up from the barrel at the two men. WICKIS FATHER And you’re helping him do it, too. FAXE I just popped the lid. WICKIS FATHER I don’t want you to open any doors.

19

Wicki looks up from the sound to his father. WICKI But I only want to save Ylvi.

20

Wicki’s father admonishingly points his index finger down to Wicki, which we learn from Wicki’s POV 118. WICKIS FATHER A Viking ship is not a playground for children. In the background, the Viking on the lookout of the mast turns and roars down.

EXCERPT I’m not charmed, sir. Fig. 4.30 (continued)

4.4 Film Analyses

315

21

Wicki’s father turns around in anger and yells back. WICKIS FATHER How about me?

22

The lookout points forward. EXCERPT Ships in sight. --- End of the fourth humorparts “delighted” ----- End of the humor sequence “Wicki as a stowaway”.

Fig. 4.30 (continued)

(6) “Mistaken identity/misunderstanding” (6), as the mother thinks that the ball of yarn under the covers must be Wicki, at least until she flips back the covers and exclaims, “Wicki!” in amazement. (9) “Prank(s),” because the fact that Wicki is playing a trick on his mother is already implied here, even if the resolution of the prank is only revealed later through a very clever match-cut montage.58 We only find out where Wicki is actually hiding in the second humour part “Ein Fisch,” in shots 6–14. After the astonished face of the mother at the end of the first humour part, one now actually expects the POV of the mother in the montage, i.e. what she glimpses. Instead, we see Wicki crouching in a barrel and telling a fat

 A match cut is understood to be a montage that connects the content of two shots that are separated in space and/or time by means of a visual parallel (cf. Bienk 2006, p. 78; Maiwald 2010, p. 170). In this case, the connecting elements are the place where Wicki is assumed to be by his mother (the bed at home) and the place where he actually is (the barrel on his father’s ship) as well as the respective astonished faces of the mother and the father. The two places are connected by a cut from the cover being thrown back to inside the barrel (shot 5 to 6) and cuts from the astonished father looking into the barrel to the bed where the straw doll is lying (shot 14 to 15) and from the astonished mother to the astonished father (shot 16 to 17). 58

316

4  Empirical Part

Fig. 4.31  Screenshot of the humour sequence “Wicki als blinder Passagier” from the film “Wicki” (analysis programme Akira III – view humour categories). (Source: Screenshot of own survey, “Wicki” Constantin Film 2009)

Viking (Faxe), whose belly only protrudes into the picture, with his finger to his lips ro be quiet and not to betray him. The humour section “Ein Fisch” fulfills the humour categories mishaps/misfortunes of others (2), playing with expectations/surprising twists (3), language/wordplay/meaning (5), confusion/misunderstanding˗confusion (6), and pranks (9). Specifically, there are (code numbers in parentheses): (2) “Mishaps/misfortunes of others,” because Wicki was obviously discovered by Faxe in the ship’s barrel as a stowaway, and he then also gets his fingers pinched when his father reprimands Faxe in the mistaken assumption that the latter has tampered with the rations and without further ado slams the lid of the barrel shut, causing Wicki to howl in pain. (3) “Playing with expectations/surprising twists” because the finger pinching isn’t predictable (nor is the elegant editing that cleverly links the discovery of Wicki’s mother and father); (5) “Language/wordplay/meaning,” because Faxe’s helpless claim that a fish made the sound from the barrel, even though every child knows that fish cannot speak and are mute, is conceivably unsuitable to be used as an excuse. (6) “Mistaken identity/misunderstanding” because Wicki’s father doesn’t fall for this red herring for long either;

4.4 Film Analyses

317

(9) “Prank(s),” because Faxe’s aim is to change Wicki’s father’s behaviour: he should let the matter rest. Wicki’s father will only notice that a trick is being played on him when he has lifted the lid of the ship’s barrel. Instead of starting with the POV of Wicki’s father, the third humour part now starts with the POV of Wicki’s mother, which we actually expected at the end of the first humour part. So we don’t see Wicki sitting in the barrel, but a straw doll that Wicki has placed in his bed at home to make his mother think he is asleep. This renewed match-cut artfully connects the parents’ discoveries, although one scene takes place in the Viking village, the other on the Viking ship. The third humour part, “Wickis Puppe,” thus finally resolves what was set up in the first part and was probably already suspected by many viewers: Wicki has once again tricked the adults. The third part plays in only two shots (nos. 15 and 16) with the humour categories aesthetics (1), mishaps/misfortunes of others (2), playing with expectations/surprising twists (3), confusion/misunderstanding (6) and pranks (9). Specifically, there are (code numbers in parentheses): (1) “Aesthetics,” since a life-size doll in bed is visually unusual. It is obviously not Wicki and thus by its appearance fulfils the characteristic of visually perceptible comedy in the aesthetic sense used here; (2) “Mishaps/misfortunes of others,”, as it is a (small) evil for Wicki’s mother not to find her son where he was supposed to be; (9) “Prank(s),” because on Wicki’s part – as det out in the first humour part – his mother’s misconception was provoked; (6) “Mistaken identity/misunderstanding” because the prank was intended to do just that; (3) “Playing with expectations/surprising twists” as the resolution that it’s not Wicki in bed but a doll is long delayed (and reinforced by the editing). The fourth humour part, “Entzückt” begins with the two-part shot of Wicki’s father and Faxe looking down into the ship’s barrel. Here the shot of the mother from the end of the third part is cut together with the shot of the father (and Faxe). In terms of location, these two shots have nothing to do with each other, but in terms of content, the reaction of the mother and the father is very similar and is marked by bewilderment. In six shots (nos. 17–22), this last humour part of the sequence fulfils the categories of playing with expectations/surprising twist (3), language/wordplay/meaning (5) and imitation/parody (12): (3) “Playing with expectations/surprising twist,” because the lookout who reports ships to Wicki’s father gives the scene a new twist. At the same time, the father’s reaction takes up the meaning of the word “delighted” in a comically unex-

318

4  Empirical Part

pected way. While the sailor on the mast is not “delighted” because he sees enemy ships approaching, which in itself is an expression that seems comically out of place in view of the drama of the discovery, Wicki’s father, in his own words, is not delighted because he has just discovered his son as a stowaway (“Well, maybe I am?”); (12) “Imitation/parody” because the dramatic report of the sailor at the lookout post is thus taken up and placed in a different context; (5) “Language/wordplay/meaning” because this new context occurs by means of language. This humour sequence is notable because it increases the number of humour categories that apply to it through montage alone. If the scene had been cut without a match cut, it would go something like this: Vicki’s mother wants to wake her son and finds that there is a straw doll in bed instead of him and is outraged. Next, the father discovers through Faxe that Wicki has been hiding on his ship and is not “delighted.” In the scene with the mother, the humor categories 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 would be fulfilled once; in the scene with Wicki’s father, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12. Due to the match cut, the categories 3, 6, 9 are doubled in the scene with Wicki’s mother and the categories 3 and 5 in the scene with Wicki’s father. Through montage alone and not through content, a higher density of hypotactic humour is achieved here – according to the frequency of humour categories used. “Wicki,” incidentally, is the only one of the five films analysed that uses such a match cut.

4.4.9.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour Categories in the Sample Scene The humour sequence “Wicki als blinder Passagier” uses, as seen, two motifs: on the one hand, the home village with Wicki’s house, on the other hand, the ship of the Vikings, with which they have set out to find their kidnapped children again. The house at home is more associated with family, as it is also introduced in the film as the place where the family discusses its affairs. For instance, in the humour sequence “Aufklärung” (Enlightenment) in the 7th minute of the film, where Vicki’s father makes a helpless attempt to enlighten his son. The ship was introduced in the very first scene as a means of transportation to explore foreign worlds. Thus, in the humour sequence “Off-Stimme” (Off-screen Voice) (4th minute), the adult Vikings drag Greek statues, a painting of the Mona Lisa, and Indian jewelry off the ship as booty. Of course, these incongruities are parodic in nature, but in their exaggeration they also tell us that the Vikings really did travel far, in space and time.

4.4 Film Analyses

319

So one could say that here, on the one hand, home as a place of rootedness and, on the other hand, the ship as a symbol of adventure are edited against each other. The predominant shot size is the medium close-up (10×), in which all characters are shown at least twice, followed by the American (6×), in which Wicki’s father in particular is seen together with Faxe in a two-shot. Wicki himself only appears in three shots. Nevertheless, the scene is all about him, because the viewer also wonders: where is he? On the other hand, Wicki’s mother and father are the acting, or rather reacting, figures who get to know him. The camera angle is a normal eye-level one in eight shots, low angle in six shots, high angle in four, and shot from a frog’s-eye view in another four shots. The many low and high camera angles are due to the POV’s of the acting characters and show the viewer mainly what Wicki, his mother and his father see. Unlike the rest of the film, this humour sequence is shot quite statically. Only in one shot is a travelling shot used when the mother approaches the bed and we experience this from her POV. The estimated focal length is a wide in eleven cases, creating a comical effect as the figures appear to be bent around a bottleneck. In ten cases a normal focal length can be assumed. The sound and music of the humour sequence are determined by the primary sound and an unobtrusive score, which accompanies the action rather restrained as a “sound carpet”. With 22 shots, the humour sequence is above average for this film, which is 6.8. The lighting mood alternates between a low-key mood for the indoor shots in the house and a medium-key mood for the shots on the ship. Thus, the subjects are also characterized by the lighting mood: dark for the familiar home and brighter for the unknown adventure. The acting alternates, as it does throughout the film, between a realistic one for the child protagonists and a parodic one for the (male) adults, who are caricatured in their reactions, but above all in the attitudes they display, taking aim at the familiar stereotypes of the strong but somewhat simple-minded Viking warrior. Apart from the above-mentioned match-cut montage, the sequence had no special features.

4.4.9.5 The Film “Wicki” and Its Humour The film “Wicki” has film-technical similarities but also peculiarities in comparison to the other films. The humour sequences in the film “Wicki und die starken Männer” are, like the other films in terms of frequency, about 75% shot with a

320

4  Empirical Part

static camera, which at most corrects the image in a compensatory manner. The remaining 25% is made up of tracking shots and panning shots.59 In contrast to the film “Hanni and Nanni,” for example, the predominant shot size is not the American shot, nor the medium close-up shot as in the film “Lilly the Witch”, but the close-up shot with 27.9% of all humour-relevant shots.60 Around 46% of all humour sequences make do with the sound61 resulting from the plot. In about 33% of the cases, underscoring is used. Dynamic music is used relatively frequently, at around 12%, when compared to the other films. “Wicki” also frequently uses “special” music (just under 6%), which is often used for parodic purposes. For example, when in the humour sequence “Treiben auf dem Fest” (Business at the Feast) and “Festmahl im Festsaal” at the 19th minute, in which the village celebrates the men’s return home after a successful raid, the music borrows in a parodic way from Bavarian beer tent sounds. In minute 21, in the sequence “Unser Lied” (“Our Song”), the entire village sings a ribald song and dances to it. Hawaiian music is also used ironically in the sequence “Fenster auf” (“Open the window”) in the 38th minute, when two Vikings talk under water. Thus, in the film, music is used for the humour sequences as a means of generating and enhancing humour. Among the five productions analysed, “Wicki” is without doubt the one with the highest humour density. On the one hand, this is due to the running time in which humorous scenes are implemented. With about 40 minutes, the humorous scenes have a share of 48%62 of the total playing time of 01:24 h. This already corresponds to the highest humour share of all films. However, the extraordinary complexity of the humour density becomes even clearer when one looks at the case figures for the number of humour sequences. Compared to the 78 humour sequences in the 35 minutes of the film “Lilly the Witch”, “Wicki” has 136 humour sequences in about the same time.63 That means that in “Wicki” the running time is used almost

 Cf. digital appendix (avaialble in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC3. Wicki 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 Wicki Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen Einzeln,” line 361 f., column D. 60  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC3. Wicki 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 Wicki Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen Einzeln,” line 189, column D. 61  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC3. Wicki 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 Wicki Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen Einzeln,” line 419 ff., column D. 62  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University Potsdam-Babelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Tables,” line 11, column F. 63  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University Potsdam-Babelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Tables,” line 8, column F. 59

4.4 Film Analyses

321

twice as intensively for a humorous realisation of the film plot as in “Lilly the Witch.” Also the number of humour parts is with 229 the highest of all examined films. On average, there is a gag every 22 seconds in the film. Thus, the gag density in “Wicki” is even higher than in TV comedy shows, in which, according to Knop (2007), a linguistic gag occurs every 24 seconds and a visual gag only once per minute (cf. Knop 2007, p. 146; discussed here in Sect. 3.3.3.4, p. 91). According to frequency, the acting64 is parodistic (48.9%) and realistic (47%) in roughly equal proportions. The high parodistic share is also explained by the film’s genre, which will be discussed later. As mentioned above, it is mainly the adult characters who are portrayed in a parodic manner. With the exception of a few female characters, this applies to all Viking characters without exception, where the stereotype of the rugged and strong warrior is made fun of and replaced with a naïve, childlike portrayal. The men act more like obtuse but sympathetic children than determined warriors, and can all be described as comic characters. Michael “Bully” Herbig’s performance as a Spanish court correspondent, who comments on and questions the events of the Vikings sometimes off-screen, sometimes in a journalistic manner in the plot, fits into the overall parodic scenario in this context. In an exaggerated way, not only the stereotypical journalist, but also the image of a (fiery) Spaniard is parodied through a strong Spanish accent, who tries out his amorous desires in a caricatured way on the thoughtful Lee Fu, for example, in the scene “Eroberungsversuch des spanischen Reporters” (Attempted conquest of the Spanish reporter) in the 55th minute. Numerous slapstick interludes reinforce this kind of acting and character direction. The children, on the other hand, above all Wicki, solve tricky situations with wit and understanding, which does not make isolated parodic scenes impossible. In the sequence “Fische Essen” (Eating fish) for example, Ylvi dreamily pines after Wicki while putting a live fish in her mouth to eat it (19th minute). She is also shown comically pain-free in the “Wicki weckt Freundin” (Wicki wakes up girlfriend) scene: early in the morning, Wicki throws small stones at Ylvi’s shutter to wake her up. When nothing happens, he tries a bigger one. Just at that moment Ylvi opens the wooden shutter, gets the stone right in the face and topples away backwards. Wicki is startled, but Ylvi immediately comes back to the window and thanks him, “… I’ve always wanted a stone like that.” The film also contains numerous scenes that are parodically aimed at an adult audience. For example, the aforementioned scene “Aufklärung” in the 7th minute

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC3. Wicki 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 Wicki Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen Einzeln,” line 507 ff., column D. 64

322

4  Empirical Part

of the film is preceded by the scene “Dessous” (Lingerie), in which Wicki’s father wants to give his wife an oversized pair of women’s underpants as a souvenir of his robbery. Wicki’s mother then says “Ooh, that’s hot” and Wicki’s father can only smirk and agree with her, not realizing that his wife had just taken a hot loaf of bread out of the oven and didn’t mean his gift. Eroticism and male-female relationships are satirised in this way every now and then in the film. Such multiple addresses will hardly be grasped by children in their intertextuality (see also Tatsch 2010, p. 159). However, the high humour density of the film guarantees that the child viewers are “picked up” by other, age-appropriate humour content. The analysed humour categories of the film “Wicki and the Strong Men” can be represented graphically as follows (Fig. 4.32). The graph clearly illustrates the complex hypotactic humour density of the film. What is particularly striking is the high number of overlapping humour parts in almost all humour categories. Unlike in the film “Lilly the Witch”, for example, there are no visible “holes” or pauses in the humour flow. In this way, there is almost no part of the film that is not enriched with humour. Hypotactic humor is almost the rule here. Suspense is used sparingly in the film. In the scene “Pannen auf feindlichem Schiff” (Breakdowns on an enemy ship) in the 36th minute of the running time, for example, information is used in the foreground and background. While Wicki’s father Halvar is speaking to his men, a huge dragon head appears in the background, the kind familiar from Chinese pageants. The viewer knows that it is Wicki who is trying to pull himself up by a rope, thus lifting the dragon’s head. The men stare at the monster head in fright, only Halvar wondering what isactually wring with his men. Only when he turns around does he see the reason for their fearful expressions. In panic they all scatter, a torch falls to the ground and ignites a box of fireworks – the chaos is perfect. Comedy also arises from absurdities that are easy for child viewers to see through as such. For example, a “conversation” between two Vikings, who appear several times in the course of the film as comical buddy figures in Laurel and Hardy style, is reproduced under water with subtitles (humour sequence “Fenster auf”, 38th minute of the film). That you can’t talk underwater, at least not in a way that allows for discussion, is something every child knows. Disregarding this fact, a comical effect is created, which is underlined by accompanying Hawaiian music (apart from the absurd dialogue in which one Viking under water warns his buddy not to open the window of the already sunken ship, because then even more water would come in). Wicki’s escape from the “terrible Sven” also seems almost fantastic when he flees on water skis pulled by dolphins to the well-known Wicki song (scene: “Wicki

4.4 Film Analyses

323

3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS1 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS2 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS3 4 Deviation from the norm/absurdity 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS1 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS2 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS3 1 Aesthetics 1 Aesthetics ÜS1 1 Aesthetics ÜS2 1 Aesthetics ÜS3 12 Imitation/parody 12 Imitation/parody ÜS1 12 Imitation/parody ÜS2 12 Imitation/parody ÜS3 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS1 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS2 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS3 5 Language/wordplay/meaning 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS1 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS2 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS3 11 Sound and noises 11 Sound and noises ÜS1 11 Sound and noises ÜS2 11 Sound and noises ÜS3 10 Delicate topics 10 Delicate topics ÜS1 10 Delicate topics ÜS2 10 Delicate topics ÜS3 6 Confusion/misunderstandings 6 Confusion/misunderstanding ÜS1 6 Confusion/misunderstanding ÜS2 5a Speech sound 5a Speech sound ÜS1 5a Speech sound ÜS2 5a Speech sound ÜS3 7b Degradation because of stupidity 7b Degradation because of stupidity ÜS1 7b Degradation because of stupidity ÜS2 7a Degradation of an authority 7a Degradation of an authority ÜS1 7 Degradation 7 Degradation ÜS1 7 Degradation ÜS2 7 Degradation ÜS3 9 Pranks 9 Pranks ÜS1 9 Pranks ÜS2 7c Degradation as compensatory justice 7c Degradation as compensatory justice ÜS1 7c Degradation as compensatory justice ÜS2 13 Bad + non jokes ÜS1 13 Bad + non jokes ÜS2

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.32  Temporal duration of humour categories in the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey, data according to duration, basis: all humour categories appearing in the film “Wicki” (multiple answers possible), n = 1112)

auf Skiern” [Wicki on skis], minute 43). This scene, among many others, is also a testament to the visually sophisticated realisation, which, with the help of many trick effects, effectively serves the humour category “aesthetics” in particular. If we summarise the overcategories and subcategories to the respective main category, the most frequent humour categories in the film “Wicki” are mainly: “Playing with expectations/surprising twist” (19.2%), “Deviations from the norm/ contradiction” (14.3%), “Language/word joke/meaning” (12.8%), “imitation/parody” (11.7%) and “aesthetics” (11.2%) (Table 4.15).

324

4  Empirical Part

Table 4.15  Frequency of individual humour categories in the film “Wicki” (2009) “Wicki and the Strong Men”: Frequency of humour categories (multiple answers) in the film % (Total Humor category N % N rounded) 1 Aesthetics 97 8.7% 1 Aesthetics ÜS1 18 1.6% 1 Aesthetics ÜS2 5 0.4% 1 Aesthetics ÜS3 4 0.4% 124 11.2% 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others 81 7.3% 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS1 21 1.9% 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS2 9 0.8% 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of other ASCs3 3 0.3% 114 10.3% 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists 150 13.5% 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists 40 3.6% ÜS1 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists 16 1.4% ÜS2 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists 7 0.6% 213 19.2% ÜS3 4 Deviation from the norm/absurdity 113 10.2% 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS1 31 2.8% 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS2 12 1.1% 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS3 3 0.3% 159 14.3% 5 Language/wordplay/meaning 70 6.3% 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS1 25 2.2% 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS2 7 0.6% 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS3 6 0.5% 5a Speech sound 27 2.4% 5a Speech sound ÜS1 5 0.4% 5a Speech sound ÜS2 1 0.1% 5a Speech sound ÜS3 1 0.1% 142 12.8% 6 Confusion/misunderstandings 32 2.9% 6 Confusion/misunderstanding ÜS1 9 0.8% 6 Confusion/misunderstanding ÜS2 3 0.3% 44 4.0% 7 Degradation 17 1.5% 7 Degradation ÜS1 9 0.8% 7 Degradation ÜS2 2 0.2% 7 Degradation ÜS3 1 0.1% 7a Degradation of an authority 20 1.8% (continued)

4.4 Film Analyses

325

Table 4.15 (continued) “Wicki and the Strong Men”: Frequency of humour categories (multiple answers) in the film % (Total Humor category N % N rounded) 7a Degradation of an authority ÜS1 4 0.4% 7b Degradation because of stupidity 7 0.6% 7b Degradation because of stupidity ÜS1 2 0.2% 7b Degradation because of stupidity ÜS2 1 0.1% 7c Degradation as compensatory justice 1 0.1% 7c Degradation as compensatory justice ÜS1 1 0.1% 7c Degradation as compensatory justice ÜS2 1 0.1% 66 5.9% 9 Pranks 7 0.6% 9 Pranks ÜS1 3 0.3% 9 Pranks ÜS2 2 0.2% 12 1.1% 10 Delicate topics 30 2.7% 10 Delicate topics ÜS1 8 0.7% 10 Delicate topics ÜS2 4 0.4% 10 Delicate topics ÜS3 2 0.2% 44 4.0% 11 Sound and noises 48 4.3% 11 Sound and noises ÜS1 9 0.8% 11 Sound and noises ÜS2 3 0.3% 11 Sound and noises ÜS3 1 0.1% 61 5.5% 12 Imitation/parody 96 8.6% 12 Imitation/parody ÜS1 23 2.1% 12 Imitation/parody ÜS2 7 0.6% 12 Imitation/parody ÜS3 4 0.4% 130 11.7% 13 Bad + non jokes ÜS1 2 0.2% 13 Bad + non jokes ÜS2 1 0.1% 3 0.3% Total 1112 100.0% Source: Own survey, data according to frequency and in percent, basis: all humour categories appearing in the film “Wicki” (multiple answers possible), n = 1112

If we now compare the analysed humour categories of the film with the children’s favourites from the group discussions, the following graph emerges (taking into account the frequency and duration of the humour categories used; Fig. 4.33). The categories “deviations from the norm/misunderstanding” and “confusion/ misunderstanding” harmonise particularly well with the results of the group discussions. For all other categories, large deviations of the analysed occurrence compared to the mentions in the group discussions can be observed. “Degradations,” for example, can be traced 10 times more frequently in the film than in the group

326

4  Empirical Part

Aesthetics

22

11.2 11.7

Mishaps + misfortunes of others

17.7

10.3 10.4

Deviation from the norm/ absurdity

16.5 14.3 14.1

Sound + noises

14

5.5 5.4

Playing with expectations/ surprising turn

13.4

19.2 19.2

4.3 4 3.7 3.7

Confusion/misunderstanding Pranks

1.1 1

3.7

3

Imitation/parody

3

Delicate issues

11.7 10.4 4 4.1

Wicki (2009) Humour categories according to frequency (n= 1,112)

1.8

Language/wordplay/meaning

0.6

Degradation

Cinema + DVD films + TV broadcasting (statements in group discussions; n= 164)

12.8 13.2 Wicki (2009) Humor categories by time duration (total time humor multi= 00:44:09 = 2.649 seconds)

5.9 6.6

0 0.3 0.1

Bad + non jokes

0 0 0

Own mishaps/misfortunes 0

5

10

15

20

25

Fig. 4.33  Ranking of the humour categories for “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcast” in the group discussions compared to the occurrence in the film “Wicki” (2009). (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all statements concerning films that were seen in cinemas, on DVD or on TV, n = 164; all humour categories appearing in the film “Wicki” (multiple answers possible), n = 1112; for the statements according to duration, basis: all humour categories appearing in the film “Wicki” (multiple answers possible), n = 1112)

4.4 Film Analyses

327

discussions (5.9% film, 0.6% group discussion). The same applies to the category “language/wordplay/meaning” (12.8% film, 0.6% group discussion). “Imitations and parodies” are also almost four times more frequent in the film than in the group discussions (11.7% film, 3% in the group discussions). “Playing with expectations and surprising twists” are detectable almost a third more often in the film than in the groups (19.2% film, 13.4% group discussions). “Wicki” is therefore, on the one hand, a film that is much more often conspicuous for its derogatory and linguistic humor, as well as parodies, than children favoured in the groups. Surprises and twists in the humorous plot are also more ­cinematic. On the other hand, it is noticeable that the film lags behind the children’s favourites in many humour categories, if the percentage distribution of mentions is taken as a yardstick. Aesthetic humour is used only half as often as children reflect it in their narratives (11.2% in the film, 22% group discussion). However, “Wicki” is the only film that is clearly set in a bygone era. It can therefore also be argued that, due to the permanent location in a parodistically reworked Viking world and time through costumes and props, a permanent aesthetic humour can also be assumed. In the case of “sounds and noises” (5.5% in the film, 14% in the group discussion) as well as in the case of “mishaps/misfortunes of others” (10.3% in the film, 17.7% in the group discussion), the film lags behind the children’s mentions in the groups by more than half. Nevertheless, the film cannot be accused of humorous failure (nor with regard to its resonance with the audience), it just does not coincide with the results of the analysed group discussions. It will be up to the final review to discuss this discrepancy between assumed favourites on the one hand and the actual occurrence of the humour categories on the other.

4.4.10 The Wild Guys 4 (2007)65 The film opened on July 2, 2007 and had 2,454,325 viewers by the end of the year according to the FFA (cf. FFA Info 1/2008, p. 12). As with the previous three parts, the film was directed by Joachim Masannek, who is also the author of the book series on which it is based and who also wrote the screenplay for the film. According to the production company SAM-Film, the film had “about 42 shooting days” and “a budget of approximately 4.3 million euros”.66  In the text, the abbreviation of the German tietel is sometimes used (“DWK4” for “Die wilden Kerle 4”). 66  Information from the production company SAM-Film via email dated 28.10.2015. 65

328

4  Empirical Part

4.4.10.1 Content and Genre The team of the Wild Guys wants to compete in freestyle soccer against the Wolves of Ragnarök. With motorcycles, the gang sets off to their opponents, who dwell in a castle-like fortress in the forest. The Wolves’ encounter with the Wild Guys is marked by hostility from the start. Erik, the leader of the Wolves warns the Wild Guys about the mist and a dangerous world beyond the mist. Sinister creatures would always appear at tournament time and take a special interest in the winners. The youngest girl of the wolves, Klette, annoys the youngest of the Wild Guys, Nerv, in a cheeky way. At the tournament with the Wolves, the score is tied after various competitions. A golden goal by Leon, one of the Wild Guys, finally wins the tournament. Suddenly, a girl named Horizon appears on a motorcycle. She is the leader of the Silver Lights and can handle balls in an almost magical way. The brothers Leon and Marlon are supposed to follow her into the mist. All attempts by Erik and Leon’s girlfriend Vanessa to stop them don’t work. Except for Maxi, all the Wild Guys follow the two to protect them. An amorous competition ensues between the two brothers. Both are fascinated by Horizon. Horizon ensnares one of them and then the other, thus breaking up the brothers, and Vanessa now believes that Leon has been unfaithful to her. The Silver Lights challenge the Wild Guys to a game, but in the meantime the gang has shrunk noticeably: one of them has stayed behind on Ragnarök, Marlon has separated from the group and Vanessa doesn’t seem to belong to it anymore either. On Ragnarök, Maxi’s father suddenly appears and he realises that he belongs to the Wild Guys and drives after them through the fog. Vanessa is convinced by him to forgive Leon. The match against the Silver Lights begins with Marlon apparently siding with the opposition. Leon wants to convince his brother that he does not belong to the Silver Lights. Only in the course of the game does Marlon return to his team, even scoring the decisive goal. After defeating the Silver Lights, Horizon shows up and confesses to Marlon that he’s the one she’s always been waiting for, having decided against hate and revenge and for love at the crucial moment. Klette and Nerv, who have taken a childish liking to each other themselves, watch Horizon and Marlon’s first kiss. Horizon joins the Wild Bunch. According to its genre, the film is on the one hand a sports film, because the specific subject matter (cf. Sicks/Stauff 2010) deals with the variations of freestyle soccer, winning against other teams and the training, preparation and cohesion of one’s own group.

4.4 Film Analyses

329

At the same time, however, the central motif along with the associated characters of a fantasy/fairytale film can be discerned: The opponents and their abilities are transported into the magical and demonic (Friedrich 2003, p. 10 f.), which is further underlined by the conspicuous costuming. Thus, the Wolves team wears tattered earth-colored clothes, while the Silver Lights wear silver turbans and cloth-like robes reminiscent of desert dwellers. In addition, the entire location of the plot’s action, the “setting,” is in a utopian world where children and adolescents are left to their own devices without supervision or adults. The film thus eludes a clear assignment of time. On the other hand, it is difficult to describe the film as a comedy, even though it does contain comedic scenes. Unlike “Lilly the Witch” or “Wicki,” for example, there is a lack of consistent comedic treatment of the plot-guiding motif, which is also reflected by the lack of comic characters and by the low proportion of humorous scenes in the total running time (14.5%). Although the tasks of the heroes, namely defeating the opposing teams, the inner cohesion and the boy-girl theme can also be implemented in the form of a comedy, the film largely dispenses with this: the games of the teams are staged in a serious tone despite surprising ideas by the players and the effective implementation. The question of who belongs and who doesn’t is not light-hearted one, and infatuations for long stretches only lead to further entanglements and conflicts of loyalty, which always endanger the possible victory over the opposing team. So even if subjects from teen movies like first love are touched upon, the film remains true to its basic sporting theme: it’s always about something and this something, the possible victory and the cohesion necessary for it, is a serious matter. The comedic appears here only sporadically.

4.4.10.2 Sample Humour Sequence The almost 45-second humour sequence “Jungen und Mädchen” (Boys and Girls) from the 97th minute of the running time occupies a special position within the film in several respects. On the one hand, it is one of the three sequences that can d­ isplay a three-layered, hypotactic structure, i.e. that work with three overlapping humour parts (the other two humour sequences are: “Aufstehen” (Stand up) 17th minute, and “Fuß gegen Motor” [Foot vs. engine], 93rd minute). In addition to the overlapping parts, there is also the case of a so-called “revue,” i.e. two humour parts follow one another on the same level, as their humour can be understood independently. On the other hand, the humour sequence requires comparatively few shots. The average value for humour sequences in the film “DWK 4” is 9.5 shots, the sample sequence requires only 5.

330

4  Empirical Part

At around 45 seconds, however, it’s more than twice as long as an average humour sequence in this film (20.2 seconds). In this scene, the two youngest members of the formerly hostile football teams “DWK 4” (Nerv) and the “Wolves” (Klette) watch Horizon and Marlon kissing. In the following, a dialogue develops around the question of whether Klette is now allowed to join the Wild Guys (Fig. 4.34).

4.4.10.3 Humour Categories of the Sample Scene The humour sequence “Jungen und Mädchen” contains nine humour categories, which are distributed over four humour parts, of which the first two are on one level and overlap with the following ones. In other words, the last three humour parts relate to each other and only thereby unfold their respective hypotactic humour content. The film features a total of eight hypotactic humour sequences (Fig. 4.35).67 In the first part, “Kuss + Fluch,” which goes to the beginning of the third shot, the categories of aesthetics (1), playing with expectations/surprising twists (3), language/wordplay/meaning (5), degradation (7), and sensitive topics (10) are met (code numbers in parentheses): (1) “Aesthetics” because Nerv contorts his face as if he has bitten into a sour lemon, yet he is merely observing two people kissing; (5) “Language/wordplay/meaning,” because not only Nerv’s facial expression, but also his linguistic reaction “Iii, puke and gag” are in contrast to the observed romantic scene and reminiscent of comic language; (3) “Play with expectations / surprising twists” because Nerv’s reaction is unexpected; (7) “Degradation,” because Nerv’s remarks diminish the events and the protagonists; (10) “Delicate topics”, because the scene plays with the theme of intimacy. One could argue whether Nerv’s disgusted reaction is not a deviation from the norm, since nothing actually happens that would justify a disgusted reaction. But that would correspond to an adult view of things. Measured against the childlike age of the protagonist, Nerv’s reaction is the norm rather than a deviation from it: children find openly displayed intimacy uncomfortable (cf. Fig. 2.2, p. 20). In this respect, Nerv’s behaviour reflects a reaction pattern of his age group.

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” line 13, column G. 67

4.4 Film Analyses

331

1

--- Beginning of the humor sequence “Boys and girls” ----- four humor parts ----- Beginning of the first humor part “Kiss + Curse” --Horizon is standing in front of Marlon. They kiss.

2

Marlon and Horizon kiss.

3

Nerve and Burdock watch the action from a hill. NERV Iiii, puke and gag. --- End of the first humor part “Kiss + Curse” ----- Beginning of the second humorparts on the same level “girl!” CLOCK And now I’m gonna ask you. NERV I beg your pardon? CLOCK Do you mind if I ride along? NERV Nonsense. You’re a girl.

Fig. 4.34  Screenshots of all settings of the sample humour sequence “Jungen und Mädchen” from the film “DWK 4” (2007). (Source: Screenshots own survey, “The Wild Guys 4” Buena Vista Int. 2007)

332

4  Empirical Part

--- End of the second humor part on the same level “Girl!” ----- Beginning of the third humor parts “peeing” --Burdock stands up and turns away from Nerv slightly. CLOCK Are you sure about that? 4

Nerve crossed his arms. NERV Of course. Nerv looks confidently into the landscape. In the background we hear a zipper being opened. There’s a splashing sound, like when someone opens his zipper. Bladder deflated. In disbelief, Nerv turns to face Burdock.

5

Nerv drops his arms in disbelief as he sees what is happening: Burdock pees in the grass standing up like a boy. NERV Just a minute. What are you doing? CLOCK I’m peeing.

Fig. 4.34 (continued)

4.4 Film Analyses

333

NERV That’s not evidence. Even Vanessa can do that. --- End of the third humor part “Pee” ----- Beginning of the fourth humor parts “Look up?” --CLOCK I guess you’ll have to check. NERV I don’t even think about it. CLOCK Hah. You don’t have a choice. Or do you want me to do it like them? Burdock looks to where Marlon and Horizon kissed. Nerve follows her Look. --- End of the fourth humorparts “look up?” ----- End of the humor sequence “Boys and girls” --Fig. 4.34 (continued)

The second humour section (“Mädchen!”), which follows the first on the same level, fulfills the humour categories of Playing with Expectations/Surprising Twists (3), Language/Wordplay/Significance (5), Degradation (7), and Delicate Topics (10). It begins and ends in the third shot. The humour categories in detail (code numbers in parentheses): (3) “Playing with expectations/surprising twists” is fulfilled, as Nerv’s rejection of KLette on the grounds that she is a girl after all is a surprising twist, as not only have the two worked well together in previous scenes against the dubious team of the Silver Lights, but the audience has also learned that the Wild Guys very much include a girl, Vanessa;

334

4  Empirical Part

Fig. 4.35  Screenshot of the humour sequence “Jungen und Mädchen” from the movie “DWK 4” (analysis programme Akira III – view humour categories). (Source: Screenshot of own survey, “The Wild Guys 4” Buena Vista Int. 2007)

(7) “Degradation” is given, for the saying “You’re a girl, after all,” which Nerv uses as a reason why Klette should not be allowed to ride with the Wild Guys, is used in a deliberately contemptuous manner; (5) “Language/wordplay/meaning,” because the strict order with its rigid gender distribution has not been maintained for a long time, so that the argument seems absurd; (10) “Delicate topics,” because it is also about approaches between boys and girls here, and the scene thus does justice to the audience, which has also grown older and has entered puberty. This second humour part unfolds its comedy even without the first. So two comic moments are strung together paratactically, as in a revue number, which is why there is no overlap here. The third humour part “Pinkeln” consists of shots nos. 3, 4 and partly 5. The humour categories aesthetics (1), playing with expectations/surprising twists (3), norm deviations/contradictions (4), delicate topics (10), sound and noises (11) and imitation/parody (12) are fulfilled. The humour categories in detail (code numbers in brackets): (1) “Aesthetics” is a given as a humour category, because having a girl urinate standing up like a boy is visually surprising; (4) “Norm deviations/contradictions”, because normally girls behave differently;

4.4 Film Analyses

335

(11) “Sound and noises” is fulfilled because the familiar splashing sound caused by Klette is deliberately played with here, because at first we don’t see what triggers the sound, until we cut to the dissolving fifth shot. (12) “Imitation/parody” is fulfilled, since Klette poses with her legs apart like a boy while performing her action; (10) “Touchy subjects” because urination and the subliminal boy-girl theme are perpetuated, involving feelings of shame and embarrassment. The fourth and final humour section, “Nachschauen?,” takes place exclusively in the last part of the fifth shot and fulfills the humour categories of Aesthetics (1), Mishaps/misfortunes of Others (2), Playing with Expectations/Surprising Twists (3), Deviations from Norms/Consistency (4), Delicate Topics (10), and Imitation/ Parody (12). In detail: The parodied male pose is continued by Klette here in the same shot and remains the subject of the dialogue, which is why the relevant humour categories remain “valid” (“aesthetics”, “playing with expectations/surprising twists”, “deviations from the norm/contradictions”). In contrast, the aural moment of urinating is no longer humour-triggering here, since we already know from the previous part (in the same shot) to which activity the sound is to be assigned. It becomes apparent here that humour categories do not necessarily depend on cinematic settings, but also on the humorous context of meaning. (2) “Mishaps/misfortunes of others” is present, because when Klette now plays with Nerv’s conviction according to which she is a girl and confuses him with a typical boy action, the wide-legged urinating, this is for Nerv a complete questioning of his values. He now finds himself in an awkward position: how is he supposed to prove that Klette is a girl and thus exclude her from the Wild Guys when she also acts like a boy? (10) “Delicate topics” continue to be addressed, as Klette’s prompt, “Then I guess you’ll have to look,” plays with the anatomical differences between boys and girls. One could also assume the category “language/word joke/meaning” (5) here, because Klette’s challnge to look conjures up an association that Nerv obviously fears (“I don’t even think about it”). It may be a peculiarity of jokes that they play with associations, but then with several conceivable ones. According to the definition given here, however, linguistic contexts, i.e. a play with linguistic meaning in the sense of ambiguity, are necessary for this. Klette’s request to look or otherwise

336

4  Empirical Part

to do “as they do,” namely Marlon and Horizon kissing, is not a linguistic game with several possible associations, but in each case an unambiguous, direct and concrete enactment of a very specific action. Unlike Nerv’s degrading use of the term “girl,” no ambiguous interpretations are conceivable here.

4.4.10.4 Film Technical Implementation of the Humour ­Categories in the Sample Scene The humour sequence “Jungen und Mädchen” uses a single motif, namely the edge of the steppe-like playing field on which the Wild Guys have shortly before defeated the Silver Lights. In this respect, the motif is positively occupied by the previous victory, which is also reinforced by the warm evening light and the conciliatory background music. A close-up shot is used twice for the kissing scene between Marlon and Horizon, a Medium close-up shot twice for Klette and Nerv, and finally a (wide) American shot for the two of them. Despite the close shots of Marlon and Horizon, Klette and Nerv as observers are clearly the main characters here with three long shots. However, this is made clear by the action and the commenting dialogues and less by the choice of shot size. The camera perspective is at eye level with the protagonists, except for the last two shots, which are low angled. How are the low angled shots to be evaluated from a staging point of view? A superior position of the two protagonists is not required by the plot, so there is no need to emphasise it with the help of the camera perspective. On closer inspection, these shots are probably less dramaturgical than practical. When Klette gets up from a half-lying observer position to “pee,” the camera pans upwards with her and thus automatically gets into a low-angle perspective. Technically, a mini-crane would have been necessary to keep up with her movement. Effort and cost probably tipped the scales here in favor of a simple pan. The final shot, in which Nerv and Klette are seen in a wide American shot up to their ankles, is also shot from a similar camera position. Very likely the lens was simply changed here and the camera minimally repositioned. In this respect, the low-angle perspective here is not a staging motive, but rather a pragmatic one. Except for the pan up to Klette, the camera is static, or at most compensates for the actors’ movements. The comic conflicts in the scene are therefore not supported by a moving camera. Nerv’s astonishment at Klette’s “trick” could theoretically have been emphasised more by a different resolution of the scene with a moving camera. Here again, however, practical reasons may have played a role. The evening lighting mood of the scene is a great challenge for filmmakers. On the one hand, it offers a very unique, warm atmosphere, but it only lasts for a very short time and every additional camera setup increases the risk that it will suddenly be

4.4 Film Analyses

337

dark and you will no longer be able to work. This time pressure probably already played a role in the choice of the camera perspective and so also here in the decision for or against a moving camera. The estimated focal length in the first four shots is a long one, i.e. a lens was used that “brings in” objects or protagonists from a greater distance. In the last shot, a wider focal length is chosen in order to be able to show Klette and Nerv almost entirely in the frame. Since this is a scene of observation, this choice of focal length reinforces the feeling of observing something from a safe distance, as if looking at it through binoculars. The focal length here therefore supports the observational behaviour of the protagonists. As mentioned above, the splashing sound of urination is used here for staging purposes and has also been amplified on the sound level. Otherwise, the scene is accompanied by an unobtrusive, harmonious background music that sets the mood for a conciliatory ending. In terms of sound, therefore, there is no attempt to dramatise the humorous potential of the scene by amplifying sound effects between Nerv and Klette. Taking into account the fact that the film DWK4 as a special feature is set in a utopian world in which children ride motorcycles to play a special kind of freestyle soccer and adults play no role at all except for a guest appearance by Uwe Ochsenknecht, the acting in this scene can be considered realistic. There are no exaggerated facial expressions, gestures or articulation. One can imagine that the children would also speak and act in the real world under similar circumstances as in this scene, which makes it easier for the child viewers to identify with the protagonists. In summary, it is noticeable that the humour sequence “Jungen und Mädchen” is only restrained in its filmic implementation of the humorous storyline. There are no effects, which could have strengthened the comedy by means of the camera, the sound and the staging of the actors. However, the viewer has already experienced several humorous scenes with Nerv and Klette, e.g. “Junge gegen Mädchen” (Boy against girl), 23rd minute, or in the overlapping part “Rampe,” (Ramp) 94th minute. He is therefore aware of the ambivalent relationship Nerv has with Klette. On the one hand, Nerv enjoys Klette’s presence, but on the other hand he is still attached to his (childish) idea of a boy, according to which girls are not really acceptable for a football team. Klette, for her part, likes to tease Nerv again and again, be it through football tricks (cf. scenes “Tritte Junge” [Boy kicks] and “Tritte Mädchen” [Girl kicks], 23rd minute) or through provocations as in the sample scene. The “game” between the two is therefore familiar and does not need to be intensified again in their last scene together.

338

4  Empirical Part

4.4.10.5 The Film “The Wild Guys 4” and Its Humour Similar to the other films, around 78% of the humour sequences in the film are filmed with a static camera (by frequency), i.e. contain little movement.68 Just under 22% are filmed with panning and tracking. The most frequent shot size69 is the close-up (22.2%), followed by the medium long shot (21.5%) and the medium close-up (20.6%). So overall, one is quite close to the characters in the film. The many medium long shots are also due to the fact that it is often about whole groups facing each other and can be captured through this shot size. The sound70 resulting from the plot accounts for just under 60% of all humour sequences, only 25% of which are accompanied by background music (score). Dynamic music is used relatively frequently at 10%. However, sound effects are rare (2.9%) and special or live music is almost non-existent (1.4%). Especially in the scenes where the Wild Guys play against the Wolves and the Silver Lights, dynamic music reinforces the action (compare e.g. scene “Tritte Junge” in the 23rd minute and the scene “KCatapult + Fangarm” [Catapult + tentacle] 87th minute). However, the music here emphasises the dynamics of the play and not the comedy as was done in the previous film “Wicki” with deliberately used, clichéd music. With 15 minutes of running time spread over 46 humorous sequences, the share of humorous scenes in the total running time of 106  minutes is very low and amounts to only 14%.71 The film thus contains the second lowest humour density of all films after “Paula’s Secret”. Almost exclusively realistic acting72 (97.6%) is characteristic of the film, the “rest” is accounted for by the humorous opening scene, in which an animated logo is used and only an off-screen voice is heard. Comic characters do not appear in the

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC5. DWK4 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 DWK4 Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen Einzeln,” line 197 ff., column D. 69  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC5. DWK4 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 DWK4 Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen Einzeln,” line 135 ff., column D. 70  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC5. DWK4 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 DWK4 Tabellen.xlsx,, tab “Tabellen Einzeln,” line 249 ff., column D. 71  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Tables,” lines 4, 8, 11, column G. 72  Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC5. DWK4 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 DWK4 Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen Einzeln,” line 335 ff., column D. 68

339

4.4 Film Analyses

film. Neither slapstick interludes nor working with suspense or any other knowledge of the viewer are used to create cinematic humour. Moreover, many of the coded humour sequences are allotted to the character of Nerv and his variants of swearing, such as “Gosch verknotete Mitternachtsknoten” (Gosh,, knotted midnight knots)” (17th minute, sequence “Aufstehen” [Get up]) or “Tintenpechschweflige Finsterwaldkacke” (equivalent to “Inkyblacksulphurous Darkwoodshit”) (26th minute, “Swearing”). The analysed humour categories of the film “DWK4” can be represented graphically as follows (Fig. 4.36). As with other films, the “humour gap” at the beginning of the last third of the running time is noticeable. It is also clear that the film has little multi-layered, hypotactic humour. The humour is essentially characterised by its simple and paratactic structure. In addition to Nerv’s swearing interludes, comedy is created, for example, by absurdities such as in the sequences “Lukas I” and “Lukas II” (25th and 26th minutes of the film), in which a Hau-den-Lukas (high striker) machine measures the shooting strength of the hostile team members as if at a fair, and an animal skull 3 Playing with expectations/ surprising twists 3 Playing with expectations/ surprising twists ÜS1 3 Playing with expectations/ surprising twists ÜS2 1 Aesthetics 1 Aesthetics ÜS1 1 Aesthetics ÜS2 4 Deviation from the norm/ absurdity 4 Deviation from the norm/ absurdity ÜS1 4 Deviation from the norm/ absurdity ÜS2 5 Language/wordplay/meaning 5 Language/wordplay/meaning US1 5 Language/wordplay/meaning US2 7 Degradation 7 Degradation ÜS1 7 Degradation ÜS2 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS1 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS2 11 Sound and noises 11 Sound and noises ÜS1 9 Pranks 9 Pranks ÜS1 9 Pranks ÜS2 10 Delicate topics 10 Delicate topics ÜS1 10 Sensitive topics ÜS2 12 Imitation/parody 12 Imitation/parody ÜS1 12 Imitation/parody ÜS2 13 Bad + non jokes 5a Speech sound

0:00:00

0:0015:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.36  Temporal duration of humour categories in the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey, data according to duration, basis: all humor categories appearing in the film “DWK4” (multiple answers possible), n = 201)

340

4  Empirical Part

slides up the scale. In the “Erfinden” (Invent) scene (31st minute), a wristband hourglass serves as a timepiece, its sands floating in the water. When the “frying pan” is used in the scene of the same name (36th minute), any realistic framework is finally abandoned: the football is caught by means of a green laser beam and then sent into the goal. In general, the way the goal is scored is told in a variety of ways. There is shooting with inhuman acrobatics (e.g. in the scene “Tore” [Goals], 39th minute) and finally even kicking the ball into the goal from a flying motorbike (“Fuß gegen Motor” 93rd minute). Foods are created and named in absurd flavors (“marshmellow Smartie gummy bear fizz” in the “Essen und Brause” [Food and Fizz] scene, 11th minute, or “Brussels sprouts balls in herring aspic” in the “Snacktüte” [Snack bag] scene, 96th minute). As in the sample scene, the theme of girls and boys is taken up (“Mädchen + Kaiser” [Girls + Emperor], in which Klette and Vanessa tease Nerv, 14th minute, and the scene “Mädchen stinken I + II” [Girls Stink I + II], 64th and 65th minutes. Here Marlon and his brother are teasing about girls). If we summarise the overcategories and subcategories to the respective main category, the most frequent humour categories in the film “DWK4” are above all: “Playing with expectations/surprising twist” (22.4%), “Deviations from norms/ contradiction” (18.9%), “Aesthetics” (15.9%), and “Language/wordplay/meaning” (15.4%) (Table 4.16). If we now compare the analysed humour categories of the film with the children’s favourites from the group discussions, the following graph emerges (Fig. 4.37). The categories “deviations from the norm/contradictions” and “pranks” harmonise with the results of the group discussions. All other humour categories deviate strongly in their frequency in the film from the mentions in the group discussions; measured by the duration of the humour category used, aesthetically connoted humour comes close to the value from the group discussion (19.9% compared to the preference value of 22%). In other words, aesthetic humour is used less frequently than the children’s presumed preference, but the duration of the aesthetic humour parts brings it back closer to the preference value in percentage terms. “Mishaps/misfortunes of others,” on the other hand, are used less than one-third as often in films as they are named by the children for films (6.5% in the film to 17.7% in the group discussions). In contrast, film, on the other hand, relies on “language/wordplay/meaning” almost eight times as often (15.4% film, 1.8% group discussions). “Mistaken identity and misunderstandings” play no role at all in the film, but “degradations” are ten times more frequent than in the group discussions (7.5% in the film to 0.6% in the group discussions). Similar to “Wicki,” the film “DWK4” thus relies to an extreme degree on linguistic humor and degradations. In

341

4.4 Film Analyses Table 4.16  Frequency of individual humour categories in the film “DWK 4” “DWK 4”: Frequency of humour categories (multiple answer) in the film Humour category 1 Aesthetics 1 Aesthetics ÜS1 1 Aesthetics ÜS2 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS1 2 Mishaps and misfortunes of others ÜS2 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS1 3 Playing with expectations/surprising twists ÜS2 4 Deviation from the norm/absurdity 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS1 4 Standard deviation/contradiction ÜS2 5 Language/wordplay/meaning 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS1 5 Language/wordplay/meaning ÜS2 5a Voice sound 7 Degradation 7 Degradation ÜS1 7 Degradation ÜS2 9 Pranks 9 Pranks ÜS1 9 Pranks ÜS2 10 Delicate topics 10 Delicate topics ÜS1 10 Sensitive topics ÜS2 11 Sound and noises 11 Sound and noises ÜS1 12 Imitation/parody 12 Imitation/parody ÜS1 12 Imitation/parody ÜS2 13 Bad + non jokes Total

N 24 6 2 9 2 2 34 8 3 30 6 2 26 3 1 1 12 2 1 5 1 1 7 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 201

% 11.9% 3.0% 1.0% 4.5% 1.0% 1.0% 16.9% 4.0% 1.5% 14.9% 3.0% 1.0% 12.9% 1.5% 0.5% 0.5% 6.0% 1.0% 0.5% 2.5% 0.5% 0.5% 3.5% 1.5% 0.5% 2.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 100.0%

N

% (Total rounded)

32 15.9%

13 6.5%

45 22.4%

38 18.9%

31 15.4%

15 7.5%

7

3.5%

11 5.5% 5

2.5%

3 1

1.5% 0.5%

Source: Own survey, data according to frequency and in percent, basis: all humour categories appearing in the film “The Wild Guys 4” (multiple answers possible), n = 201

contrast, “sounds and noises” are hardly used at all. Children mention these almost six times more frequently as a source of humour than they do in the film (2.5% in the film compared to 14% in the group discussions).

342

4  Empirical Part

Aesthetics

22

15.9

19.9

Mishaps + misfortunes of others

17.7

6.5 5.8

16.5 18.9 18.5

Deviation from the norm/ absurdity 14

2.5 3.7

Sound + noises Playing with expectations/ surprising turn

13.4

22.4 24.9

4.3

Confusion/misunderstanding 0 0

DWK4 (2007) - Humour categories by frequency (n= 201)

3.7 3.5 4.1

Pranks

3 1.5 1.6

Imitation/parody

DWK 4 (2007) - Humor categories by time duration (total time humor multi= 00:16:52 =1.012 seconds)

3

Delicate issues

5.5 3.7

1.8

Language/wordplay/meaning

Cinema + DVD film + TV broadcast (statements in group discussions: n= 164)

15.4 10.6

0.6

Degradation

7.5 6.4

0

Bad + non jokes 0.5

0.8

Own mishaps/misfortunes 0 0 0 0

5

10 15 20 25 30

Fig. 4.37  Ranking of humour categories for “cinema + DVD films + TV broadcast” in the group discussions compared to the occurrence in the film “DWK 4” (2007). (Source: Own survey, figures in per cent, basis: all statements concerning cinema films received in the cinema, on DVD or via TV broadcast, n = 164; all humour categories occurring in the film “The Wild Guys 4” (multiple answers possible), n = 201; for the statements according to duration, basis: all humour categories occurring in the film “The Wild Guys 4” (multiple answers possible), n = 201)

4.4 Film Analyses

343

Overall, the impression is that – similar to the other films – the children’s taste in humour, measured by their expressions, is only partially met in the film. Moreover, the humour density in the film is extremely low, as shown. This also becomes clear when one looks at the numbers of humour sequences. While Wicki, for example, has 136 humour sequences in 40 minutes, DWK4 has only 46 sequences in around 15 minutes. How different the films are, both in terms of their humour structure and density, and in terms of their cinematic and other devices, will be discussed in the next chapter.

4.4.11 Comparison of All Films As the individual reviews of the films have already suggested, the films analysed differ in several ways in terms of their humour. Above all, one should mention here: The coverage ratio between preferred and actually implemented humour categories, measured by the mean deviation (median for all humour categories compared), The complexity of the humour offerings, cinematic devices such as the choice of exterior and interior motifs, the presence of certain characters in humour sequences, the camera movements, the use of different camera focal lengths, the sound and the acting, genres, the presence (or absence) of comic characters and the play with suspense.

4.4.11.1 Coverage Ratio Between Children’s Humour ­Preferences and Humour Offerings in the Analysed Films For the (partial) answer to the research question of how humour is implemented in the films, Fig. 4.38 on p. 344 clarifies and summarises the results of the previous chapters in an overview, whereby the focus is now solely on the frequencies, since, as seen, only in the films “Paula’s Secret” and “DWK4” was a larger percentage difference between frequency and temporal length of an individual humour category determined (cf. for “Paula’s Secret” Sect. 4.4.6.5, p. 270; for “DWK4” Sect. 4.4.10.5, p. 338). The frequency of humour category mentions in the group discussions is thus compared with the frequency of corresponding humour parts in the films. The different film lengths are negligible as possibly distorting variables, although there is a difference of around 14 minutes between the shortest film (Hanni and Nanni) and the longest (DWK 4). However, as can be seen from the table below, film length has no influence on the number of humour sequences in the films studied (Table 4.17). The question of whether the use of humour is possibly particularly effective through certain humour categories will also be investigated when it comes to the

11.2

Aesthetics

15.9 14.9

10.7 6.5

Mishaps and misfortunes of others

2.5

16.5 18.9 14.3 15.6 12.9 12 14 5.5 5.9

3.8

12 13.4

Playing with Expectation / Surprising Turn 0

Confusion / Misunderstanding

Pranks

Imitation / Parody 0

4.3 4 4.8 2.7 4 3.7 3.5 1.1 4.5 3.8 4 3 1.5 6 2.7

15.4 12.8 11.6 11.4 14.7

Language / Wordplay / Meaning 0.6

Degradation

4

22.4 19.2 17.3 20.2 20

11.7

3 5.5 4 2.7 1.1 1.3 1.8

Delicate issues

18.6

17.7 10.3 12.4 15.2 12

Deviation from the norm / absurdity Sound + noises

22

7.5 5.9 5.7 9.3

0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.9 0

Bad + Non Joke

0

10

20

30

Mentions GD cinema + DVD films + TV broadcasting (n= 164) DWK4 (n= 201;mA: 6.2) Wicki (n- 1,112; mA: 5.5) Lilly the Witch (n= 808; mA: 3.7) Hanni + Nanin (n= 263; mA: 3.6) Paula’s secret (n= 74: mA: 4.8) mA=mean deviation.

Fig. 4.38  Mean deviation of the humour categories according to frequency in the films and their mentions in the group discussions. (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all statements concerning films that were seen in the cinema, on DVD or on TV, n = 164; basis: all humour categories appearing in the films (multiple answers possible): “The Wild Guys 4”, n = 201; “Wicki”, n = 1112; “Lilly the Witch”, n = 808; “Hanni and Nanni”, n = 263; “Paula’s Secret”, n = 74; mA = mean deviation)

4.4 Film Analyses

345

Table 4.17  Film lengths of the analysed films and their humour density

Total time of the film Total time humour (multi) Sequence count Share of humour (single) in the film Share of humour (multi) in the film

Paula’s Secret 01:34:53

Hanni & Nanni 01:22:20

Lilly the Witch 01:25:10

Wicki 01:24:06

DWK4 01:46:37

00:09:18

00:17:01

00:37:55

00:44:09

00:16:52

N

22

62

78

136

46

%

9.8%

20.6%

40.8%

48.0%

14.5%

%

9.8%

20.7%

44.5%

52.5%

15.8%

Time (hh:mm:ss) Time (hh:mm:ss)

Source: Own survey, data according to time length, frequency and in percent, basis: all analysed films, n = 5

density of humour and the degree of congruence with the children’s humour preferences from the group discussions. The relationship between the frequency of certain humour categories and the success of the films will also be discussed. The following graph now makes it possible to compare the percentage distribution of the humour categories analysed in the films with the children’s mentions of these in the group discussions (red bar, red numbers) (Fig. 4.38). Through the chart, the following becomes clear: some humour categories are served similarly by all films, especially when they over-fulfill the category. This is true for “degradations,” “language/wordplay/Meaning,” and “Playing with Expectation/Surprising Twist.” Here, the differences between the individual films are rather small. Thus, it can be said that the analysed children’s films too often implement humour through degradations and linguistic wit, measured by the frequency of mentions in the group discussions. In addition, they offer more humorous surprises than children prefer. To varying degrees, all the films neglect the children’s need for aural humour. Similarly, although less pronounced, this also applies to the two most prominent categories “aesthetics” and “mishaps/misfortunes of others.”. A film like “Hanni and Nanni,” with 18.6% of all humour categories, already comes very close to the “norm” of 22%, whereas “Paula’s Secret,” with 10.7%, only “half” serves aesthetic humour.

346

4  Empirical Part

However, despite these differences, which also appear in one way or another for other humour categories, looking at the graph gives the impression that, on the whole, the films are similar. The extremes are fairly evenly distributed: sometimes one film over-performs or under-performs in a particular category, sometimes another. This impression is also confirmed by the corresponding values of the mean concrete deviation, across all categories (in the legend of the table, these are the values in brackets under the designation “mA:”). The mean concrete deviation indicates by how many percentage points a film differs on average from the children’s preferences when the deviations of the individual humour categories from the preferences from the group discussions are added together and contrasted73 with the actual occurrence in the film. The higher the value, the higher the deviation. Thus, the film “Hanni and Nanni” shows the lowest deviation with 3.6%, while the film “DWK 4” shows the highest with 6.2%. Ultimately, the deviations of the films from the children’s humour preferences appear to be comparatively small according to this approach, so that a clear interpretation is not initially apparent. More revealing, however, is the examination of the mean relative deviation of recorded humour categories in the films with the children’s preferences from the group discussions. Here, the mean relative deviation is recorded in percentage points. If the “preference value” from the group discussions for the humour category “aesthetics” is 22%, i.e. if 22% of all the children’s mentions fall into this category, “Wicki,” for example, with the specific value of 11.2% of all coded humour parts in the film, thus deviates from this preference value by 49.3%. In other words, “Wicki” only uses the category “aesthetics” in humour parts half as often as would correspond to the children’s preference. The average relative deviation can be calculated according to frequency but also according to temporal length (duration) of the corresponding humour parts. However, due to the peculiarities of so-called overlaps, i.e. humour parts that use humour categories in parallel in terms of time or content, a representation of the temporal length is omitted here, as the repeatedly used humour time does not reflect the linear playing time. In addition, the deviations are small, as could be seen in the overviews of the individual films.74 The following graph therefore shows the mean relative deviations resulting from the comparison of the frequencies of the humour categories in the films with

 cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Potsdam-Babelsberg Film University), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Deviation index,” line 44, columns J-N. 74  cf. Figs. 4.27, p. 294; 4.31, p. 316; 4.35, p. 334; 4.39, p. 348. 73

4.4 Film Analyses

347

the percentage mentions of the humour categories from the group discussions. The red bars and the numbers next to them show the percentage frequency of mentioning the corresponding humour category in the group discussions, while all other bars and values for each film show the mean relative deviation in percent from the (red) values of the group discussions (Fig. 4.39). Now a picture emerges that more clearly shows the deviating degree of coverage between the individual humour categories with the children’s humour preferences from the group discussions. It is striking that three humour categories are “over-fulfilled” by all films: “play with expectation/surprising twist”, “language/ wordplay/meaning” and “degradations.” In the group discussions, children mention these categories far less frequently than is found in all films. For the last two categories, the films even exceed them up to ten times (e.g. for “degradations” in the film DWK 4 by 1066.7%). Judging by the frequency of mentions for the humour category “playing with expectation/surprising twist”, one could assume that the films too often generate humour through surprising twists. Moreover, as could be shown, humorous surprises seem to play an even smaller role for girls than for boys (see above Sect. 4.2.7.2, p. 197). For girls, the films therefore overfulfil this category to a more extreme degree. However, this circumstance can also be interpreted less critically: Firstly, in terms of humour density and, secondly, in terms of the films’ success with actual viewers. It is possible that the overfulfilment of the humour category “Playing with Expectations/Surprising Twist” might not have any detectable influence on the humour density and, for example, the number of viewers. This is supported by the fact that in the case of the category “playing with expectations/surprising twist,” overfulfilment can be found for all films, with completely different humour density and immensely differing audience figures. A correlation between overfulfilment of this humour category, humour density and audience success is therefore ultimately absurd. The deviations for the humour categories “language/wordplay/meaning” and “degradation” are more extreme. Here there are overfulfillments that are four to ten times higher than the children’s preferences. As can be seen from the table on the children’s coded utterances from the group discussions (cf. Table 4.3, p. 176), only three utterances fell into the category “language/word wit/meaning” and only one into the category “degradation.” The preference value in this case is therefore based on very few utterances. On the one hand, this makes it clear what value children attach to this type of humour, namely a rather low value. This interpretation is appropriate for the groups studied, without this now being able to/having to be generalised for other children and groups of viewers, because, as explained above, the qualitative method is about

348

4  Empirical Part

Aesthetics

–27.6 –49.3 –32.5 –15.3 –51.5

Misadventures / misfortunes of others

–63.5 –42.1 –30.1 –14.1 –32.2

Deviation from the norm / absurdity

–13.3 –5.5 –21.6 –27.3

17.70

14.6

16.5

14

–82.2 –60.8 –57.6 –72.8 –14.3

Sound + noises

13.4 67.1 42.9 29.3 50.4 49.3

Playing with Expectation / Surprising Turn –100.0 –8.0

Confusion / Misunderstanding

–38.1 –7.0 –5.9 –70.8

Pranks

–50.2

Imitation / Parody

–11.3 –100.0

Delicate issues

–9.2 –62.0 –55.6

4.3 12.2 3.7 20.4 2.8 8.1 3 289.7 102.1 3 82.4 31.9 1.8 756.8 609.4 546.3 533.7 714.8

Language / Wordplay / Meaning

0.6 832.8 641.9 395.0 612.9 1066.7

Degradation

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bad + Non Joke –110

22

–60

–10

40

90

Mentions GD cinema + DVD film + TV broadcast (n= 164) DWK 4 (n= 201) Wicki (n= 1.112) Lilly the Witch (n=808) Hanni + Nanni (n= 263) Paula’s secret (n= 74)

Fig. 4.39  Mean relative deviation humour categories/movies from children’s humour preferences. (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all statements concerning films that were seen in the cinema, on DVD or on TV, n = 164; basis: all humour categories appearing in the films (multiple answers possible): “The Wild Guys 4 (DWK4)”, n = 201; “Wicki”, n = 1112; “Lilly the Witch”, n = 808; “Hanni and Nanni”, n = 263; “Paula’s Secret”, n = 74)

4.4 Film Analyses

349

typification, and generalisation is only aimed at for contextually similar cases (cf. Sect. 4.2.2, p. 154). For pupils from rather middle-class and educationally close backgrounds in a medium-sized German city in the age group between 8 and 10 years, the interpreted statements and preferences from 2011 can therefore be considered typical. For the humour categories “language/wordplay/meaning” and “degradation,” witha restriction related to the two films “Lilly the Witch” and “Wicki,” it can only be assumed that their overfulfilment does not have a negative, or possibly even a positive influence on the actual audience figures, through the increased humour density that goes hand in hand with the overfulfilment. To put it loosely: the “more” humour may also lead to “more” viewers, regardless of the overfulfilment of the humour categories, measured against the preferences of the children surveyed here. In the case of the film “DWK4”, on the other hand, which can show the highest overfulfilment in both categories, but has the lowest number of viewers of all three films, this rule of thumb is obviously not applicable. Here, another hypothesis may explain the correlation: it could be that a degree of saturation exists from which overfulfilment no longer has an audience-increasing or neutral effect, but instead has the opposite effect, namely a negative influence on audience interest (a completely different question is whether a high agglomeration of degrading humour possibly also has an effect on health, or at least on mood (see above, Sect. 3.3.2, p. 63) and is therefore rejected (cf. Sect. 4.2.7.1, p. 174)). However, this cannot be assumed for the rather harmless mockeries that make up the majority of the degradations in the films examined. The thesis that overfulfilment has a positive effect on viewer behaviour to a certain extent is also supported by the different (under and over) fulfilment values of the films for the humour category “Delicate topics”. If the films “Hanni and Nanni” (−62%) and “Lilly the Witch” (−9.2%) underfulfil this category, it is overfulfilled by the film “Wicki” (31.9%) as well as in the film “DWK 4” (82.4% above the preference value). This is remarkable in that, except for the last film (DKW 4), the increasing proportion of sensitive topics thus correlates with an increasing density of humour (and, as will be seen later, with an increasing number of viewers). This could be an indication that films with a high humour density achieve this in particular by over-fulfilling the humour category “sensitive topics,” and against the assumed preference of the children surveyed here. With regard to the humour category “sensitive topics,” the film “DKK 4” now relies to a particular extent on this type of humour with an overfulfilment of 82.4%, but falls behind “Wicki” both in terms of its humour density and audience figures. Humour density and viewer numbers therefore only seem to be positively influenced to a certain extent by over-fulfilment. It could therefore also be assumed here

350

4  Empirical Part

that there is a kind of saturation level from which overfulfilment of a humour category no longer has the effect of increasing viewer numbers. However, as mentioned several times above, the preferences of the children interviewed here cannot be readily inferred from the preferences of viewers of the films analysed and their success. Therefore, only conspicuous features can be named and assumptions made. In addition, the children surveyed may not have been so aware of the humour category “sensitive topics” and other overfulfilled categories as a source of humour. In addition, it can be assumed that the audience of the analysed films may have different humour preferences than the interviewed children due to their different age, gender and social structure. In the context of this work, humour can therefore only be granted a possible indicative effect on audience interest, which can be derived from the statements of the non-representative group children and can therefore also only be typical for context-similar group compositions. Moreover, significant factors that (co-)influence the success of a film, such as marketing, cast, number of prints, etc., are not the subject of this study. It will therefore be the task of further research to examine how children in representative numbers and selections react to different intensities of certain humour categories and how the resulting preferences are to be weighted with regard to other success factors. Bearing this in mind, both the assumption that there is possibly a degree of saturation up to which overfulfilment has an audience-increasing or at least audience-­neutral effect, and the concerns about the reliability of self-reporting by children for certain humour categories, including “imitations and parodies,” can only be applied with reservations. For it is precisely this latter humour category that is overfulfilled by the two films with the highest humour density, by 102.1% in the case of “Lilly the Witch” and by as much as 289.7% in the case of “Wicki.” Here, too, the suspicion arises that the children in the group discussions were either not so aware of this type of humour, or that the actual viewers of these films, who are composed differently from the participants in the group discussions, have other humour preferences than those of the children in the group discussions, and that this has resulted in the high viewer figures, which do not seem to have been negatively influenced by the overfulfilment of this humour category. What was said about overfulfilment probably also applies to underfulfilment. Measured by the frequency of the humour categories occurring in the films, it can be seen in comparison to the mentions in the group discussions that three categories occur less frequently in all films than would correspond to the assumed preference of the children surveyed. This applies to “sound and noises,” “aesthetics” and “mishaps/misfortunes of others.” Measured by the children’s mentions, the films could therefore have created humour more often with sounds and noises, played more with aesthetic manifestations of humour, and served the mishaps and misfor-

4.4 Film Analyses

351

tunes of others more often. It remains open here, too, to which result a humour density oriented more closely to the preference value would have led for these categories. For the films “Lilly the Witch,” “Wicki” and “DKW 4,” the underachievement in the categories “Sound and noises” and “Mishaps/misfortunes of others” has in any case no discernible connection with the humour density. Since the other two films moreover correspond more to the preference of the group children with regard to these humour categories, but actually have fewer viewers, a correlation between viewer success and the intensity of the under-fulfilment of humour categories is not apparent here either. Instead of examining achievement, whether under or over, it also makes sense to look at which films deviate the least from the preference of the children surveyed when it comes to the use of certain humour categories. The two films with the highest attendance, “Lilly the Witch” and “Wicki,” use three humour categories most in line with children’s preferences: “Playing with expectations/surprising twist”, “Pranks” and “Deviation from the norm/contradiction.” All other films deviated more from the preference values. On the basis of the films studied, this could mean that the use of humour offerings in these categories then has a viewer-attracting effect, provided that it does not deviate significantly from the preferences of the target group surveyed here. It could therefore be that the humour preferences of the group children are similar to those of the actual viewers. Overall, the interpretation of the humour categories used in the films, some of which differ, proves to be difficult and, with regard to the non-transferability of the humour preferences of the children surveyed to actual audience groups, rather speculative  – it must be said openly at this point. More questions than answers arise. Clear humour-relevant differences between the films must consequently be established on the basis of other parameters, insofar as these exist. In the following, we will therefore look at the complexity of the humour density, the relevant technical means of humour, qualitative parameters and the correlation of these values with the respective budget, the number of shooting days and the number of viewers reached by the films.

4.4.11.2 Complexity of Humour Offerings A distinction can be made in cinematic humour between simple, hypotactic and paratactic humour structures (see above Sect. 4.4.3, p. 220). Simple humour is created by solitary humour parts. Similar to a string of main clauses, paratactic humour is characterised by its unlinked possibility of comprehension, whereas hypotactic humour, as in the grammatical structure of main and subordinate clauses, is always dependent on a preceding main humour part. Subsequent gags remain incomprehensible without the understanding of the initial gag. Hypotactic humour is

352

4  Empirical Part

therefore not only structurally more complex, but also intellectually more demanding, because it requires the recognition and understanding of connections and references. This nesting of hypotactic humour contents, which refer to and complement each other, is the main characteristic of a complex humour structure. When comparing the humour structures of all films graphically, the different complexity of the humour used is striking. The following figure disregards individual humour categories, but focuses on the occurrence of simple, hypotactic and paratactic structures. Several tracks or dots below each other at the same position on the X-axis symbolise the degree of hypotactic structure. For example, the movie “Lilly the Witch” has five dots below each other at about 01:12 (marked in green in the figure). At this point in the film, humour is thus cinematically implemented on five interlinked levels. The film “Paula’s Secret,” on the other hand, has only three places in the entire film where it uses multi-layered humour (marked in red in the Fig. 4.40).

Paula Paula ÜS1 Hanni & Nanni Hanni & Nanni ÜS1 Lilly the Witch Lilly the Witch ÜS1 Lilly the Witch ÜS2 Lilly the Witch ÜS3 Lilly the Witch ÜS4 Wicki Wicki ÜS1 Wicki ÜS2 Wicki US3 DWK4 DWK4 ÜS1 DWK4 ÜS2

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.40  Graphical comparison of all films in terms of humour structure (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

4.4 Film Analyses

353

Table 4.18  Proportion of hypotactic humour and humour playtime in all films Film Total playing time Total time humour (single) Total humour sequences Humour parts Humour categories (multiple answers possible) Humour categories per humor part Ø Share of humour sequences in total playing time Total time hypotactic humour sequences Humour sequences hypotactic Share of hypotactic humour in total playing time Visitor numbers

Paula’s Secret 01:34:53 00:09:18

Hanni and Nanni 01:22:20 00:16:58

Lilly the Witch 01:25:10 00:34:47

Wicki 01:24:06 00:40:21

DWK 4 01:46:37 00:15:29

22 25 75

62 64 263

78 155 808

136 229 1112

46 58 201

3

4.11

5.21

4.86

3.47

11.3%

20.6%

40.8%

48.0%

14.5%

00:03:19

00:00:39

00:27:54

00:24:06

00:06:53

3

2

31

47

8

3.5%

0.8%

32.8%

28.7%

6.5%

54,548

868,888

1,220,288

4,891,161

2,454,325

Source: Own survey taking into account the audience figures of the Top 100 of the German Federal Film Board, FFA (FFA-Info 1/2008, p.  12; 1/2009, p.  12; 1/2010, p.  12; 1/2011, p. 10 f.), data according to length of time, according to frequency, in percent and according to amount of audience, basis: all analysed films, n = 5

It is clear that the films “Wicki” and “Lilly the Witch” have75 the most complex and thus also the densest humour structure, while the films “DWK 4,” “Paula’s Secret” and “Hanni and Nanni” have a rather simple humour structure. This can be illustrated in tabular form by looking at the percentage of hypotactic humour in the films as a proportion of the total running time (Table 4.18).

 It cannot be conclusively clarified whether the films are aimed at different target groups and whether this could be the reason for the different humour structure. For one thing, the analysis of corresponding marketing tools, for example, is not part of the object of investigation of this selective product analysis (see above Sect. 4.4.2, p. 216), but on the other hand there are also no reliable data on the actual audience composition, since the FFA only records child viewers by gender from the age of 10 (cf. Nörenberg 2008–2010). For the film “Hanni and Nanni”, which under these restrictions is the only one of the five films to have a particularly high female audience, connections between the audience reached and the humour structure can therefore only be assumed (see below Sect. 4.4.11.12, p. 378). 75

354

4  Empirical Part

Through the information in the graph and the table, the differences in the humour offerings of the films now become much more obvious. There is a strong disparity between the two films “Wicki” and “Lilly the Witch” and all the other films. Hypotactic humour accounts for a good third of the playing time in each of these two films, while it only accounts for between 0.8% (Hanni and Nanni) and 6.5% (DWK 4) of the playing time in the other films. The type of structural implementation of humour offeringss thus differs much more strongly and unambiguously among the films than their humour-categorical distribution. In addition, the varying number of humour parts is striking. The greater the proportion of hypotactic humour sequences in a film, the greater the total number of its humour parts, i.e. the individual gag situations (cf. on the term humour part p. 313). “Wicki,” with its distinctly hypotactic arsenal of humour, offers 229 humour parts, about ten times as many humour offerings as the film “Paula’s Secret” with just 25 humour parts. This is evidence that a high level of humour agglomeration can be achieved primarily through hypotactic humour, which is also evident from the average distribution of humour categories per humour part: The more hypotactic humour is used, the more humour categories are covered. Complex humour thus offers a broad spectrum and a large selection of humour categories. It can be assumed that different tastes in humour can be better catered for as a result. There are also major differences in the occurrence of numerous humour parameters in terms of film, as will be shown in the following.

4.4.11.3 Relevant Film Humour Devices In the comparison of film techniques, reference is made in the following to the parameters on the basis of which clear differences between the films can be shown. Significant differences can be found for all other parameters except for the use of light and camera angles, for which no influence on the implementation of humour offerings could be detected. Therefore, the focus here is on the use of interior and exterior motifs, character focus in humour sequences, camera movements, estimated focal lengths, sound and acting direction. The graphical representations focus on the one hand on the duration of the film-­ technical parameters used (synchronous optical representation) and on the other hand on the frequency of use (bar charts). For the latter, please also refer to the overview table in the appendix. In this way, two graphs and one table (in the appendix) are available for each film technique relevant to humour. For reasons of clarity, a graphical representation of the time duration in percent is omitted here, since on the one hand the deviations are small,76 as in the case of the

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), Excel files for the films in the folders CCC1 to CCC5, tab “Tables single.” 76

355

4.4 Film Analyses

humor categories above, and on the other hand several parameters are often used in parallel within individual film categories, resulting in values above 100%, which reduce comparability. For example, primary sound and score are used simultaneously in many humour sequences. The same applies to the acting, where different forms of presentation are used in parallel for characters that appear at the same time.

4.4.11.4 Interior and Exterior Motifs in the Humour Sequences The question of whether humour sequences predominantly use exterior or interior motifs yields an answer that can be represented graphically in an easily accessible way. The x-axis shows the running time of the film and the duration of the motif used, the y-axis the type of motif in descending frequency (the synchronous optical representation can be read accordingly for all other film techniques; Figs.  4.41, 4.42, 4.43, 4.44 and 4.45). I-T A-T A-N l-N

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.41  Interior and exterior motifs in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey) I-T A-T l-N A-N I+A-T 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.42  Interior and exterior motifs in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey) I-T A-T l-N I/A-T A-N

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.43  Interior and exterior motifs in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

356

4  Empirical Part

A-T I-T l-N A-N A-N/T

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.44  Interior and exterior motifs in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey) A-T A-N I-T l-N 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.45  Interior and exterior motifs in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

The percentage use of interior and exterior motifs in the humour sequences of the films, measured by their frequency, is illustrated by the following graph (Fig. 4.46). All films therefore take place mainly during the day. Only the film “DWK 4” uses nighttime motifs second most frequently in terms of duration. It is also striking that the two films with the highest number of viewers, namely “Wicki” (4,891,161 viewers) and “DWK 4” (2,454,325 viewers) each use outdoor motifs for more than 80% of their humour sequences. However, it would be premature to conclude from this that this is also a characteristic of their humour structure or that it results from it, because first of all the frequent outdoor motifs underline the importance of genres, since adventure (Wicki) and fantasy and sports films (DWK 4) are predominantly set outdoors. The foreign landscape and the foreign playing field are here also always part of the story. It is therefore not necessarily a specific humour feature of these films if they increasingly stage corresponding sequences outdoors, but a consequence of their respective genre. However, it will have to be discussed whether there are not indications in the overall view that certain humour structures and film techniques come into their own particularly effectively in combination with certain genres.

4.4 Film Analyses

357

64.9 73.1 Inside

65.4 16.7

Mof

10.3 35.1 26.9 Outside

34.6 83.3 89.7

0 20 Paula’s secret (n=37)

40

Lilly the Witch (n=104)

60 80 Hanni and Nanni (n=78)

100

Wicki (198)

DWK4 (n=29)

Fig. 4.46  Interior and exterior motifs in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent). (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all motifs of the coded humour sequences, “The Wild Guys 4 (DWK4)”, n = 29; “Wicki”, n = 1112; “Lilly the Witch”, n = 808; “Hanni and Nanni”, n = 263; “Paula’s Secret”, n = 74)

Rest Protagonist(s) Antagonist(s), human

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.47  Characters in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

4.4.11.5 Characters in the Humor Sequences When answering the question of which characters are predominantly seen in the frame in humorous sequences, it becomes apparent that the antagonists are only in third place in all films. This is remarkable, because one might have thought that the antagonists, at whose expense the humorous highlights are often set, would also be seen longer in the picture (Figs. 4.47, 4.48, 4.49, 4.50 and 4.51).

4  Empirical Part

358 Rest Protagonist (en) Antagonist(s), human 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.48  Characters in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

Protagonist(en) Rest Antagonist(s), human 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.49  Figures in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey) Rest Protagonist(en) Antagonist(s), human 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.50  Figures in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey) Protagonist(en) Rest Antagonist(s), human 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.51  Figures in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

The percentage distribution of film characters in the humour sequences of the films, measured by their frequency, is illustrated by the following graph (Fig. 4.52). With the exception of the films “Lilly the Witch” and “DWK 4”, in which the protagonists appear most frequently in humorous sequences (42.5% and 56.9%), in the other films it is always secondary characters and only in second place the protagonists. This can be explained by the constellation of characters: In “Lilly the Witch”, the prominence of the protagonists (Lilli and the dragon) can be explained by the fact that both of them, due to their characteristics, get into

4.4 Film Analyses

359

26.5 32.3 42.5 24.2

Protagonist

10.2 17.0 24.2 11.4 19.7

Figures

Antagonist

Rest

33.3

50.7

23.3

Characters except protagonist 43.1 0 Paula's secret (n=340) Lilly the Witch (n=1,211) DWK 4 (n=711)

56.9

20

63.3 64.4

73.5 67.7 57.5 75.8

100 40 60 80 Hanni and Nanni (n=790) Wicki (1,869)

Fig. 4.52  Characters in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent). (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all characters in the coded humour sequences (multiple answers possible): “The Wild Guys 4 (DWK4)”, n = 711; “Wicki”, n = 1896; “Lilly the Witch”, n = 1211; “Hanni and Nanni”, n = 790; “Paula’s Secret”, n = 340)

funny situations again and again from the beginning. Lilli, because she repeatedly “misuses” the witch’s spells, for example, and the dragon, because as a comic character he repeatedly comes into conflict with his own inadequacies (gluttony, not being able to fly) in the real world. In “DWK 4”, as described above, the whole gang is the protagonist. This spreads the playing time over many characters and increases the image presence. Apart from the peculiarities of comic characters, this “buddy” component can also be found in some of the other films, but it is not reflected there in a corresponding image presence. In the film “Paula’s Secret,” for example, Toby and Paula are an almost classic pair of opposites: he is from a simple background, she from an upper-­ middle-­class background; he is bad at school, she is good at school, etc. The fact that this constellation does not lead to a high image presence in the humour sequences, but that the protagonists only take a back seat to the rest of the characters

4  Empirical Part

360

(around 60%)77 with a good 33% of the playing time, may also be an indication of unused humorous potential. The situation is similar in the film “Hanni and Nanni,” where it is not so much the siblings’ differences as their conflicts with other characters that are used for humorous purposes, resulting in a corresponding frequency of “other” characters. In the parody “Wicki,” the comparatively low image presence of Wicki and Ylvi is explained by the fact that the latter does not appear for long stretches of the film, as she first has to be searched for, found and rescued. Incidentally, the aim is to create a contrast between the clever Wicki and the more needy adult figures, whose mishaps and misfortunes therefore also lead to a high visual presence. Image presence in terms of frequency and duration in humour sequences thus depends to a large extent on the characteristics of the protagonists and the filmmakers’ intention to stage them in a humorous way. Among other things, pairs of opposites offer potential for a high image presence in humour sequences. Where this is not used, comical supporting characters can also be used, such as the French teacher played by Katharina Thalbach in “Hanni and Nanni” or the parodically staged male adult ensemble in “Wicki.”

4.4.11.6 Camera Movements in the Humour Sequences All films use static camera movements temporally most frequently (duration) as the synchronous optical graphs show (Figs. 4.53, 4.54, 4.55, 4.56 and 4.57). The percentage distribution of the camera movements used in the films, measured by their frequency, is illustrated by the following graph (Fig. 4.58). St+A St Pan Zoom Go to

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.53  Camera movements in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Film University PotsdamBabelsberg), folder: “CCC1. Paulas Geheimnis 24.03.16,” file: “18.03.16 Paulas Geheimnis Tabellen.xlsx,” tab “Tabellen einzeln,” line 112 f., column E. 77

4.4 Film Analyses

361

St St+A Pan Go to Zoom

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.54  Camera movements in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey) St St+A Go to (tracking shot) Pan Shoulder-mounted camera Zoom CCW rotation clockwise rotation 0:00:00

0:30:00

0:15:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.55  Camera movements in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

St St+A Go to (tracking shot) Pan Zoom Flyover

0:00:00

0:30:00

0:15:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.56  Camera movements in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey) St St+A Pan Go to (tracking shot) Zoom Flyover

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.57  Camera movements in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

362

4  Empirical Part 27.4 Static

53.9 50.4 53.6 23.3 17.2 24.6 24.7 24.9

Static + Compensation

11.5 11.4 7.4 13.8 8.2 8.4 9.0 7.5 16.9

Pan Go to (tracking shot) Camera movement

62.7

34.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

Flyover

6.8 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0

Zoom Shoulder camera

0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0

Rotation CCW Rotation CW

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Logo rotation 0

20

40

60

80

Paula’s Secret (n=73)

Hanni and Nanni (n=407)

Lilli the Witch (n=716)

Wicki (n=937)

100

DWK 4 (n=443)

Fig. 4.58  Camera movements in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent). (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all camera movements of the coded humour sequences: “The Wild Guys 4 (DWK4)”, n  =  433; “Wicki”, n  =  937; “Lilly the Witch”, n = 716; “Hanni and Nanni”, n = 407; “Paula’s Secret”, n = 73)

When examining camera movements, “Wicki” stands out insofar as it uses camera movements second most frequently (16.9%) after static camera movements (St + St+A). Thus, in the film with the most complex humour structure and the most humour sequences, the camera is also most frequently moved by tracking shots. This is an indication that complex cinematic humour structures can be accompa-

4.4 Film Analyses

363

nied by camera movements very effectively. On the other hand, the film “Paula’s Secret,” which has a simple humour structure and density, has little static camera work in percentage terms. While all other films use static camera movements to about 75%, this only happens to about 50% in the humour sequences of this film. The movement here is mainly produced by camera pans (34.2%) and zooms (6.8%) and by far the most frequently of all films. This could mean that, on the one hand, static camera work should make up a certain basic proportion of effective humour design and, on the other hand, humour offerings are more likely to be effectively supported with the elaborate technique of tracking shots than with the simpler pans and zooms.

4.4.11.7 Shot Sizes in the Humour Sequences When comparing the use of shot sizes in humour sequences by temporal duration, it becomes clear that all films except “Hanni and Nanni,”, which favours the American, use close-up shot sizes most of all (Figs. 4.59, 4.60, 4.61, 4.62 and 4.63). The percentage distribution of the shot sizes used in the humour sequences of the films, measured by their frequency, is illustrated by the following graph (Fig. 4.64). A comparison of the frequency of shot sizes in humour sequences shows that the adapted films do not favour any size as much as takes place in the film “Paula’s Secret” with close-up shot size (44.3%). The use of many close-up shots is more typical of television. For all the differences in usage, the adapted films use a more balanced mix of different shot sizes which is closer to motion pictures than television.78 It is also striking that “Lilly the Witch” and “Wicki” use numerous condensations and extensions (5.4% and 5.9%), i.e. changes of shot size within a shot by means of tracking, zooms, etc., which, given the complex humour density of these films, means as many as 38 and 55 such changes, respectively (cf. Table  23, Appendix A 6).79 The complexity of the changes in setting here goes hand in hand with the density of the humour.

 A difference (in terms of image composition) between television film and cinema film productions is often denied (cf. e.g. Hickethier 2012, p. 156), but in my opinion the so-called “talking heads” phenomenon can still be observed today in numerous television productions in contrast to cinema films. Here, the increased use of close-ups, which are supposed to compensate for the distance to the screen and its small diameter in comparison to the cinema screen, creates the impression that one only sees talking heads on the screen. 79  Available at Springer.com. 78

4  Empirical Part

364

N Am T Detail G HT W HN 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.59  Shot sizes in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

Am HN N HT T W Detail Extension G 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.60  Shot sizes in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

HN N HT Am T Detail Compaction Extension G W T-HN-Am 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.61  Shot sizes in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

365

4.4 Film Analyses

N Am HN HT T G W Compaction Extension T-HN-T 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.62  Shot sizes in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

N HT HN T Am W Detail Compaction Extension

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.63  Shot sizes in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

4.4.11.8 Focal Lengths in the Humour Sequences All the films mainly use normal focal lengths in the humour sequences (Figs. 4.65, 4.66, 4.67, 4.68 and 4.69). The percentage distribution of the estimated camera focal lengths in the humour sequences of the films, measured by their frequency, is illustrated by the following graph (Fig. 4.70). The film with the lowest density of humour offerings (Paula’s Secret) uses a “long” focal length in the humour sequences much more frequently (32.2%) than the other four films (10.2–18.1%). It has been noted above that there is something observational and distanced about the use of this type of camera lens. Such a distanced camera aesthetic is frequently observed as a stylistic element in crime films, but as a cinematic means of staging humour it seems rather unusual, if not a hindrance, because films with a high humour density avoid it. The fact that only extreme focal lengths make a conscious impact on the viewer (cf. Hickethier 2012, p.  68, discussed here on pp.  345), therefore seems questionable in the case of

4.9 0.5 4.3 3.3 0.0

G

44.3

23.6 21.3 27.9 22.2

N 0.5

21.4 25.7 18.9 20.6 30.1 27.3 13.4 22.2 15.2 4.4 11.5 14.7 12.8 21.5 7.1 4.9 8.8 6.2 15.4 3.3 3.4 1.1 2.8 2.9 5.5 7.1 5.3 0.0 1.8

HN

Am

ES sizes

HT

T

W

Detail

100.0 99.8 94.6 94.1 99.5

Total fixed ES (shots) 0.0 0.2 5.4 5.9 0.4

Compressions and extensions 0 Paula’s secret (n=366) Lilly the Witch (n=1,368) DWK 4 (n=882)

20

40

60

80

100

Hanni and Nanni (n=804) Wicki (1,827)

Fig. 4.64  Shot sizes in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent). (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all setting sizes of the coded humour sequences (multiple answers possible): “The Wild Guys 4 (DWK4)”, n = 882; “Wicki”, n = 1827; “Lilly the Witch”, n = 1368; “Hanni and Nanni”, n = 804; “Paula’s Secret”, n = 366)

N Long W

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.65  Focal lengths in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

367

4.4 Film Analyses

N W Long Wide N-Lang

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.66  Focal lengths in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey) N W Long

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.67  Focal lengths in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation) N W Long

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.68  Focal lengths in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

N W Long

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.69  Focal lengths in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

cinematic humour offerings, because here extremely long focal lengths are not accompanied by a high humour density. On the contrary: the films with a high humour density examined here mainly use normal focal lengths. Furthermore, in relation to the crime genre, the final consideration will ultimately be whether certain genres in children’s film are more likely to convey humour than others.

368

4  Empirical Part

32.2

Focal lengths

Long

14.0 14.2 10.2 18.1 20.3 11.8

Far

26.0 34.0 29.0 47.5 72.7

Normal

0 20 Paula's secret (n=59) Lilly the Witch (n=703) DWK 4 (n=442)

59.7 55.8 52.9 40

100 60 80 Hanni and Nanni (n=401) Wicki (935)

Fig. 4.70  Focal lengths in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent). (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all focal lengths of coded humour sequences (multiple answers possible): “The Wild Guys 4 (DWK4)”, n = 442; “Wicki”, n = 935; “Lilly the Witch”, n = 703; “Hanni and Nanni”, n = 401; “Paula’s Secret”, n = 59)

4.4.11.9 Sound in the Humour Sequences Sound is used in a variety of ways in the films that adapt a story. For example, “dynamic music” is used throughout them. “Hanni and Nanni,” “Wicki” and “DWK 4” also use “special” or “live music” and “voice-overs.” Sound effects stand out in “Lilly the Witch,” “Wicki,” and “DWK 4.” Of all the films, “Wicki” clearly has the densest sound arsenal (cf. Fig. 4.74). The film whose humour share of the total running time is the largest (48%)80 also makes the most intensive use of the sound level to stage humour (Figs. 4.71, 4.72, 4.73, 4.74 and 4.75). The percentage distribution of the sound design used in the humour sequences of the films, measured by their frequency, is illustrated by the following graph (Fig. 4.76).

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Potsdam-Babelsberg Film University), file: “CC1. 24.03.16 FilmVergleich-AFN29.03.16.xlsx,” tab “Tables,” line 10. 80

4.4 Film Analyses

369

Primary audio Score Voice over

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.71  Sound in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

Primary audio Score Dyn./Dram. Music Special or live music Voice over

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.72  Sound in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

Primary audio Score Dyn./Dram. Music Sound effects special 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.73  Sound in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

Primary audio Score Dyn./Dram. Music Special or live music Voice over Sound effects special

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.74  Sound in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

370

4  Empirical Part

Primary audio Score Dyn./Dram. Music Special or live music Sound effects special Voice over

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.75  Sound in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

51.4 55.3 46.2 58.6

Primary audio

70.8

20.8

30.8 37.3 33.7 25.7

Score

0.0 Audio

Dyn. music

11.2 6.0 12.1 10.0

0.0 5.6 0.0 5.7 1.4

Special/Live music

0.9 0.0 1.1 1.4

Voiceover

8.3

0.0 0.0 1.3 1.1 2.9

Special sound effects

0 Paula’s Secret (n= 24) Lilli the Witch (n= 150) DWK 4 (n= 70)

20

40

60

80

100

Hanni and Nanni (n= 107) Wicki (n= 264)

Fig. 4.76  Sound design in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent). (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all sound variants of the coded humour sequences (multiple answers possible): “The Wild Guys 4 (DWK4)”, n = 70; “Wicki”, n = 264; “Lilly the Witch”, n = 150; “Hanni and Nanni”, n = 107; “Paula’s Secret”, n = 24)

4.4 Film Analyses

371

Measured by frequency, it is clear that the film “Paula’s Secret,” which is based on an original screenplay, has its humorous sequences most sparsely accompanied by background music (score) of all films (20.8%), but comparatively frequently with voice-over (8.3%). At least in the canon of films analysed here, there is thus a clear disparity between the adaptations and the “original” children’s film in terms of the use of sound staging for humorous purposes.

4.4.11.10 Acting in the Humour Sequences The acting differs greatly in the films analysed. In the two films with the highest density of humorous offerings (“Lilly the Witch” and “Wicki”), parodic acting is a defining characteristic of character portrayal (Figs. 4.77, 4.78, 4.79, 4.80 and 4.81). The percentage distribution of the form of representation of the characters by acting in the humour sequences of the films, measured by their frequency, is illustrated by the following graph (Fig. 4.82).

Real covered 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.77  Acting direction in the humour sequences of the film “Paula’s Secret” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey) Real covered 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.78  Acting direction in the humour sequences of the film “Hanni and Nanni” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

Real parodistisch covered k an actor 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.79  Acting direction in the humour sequences of the film “Lilly the Witch” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

372

4  Empirical Part

Parodic Real exaggerated no actors 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

Fig. 4.80  Acting in the humour sequences of the film “Wicki” (synchronous optical representation) Real no actors 0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

1:30:00

1:45:00

Fig. 4.81  Acting direction in the humour sequences of the film “DWK 4” (synchronous optical representation). (Source: Own survey)

94.4 71.6 65.0

Real 47.3

97.6

Acting Guide

5.6 28.4 exaggerated

1.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Parodic

33.0 48.9 0.0 0

20

Paula’s secret (n= 18) Lilly the Witch (n= 102) DWK 4 (n= 41)

40

60

80

100

Hanni and Nanni (n= 81) Wicki (n= 177)

Fig. 4.82  Acting direction in the humour sequences of all films (by frequency in percent). (Source: Own survey, figures in percent, basis: all varieties of acting in the coded humour sequences (multiple answers possible): “The Wild Guys 4 (DWK4)”, n  =  41; “Wicki”, n = 177; “Lilly the Witch”, n = 102; “Hanni and Nanni”, n = 81; “Paula’s Secret”, n = 18)

4.4 Film Analyses

373

Both in terms of duration of use and frequency, parodic acting is in first place in “Wicki”  – due to the genre  – and in second place in “Lilly the Witch” (Wicki: 48.9%, Lilly the Witch: 33%). This kind of favoritism of parodies in the two films says ­something about the nature of their comedy, because according to the definition, parodies resort to existing things (see above Sect. 3.1, p. 27). In this way, the films successfully orient themselves to and play with character schemes on a child’s level of imagination. The other films avoid this and at most resort to exaggerated portrayals of characters; “DWK 4” even does without this and stages its characters realistically without exception. It would therefore seem that a high density of humorous offerings can be supported very effectively with a parodic acting direction.

4.4.11.11 Relevant Qualitative Parameters Various parameters that are difficult or almost impossible to tabulate or graphically represent have been reserved for qualitative discussion in the film analyses. These include: genre, plot structures, the presence of comic characters, the use of suspense, and the associations and moods relatted to motifs and costumes, such as milieu and period affiliations. • Genre When comparing all films, it is noticeable that those that exclusively address topics in their genre that are high in children’s favour (cf. Wegener 2010, p.  22  ff.; ­discussed here on p.  42), have both high humour density and high attendance. “Friendship,” “Sport” and “Problems of children and young people” are in the top three places in the topic ranking. These themes are addressed above all in the films “Lilly the Witch” (fantasy, comedy), “Wicki” (adventure, parody), “DWK 4” (sports film, fantasy) and “Hanni and Nanni” (comedy). Although the film “Paula’s Secret” also deals thematically with the friendship between Paula, Toby and the two children in the gang, the film also deals in particular with the subject of social disadvantage. However, this is only of interest to 2.7% of children between the ages of seven and nine (cf. Wegener 2010, p. 24). One could interpret this result to mean that certain topics are more suitable for the use of humour than others. However, this would neglect the fact that there are films that do, for example, take up social themes such as disadvantages in a humorous way. Consider the British film “The Full Monty” (1997), in which a group of unemployed men plan a joint career as strippers in their time of need. In the children’s film sector, German productions such as “Die Vorstadtkrokodile” ­

374

4  Empirical Part

(“The Crocodiles”, 2009, director: Christian Ditter, visitors in 2009: 704,609)81 come to mind. In this film, the topics of physical disability, crime in the family and single parenthood are addressed, among others. In another German production “Rico, Oskar und die Tieferschatten” (“The Pasta Detectives”, 2014, director: Neele Leana Vollmar, visitors in 2014: 706,963)82 the main character is even a mentally slightly underdeveloped boy who introduces himself as “profoundly gifted” and has a mother who works in a nightclub. The films fall outside the period under study and therefore outside the canon of films analysed. However, a humorous potential and relatively high audience figures can be attested. Disadvantage as a theme therefore does not prevent a humorous cinematic realisation. However, this humorous implementation must be strong enough to overcome the disinterest of the child target group towards this topic. The analysed, rather simple and numerically few humorous means in the film “Paula’s Secret,” for example, could still be developed in this respect. • Plot Structures If one examines plot structures, whether one follows those of Mast (1979, p. 4 ff.) or those of Alic (cf. Alic 2014, p. 83 ff.; discussed here in Sect. 3.3.3.2, p. 78), it must first be remembered that these are not exclusively stylistic for comedy. In the context of this thesis, however, it is conceded that they can indicate humorous potential, that is, that they set the framework for humour offerings (cf. Sect. 3.5, p. 139 f.), which is why their presence will be examined in more detail here. Where, for reasons of readability, more detailed references to the authors Mast (1979) and Alic (2014) are omitted in the following, the references listed above are authoritative. Thus, the film “Paula’s Secret” can be said to have the following comedic plot structure according to Mast (numbering according to Mast 1979, p. 4 ff.): (4) the meeting of different social groups and their different reactions to an event; (6) a situation, a place or an object around which a series of gags is placed; (7) the protagonist’s accomplishment of a difficult task, which, in contrast to melodrama, has a precisely comic effect by creating a comic climate (cf. Mast 1979, p. 9). According to Alic (2014, p. 83 ff.) one could assume (numbering by the author): (1) fish-out-of-water comedy, in which a character is placed in an unfamiliar

81 82

 FFA Info 1/10, p. 12.  FFA Info 1/15, p. 9.

4.4 Film Analyses

375

environment; (4) the crime comedy, in which a crime is to be solved or committed with moral entanglements. Paula and Toby both come from different social classes. For Paula, Toby’s apartment is an unfamiliar environment, just as the high-priced holiday camp on Sylt with its rules of behaviour and etiquette is for Toby’s sister. Initially, the focus is on recovering Paula’s diary. Soon, however, the focus is on freeing the imprisoned children of the gang of thieves. So, in addition to social differences and foreign environments, various difficult tasks determine the fate of the protagonists. Several plot structures would be available to use them for humour. The fact that the film does this only very cautiously, however, was proven in the individual film analysis, which is why I don’t think this is a crime comedy, because the criminal machinations are treated too seriously and too real for that. In the movie “Hanni and Nanni” the location of the new school plays an important role (Mast’s plot structure no. (6)). The siblings are both also “fishes-out-of-­ water,” because in the new environment they still have to learn the laws and assert themselves (Alic (1) and Mast (7)). Here, too, plot structures prepare the ground for humour offerings, which, measured in terms of humour running time, is already used more intensively in contrast to the film “Paula’s Secret” (cf. Fig. 4.40, p. 352 and Table 4.18, p. 353). In “Lilly the Witch,” Lilli is a fish-out-of-water in her own world when it is changed by evil magic (Alic No. (1), Mast No. (6)). She must pass her witchcraft test by doing nothing less than saving the world (Mast No. (7)). Three plot structures, comedically exploited, as shown, through a lavish array of humour offerings. “Wicki” is clearly to be understood as a parody, even if no concrete films are parodied here, but rather an idea of rough Vikings. According to the plot lists of Mast (1979, p. 4 ff.), its no. (2) would come into consideration: parodies of other films and genres; according to Alic, no. (8) would be subsumed under farce, in which work is done with strong exaggerations and improbabilities and the resulting chaos leads to truth and liberation. Furthermore, the collective inventory of satire, parody and mockumentary would also come into consideration in the listing according to Alic (10), in which, similar to black comedy, mockery is a means of humour to attack social grievances. In parody, the medium of film or one of its genres is itself the object of ridicule. In addition, Wicki has several difficult tasks to perform as a child among men: freeing the kidnapped children and Ylvi, and gaining his father’s respect, which would be No. (6), (7) for Mast, No. (1) for Alic. Since the characters in this film are very numerous and the events are repeatedly commented on from the individual perspectives, it is quite possible to assume an

376

4  Empirical Part

ensemble comedy here according to Alic no. (7), in which a theme is examined from different perspectives of different characters (cf. Alic 2014, p. 87 f.). Seven plot structures are interwoven in “Wicki” in order to use them comedically with extreme humour density. The film “DWK 4” is about winning several football games in foreign territory, the cohesion of the gang and the relationship of the brothers to their “love interest.” This speaks to Mast’s (1979) plot structures of the already discussed numbers (6) and (7) and Alic’s numbers (1) and (3). The latter denotes a sports comedy in which a team fails or threatens to fail comically for lack of ability. Cohesion and fairness of the group are often of great importance (cf. Alic 2014, p. 85 f.). Similar to “Paula’s Secret.” however, these plot structures are only used with restraint for humour parts. Numerous offerings go back to imaginative curses of the character Nerv, which have no direct reference to one of the listed plot structures. This comparison makes it clear once again that the mere existence of certain plot structures demonstrably says nothing about the humour density of a film. The plot structures must also be used humorously. So if the film with the highest density of humour offerings (“Wicki” with 136 humour sequences and 229 humour parts) also has the highest number of different plot structures, there is only a connection insofar as it uses these plot structures through a complex arsenal of humour offerings. The film “Paula’s Secret,” which comes up with five different plot structures, avoids exactly this and therefore achieves only a very low humour density. • Funny Characters Characters whose behaviour and attitude contrast with the laws of the familiar world, which is superior to them, in the sense of Schramm (2012) (cf. Schramm 2012, p. 84) or who underline the fictionality of the film through their exaggerated portrayal (cf. Mikos 2008, p. 151), occur in the analysed films, as seen, to a very different extent: In “Paula’s Secret” and “DWK 4” they are not to be found. In the film “Hanni and Nanni,” the department store detective portrayed by Oliver Pocher and the French teacher played by Katharina Thalbach can be counted among them. In this respect, “Lilly the Witch” offers a real comic figure in the form of Ingo Naujoks as Hieronymus and an animated one in the form of the dragon Hektor. In “Wicki,” all the adult males are considered comedic characters, resulting in a large ensemble. Films with high humour density therefore also work with comic characters. The two films with the lowest proportion of humour running time (“Paula’s Secret” and “DWK 4)”, on the other hand, do not use comic characters at all.

4.4 Film Analyses

377

• Suspense A knowledge advantage on the part of the viewer plays a humour-relevant role – similar to the existence of comic characters  – in only three films: “Hanni and Nanni” (two scenes), “Lilly the Witch” (three scenes) and “Wicki” (one scene) use this device. As with the comic figures, it is the two films poorest in humour offerings (“Paula’s Secret” and “DWK 4”) that do not use suspense at all to achieve humorous goals. Whether suspense has a significant influence on children’s enjoyment of humour cannot be determined within the scope of this work. However, since even the films that make use of this device do so only very sparsely, it can be assumed that its significance is rather low. This is also consistent with the results from the group discussions, in which corresponding scenes were hardly mentioned (see above Sect. 4.2.7.1, p. 174). • Associations, Moods, Costumes, Period Affiliation While “Wicki” is a period film set in the time of the Vikings in 1095  AD and “DWK 4” in an ambiguous time with echoes of the present, the remaining films are set in the present. Nevertheless, these films set different accents through their choice of costumes and locations. While in “Paula’s Secret” the social differences between Paula’s and Toby’s world are realistically portrayed and we experience Paula in a Hamburg villa suburb and Toby in a new housing estate, the filmmakers take some liberties in “Hanni and Nanni”, for example. Not only does the school building seem uncharacteristically elitist for Germany with its castle-like appearance reminiscent of Harry Potter films (which is explicitly stated in the film), but the school uniforms and anachronistic-looking costumes of the teachers are also more reminiscent of the underlying book series by Enid Blyton and the time in which it was published in Germany, namely the 1960s. In the fantasy film “Lilly the Witch,” Lilli’s world (before the enchantment by the character of Hieronymus) is a reflection of the present. Meanwhile, everything that has to do with Surulunda’s and Hieronymus’ magic land is colourful and twisted. The witch Surulunda, for example, lives in a large ship, which, however, lies on land in a splendid sunny garden, without a sea even being visible anywhere. There is something folkloric about her colourful robes, without them being assigned to specific ethnicities. On the other hand, the evil wizard Hieronymus’ preference for dark, dirty and dilapidated places underlines his antagonistic function. Friendly and colourful also applies to Lilli’s home. The degree of destruction of

378

4  Empirical Part

this familiar world becomes clear through the withdrawal of colour: the greater Hieronymus’ influence on Lilli’s world becomes, the more it turns grey. In “Wicki,” the ship onto which Wicki sneaks as a stowaway is, as it were, a symbol of setting off on an adventure (see above). The motorcycles of the Wild Guys in “DWK 4” again suggest an independence that boys of this age hardly have in the real world. All these props and their colours are also used in the films to create humour offerings. Hanni and Nanni are very unhappy with their school uniforms, there is something coquettish about the French teacher’s puffy dresses which underline her comic character, there is also something comic about the greyness of Lilli’s world when Lilli’s mother sells only grey legal literature after being bewitched by Hieronymus. The Wild Guys’ utopian-seeming contraptions are not limited to the use of non-age-appropriate motorcycles to play football, but also invened machines with abstruse mechanics and results. The very different milieus together with their symbols are also used for comical situations in “Paula’s Secret,” for example, when, as seen, Toby’s sister in the posh holiday club on the island of Sylt, as the supposed Paula on the tennis court, injures the tennis instructor severely by hitting him in a tender area. Costumes and locations thus create certain associations through their specific characteristics and design, which are also used to varying degrees for humorous purposes in all films. • Montage Montage and editing were only dealt with in this paper insofar as they had a direct effect on the frequencies of humour offerings. Only for one film is a determining influence of montage on the frequency of humour offerings evident, namely for Wicki through the use of the “match-cut” montage discussed above in the sample scene (cf. Sect. 4.4.6.3, p. 261).

4.4.11.12 Correlations to Budget, Shooting Days and Number of Visitors The extent to which the production83 budget, the number of shooting days and the number of viewers have a significance in the context of humour structures and offerings becomes clear when these parameters are compared graphically (Fig. 4.83).

 This refers to the pure production costs excluding advertising expenses, which are borne by the film distributor. 83

4.4 Film Analyses

379 Correlation of humour-relevant parameters - I 1112 808

400.00 136

263

201

78 62 75 40.00

43

40

61

40.8 22

48.0

42

20.6 14.50

9.8 4.00

46

45

14.5

9.00 4.89

4.60 2.60

4.30 2.45

0.86

1.22 Budget (million €)

0.40

Days of shooting Visitors (million)

0.05

0.04

Humor sequences Percentage of humour sequences in the total running time of the film Humour categories (multiple answers possible)

Paula’s secret Hanni and Nanni Lilly the Witch Wicki

DWK 4

Fig. 4.83  Correlation of humour-relevant parameters – I. (Source: Own survey, figures in absolute numbers and in percent (for share of humour sequences in total running time/film), basis: humour categories/film, budget/film, shooting days/film, visitors/film, all humour sequences/film, share of humour sequences in total running time/film)

380

4  Empirical Part

Significant for the films analysed here is the correlation between budget, viewer statistics and the number or proportion of humour sequences and categories in the film, as well as the number of shooting days. The greater the number of humour offerings, the more viewers the films analysed here can register, while at the same time the budget and the number of filming days of the films increase. In this respect, a parallel can be seen here with Lambernd (1998) for the agglomeration of humorous potentials (even if its relevance was established by the author for a television comedy programme; cf. Lambernd 1998, p. 232 f.), because it is precisely the concentrated confluence of humour offerings that has the greatest effect on the (child) film viewer. The question of causal relationship will not be answered conclusively within the scope of this thesis. It is obvious, for example, that children’s films will not ­automatically have a higher humour density with an increasing budget or a higher number of shooting days, but it can be assumed that a high budget only leads to a high humour density if the capital is used accordingly for the development of the material and for a sophisticated cinematic realisation of humour content. On the other hand, the causality of a high humour density attracting more viewers than a low one can be assumed, at least for the films examined here. After all, what children themselves demand of films is fulfilled here, namely that they should be funny (see above Chap. 1, p. 24). The viewing of the remaining 18 children’s films of the study period (see above Table  4.9, p.  211) confirms this finding, although the mere viewing cannot, of course, replace a detailed humour structure analysis (which, however, would have taken more than 5½ years with an average processing time of 16 weeks). These films, all of which are adaptations, were viewed chronologically after the analysis of the five selected children’s films, i.e., with a “trained” eye. Viewing figures and perceived humour density again appear to be closely related. It becomes apparent that adaptations are no guarantee of a high humour density and therefore not of higher viewer numbers. For example, the film “Toni Goldwascher” (Norbert Lechner, 2007) was based on the book of the same name by Josef Einwanger, but had only 39,796 viewers and thus less than the original children’s film “Paula’s Secret” (Gernot Krää) from the same year analyzed here (54,548 viewers). However, both films have a similar humour structure, whereby it should be pointed out once again that only “Paula’s Secret” was analysed in terms of humour structure and that in the case of “Toni Goldwascher” the impression after viewing is reproduced here. Films with a high number of visitors, on the other hand, also gave the impression of a higher humour density, as in the case of “Die rote Zora” (2007, director: Peter Kahane, 786,406 visitors) or “Hände weg von Mississippi” (2007, director: Detlev Buck, 727,043 visitors).

4.4 Film Analyses

381

With regard to the number of shooting days, it can be seen for all the films analysed that more shooting days also go hand in hand with a higher humour density. This could indicate that humour scenes are demanding and therefore more time-­ consuming to stage. This assumption can be substantiated by statements from cameramen, for example. In an interview published on the Internet with cinematographer Brandon Trost, who among other things took over the camera for the US film Neighbors 2 (German title: Bad Neighbors, German theatrical release: May 5, 2016)84 with Seth Rogen, Zac Efron and Selena Gomez, it says: Trost says one of the biggest differences in shooting an action movie or drama versus a comedy is that a comedy will always have far more footage than the director needs. Actors improv, and directors encourage it; they want the funniest take. “There’s always a script and a focused narrative,” Trost says, “but during the scene, they riff jokes. We have to shoot two cameras at least, both cameras looking in the opposite direction, running simultaneously, so that there’s a better chance of matching the dialogue when editing takes together. But it’s really hard to light two directions and 360 degrees in a way that’s going to look good. In non-comedy movies, you focus all your lighting on one person, and then you have to turn around and get the same coverage on the person or persons they’re talking to.”. (Wolf 2016)85

The interview goes on to say that, due to this effort, the shooting of a screenplay page86 for a film comedy could take several days (cf. Wolf 2016). The prominent cinematographer Michael Ballhaus makes a similar statement in an interview with director Tom Tykwer, in which he reports that for his first Hollywood comedy “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” (1988), starring Michael Caine and Steve Martin and directed by Frank Oz, he had to abandon his previous long tracking shots and instead use a higher number of camera angles (cf. Ballhaus/Tykwer 2002, p. 148).

 http://www.filmstarts.de/kritiken/235408.html, retrieved 02.06.16.  http://www.villagevoice.com/film/yes-comedies-look-better-than-they-used-to-brandontrost-is-why-8677511, retrieved 02.06.16. 86  For comparison: One calculates approximately 1 minute of running time per screenplay page. A 90 min feature film therefore has about 100 script pages. A German ARD “Tatort,” for which approx. 21 shooting days are calculated today, therefore demands approx. 4–5 feature minutes/screenplay pages per day from the shooting team. For feature films, calculations are usually more generous. For example, 43 shooting days were calculated for the children’s film “Hanni and Nanni” (see above), i.e. slightly more than 2 minutes/screenplay pages were shot per day. In comparison, several days of shooting for a single comedy feature minute is of course very time-consuming and expensive (author’s note based on industry knowledge). 84

85

382

4  Empirical Part

In the present analysis of humorous children’s films, this genre-related additional effort explains on the one hand the increase in shooting days with higher humour density and on the other hand the associated increase in budgets: the more elaborate and time-consuming scenes are to stage, the more expensive they also become in production. The saying “funny is money” thus has a double meaning: humorous films attract visitors, but they are also expensive to produce. In other words: they bring money in, but they also cost money – funny needs money. Except for the film “Hanni and Nanni,” there is also a correlation between the number of hypotactic humour sequences, the number of humour parts and the parameters budget, number of humour sequences, shooting days and number of viewers, which can be represented graphically as follows (Fig. 4.84). With the exception of “Hanni and Nanni,” it is therefore true for all films that a higher proportion of hypotactic humour sequences is associated with a greater number of humour parts, higher visitor numbers and a higher budget. In four out of five cases, therefore, the structure of the humour sequences very probably had an influence on the number of viewers. The question of why the lack of hypotactic humour sequences in the film “Hanni and Nanni” did not have a negative impact on audience figures cannot be answered conclusively here. Further research will be necessary, especially since this work was the first to make the influence of hypotactic humour structures visible at all. At this stage of research, new questions inevitably arise (cf. Mikos 2008, p.  94). However, one explanation could lie in the fact that the film “Hanni and Nanni” explicitly addressed a female audience: from the age of 10, 77% of the viewers of “Hanni and Nanni” were female (cf. Nörenberg 2010, p. 6). For “Lilly the Witch” it was 57%, for “Wicki” 55% (cf. Nörenberg 2009, p. 6), and for the film “DWK 4” 59% (cf. Nörenberg 2008, p. 6). The film “Paula’s Secret” was not recorded by the FFA in this respect (cf. Nörenberg 2008, p. 6). For girls, as seen, playing with expectations and surprising twists is not so relevant as a humour category (cf. with further evidence: Sect. 4.2.7.2, p.  197). Hypotactic humour, however, is precisely a game with expectations, because a humorous basic stimulus is almost always followed by one or more escalation stages. It could therefore be that the absence of this type of humour does not affect female viewers as much as male viewers. Due to the lack of data87 for younger years, however, this is little more than a working hypothesis for subsequent research, as other parameters may have played a role here that were not the subject of this work, such as marketing, cast, level of awareness of the original, etc.

87

 The FFA does not record the gender of viewers until they are 10 years old.

4.4 Film Analyses

383 Correlation of humour-relevant parameters - II

400.00

229 155 64

40.00

47 25

32.8 31

4.00

8

6.5 2

0.8 0.40

28.7

3

3.5

58

Budget in € million Days of shooting Visitors in million Humor sequences Percentage of humour sequences in the film

0.04

Number of hypotactic. Humor sequences Share of hypotactic humour sequences in total running time of the film in %. Humoparts

Paula’s secret Hanni and Nanni Lilly the Witch Wicki

DWK 4

Fig. 4.84  Correlation of humour-relevant parameters – II. (Source: Own survey, figures in absolute numbers and in percent (for share of hypotactic humour sequences in total running time/film), basis: all hypotactic humour sequences/film, share of humour sequences in total running time/film, all humour parts/film)

384

4  Empirical Part

4.5 Summary: Humour in the Analysed Films The chosen triangular procedure of group discussion, analysis of relevant humour categories and film analyses now makes it possible to answer the second part of the research questions as well (see above Sect. 4.1, p. 151). The Role of Humour as a Cinematic Device in Selected High-Attendance German Children’s Film Productions of the Years 2007–2010 All of the films examined here employ humour. Humour offerings fulfill a need expressed repeatedly by child viewers (see Chap. 1, p. 1). However, the type, manner, and frequency of humour sequences differ considerably among the films examined here. It is striking that the number of humour offerings seems to be related to the number of shooting days, the budget and, as a result, also to the number of viewers of the films. The results of the study therefore suggest that humour, along with other factors, plays a central and determining role with regard to the production conditions, but also with regard to the exploitation of children’s films. Humour also plays an important role when dealing with certain themes. The present findings provide indications that films that avoid breaking serious themes with humour run the risk of falling out of favour with viewers, either because they are too dramatic, exciting or frightening (cf. Nebe 2016, pp. 152–177), or because they fail to balance less preferred themes with humour. Here, it is less the genre of the films studied here that determines the density of humour than the treatment of children’s preferred themes such as “friendship,” “sports” and “problems of children and adolescents” (cf. Wegener 2010). Where serious topics, which are lower in the favour of young viewers, are also staged seriously, this is at the expense of humour density and popularity, which has already been observed elsewhere for television series (cf. Götz 2013a, p.  589, discussed here in Sect. 3.4.2, p.  126). Whether every topic can be treated humorously must be left open at this point, because the boundaries of humour are also significantly determined by the spirit of the times. In any case, for the films analysed here, humour plays a supporting, if not the decisive, role in the cinematic realisation and exploitation. Types and Categories of Humour in the Films Studied Humour offerings can be assigned to different categories (cf. Sect. 4.2.7.1, p. 174). The categories mentioned by children in the group discussions are also present in the films. The deviation from the children’s preferences varies in the films studied. It is striking that especially the less popular humour categories “language/word jokes/meaning,” “imitations/parodies” and “degradation” are overfulfilled in the films by up to 1000%. On the other hand, the more popular categories “sound and

4.5 Summary: Humour in the Analysed Films

385

noises,” “aesthetics” and “mishaps/misfortunes of others” are underperformed in all films by up to 100%. In addition to the different categories of humour used, however, there are strong structural differences in the complexity of the films’ humour offerings, which are more amenable to interpretation. Multi-layered humour, which starts with a basic stimulus and is followed by several escalation stages, i.e. is structured like a main and a subordinate clause, can be described as hypotactic humour. In contrast to this are simple stand-alone humour offerings and their accumulations, which can be described as paratactic. Now the more complex cinematic humour is, the more frequently it uses hypotactic humour. Of the films analysed here, those with a high humour density also make more use of hypotactic humour. Since hypotactic humour in film, in contrast to linear speaking time in which main and subordinate clauses follow one another, can make multiple use of running time, i.e. in parallel, from a certain degree a high humour density in films can only be achieved with hypotactic humour. Filmmakers who want to offer their audience a lot of humour, therefore, achieve this primarily by establishing complex hypotactic humour structures, which regularly has to be done already in the script phase. Thus, in addition to the degree of congruence of cinematic humour offerings with preferred humour categories, a high agglomeration of hypotactic structures in the cinematic realisation of these offers is decisive for a high humour density. Humour and Its Cinematic Implementation Numerous parameters play a role in the cinematic realisation of humour. The cinematic means examined here and their subcategories (cf. Sect. 4.4.4, p. 232) go hand in hand with a high humour density in the films examined here: • the staging of humorous sequences in outdoor motifs, • an often high visual presence of the protagonists in the humour sequences, • a moving camera that makes intensive use of tracking shots in particular to create images, • a varied cinematic use of different shot sizes even within one shot by means of tracks and zooms, • as little use as possible of long, distancing focal lengths, • a varied use of auditory elements, i.e. of sounds and noises, in moderation also voice-overs, but above all also of different styles of music which themselves tell something, i.e. go beyond apurely background effect, • an acting direction that brings parodic character sketches to the screen alongside real and exaggerated ones.

386

4  Empirical Part

Of the parameters that can be described qualitatively, the following are associated with a high density of humour: The use of the adventure and sports film genre, including the use of fantastic elements, the focus on the themes of “friendship,” “sport” and “problems of children and young people” and avoidance of mixing with themes less popular with children such as “disadvantages,” especially when these themes lack a humorous treatment, the presence of comic characters, the use of costumes and locations that provoke associations of a humorous nature. On the other hand, the influence of suspenseful scenes on humour density seems to be rather low, i.e. when the audience’s knowledge advantage is played with for humorous purposes. Similarities or Differences in Terms of Humour in the Analysis Between Children’s Films Based on Book Adaptations and Production Based on an Original Screenplay The only children’s film listed by the FFA in the survey period that was not based on a book but on an original screenplay differs in many ways from the film adaptations of existing children’s books. “Paula’s Secret” (2008, Gernot Krää) not only had the smallest budget, but also the fewest shooting days. Its humour density is the lowest compared to all adapted films, as measured both by the number of humour sequences and their small share of the film’s total running time. In comparison, the film makes very restrained use of cinematic humour devices to achieve comic effects, which is especially true for the sound level, the type of acting, the use of the camera and the presence of the protagonists in humour sequences. In terms of the humour categories used, “Paula’s Secret,” like almost all films, relies (too) heavily on word-heavy and degrading humour and holds back on aesthetic forms of humour. As shown, however, all films show deviations from the ranking of popular humor categories at one point or other. It seems that in the case of “Paula’s Secret” this circumstance is reinforced by the low humour density. In other words, deviations from children’s humour preferences seem to be compensated for by a high humour density if other conditions are met. These include concentrating on topics that are popular with children, such as “friendship,” “sport” and “problems of children and young people”, and avoiding mixing them with less popular topics that are devoid of humour, such as “disadvantages.” The adapted film materials studied here thus address the needs and preferences of children more on a content and technical level than the original children’s film studied.

4.5 Summary: Humour in the Analysed Films

387

The Presence of Cinematic Humour Features as an Indication of the Successful Production of Children’s Films: Correlation Between the Presence of Certain Humour Categories and the Attendance Figures of the Films Studied There seems to be a connection between various humour-relevant parameters investigated here and the audience figures achieved, and thus the (economic) success of the films, which, however, needs to be examined by further research, because this work primarily reveals discourses surrounding humour, conducts audience research and exposes the structure of cinematic humour offerings. Therefore, pure success factor research was not the aim of this work (a good overview of success factor research for adult film can be found in Bomnüter 2013, p. 83 ff.). The following remarks should therefore be read as if they were written in the subjunctive. The question is ultimately whether the findings gathered here for the five films studied can also be used to draw conclusions about the possible audience success or failure of other films. This is at least conceivable for those humour parameters whose occurrence correlates recognisably with audience figures. According to the findings elaborated here, the following humour-relevant parameters are therefore considered possible as co-determinants of the success of children’s films: The greater the density of humour and the proportion of humour sequences in the total running time of a film, the higher the number of viewers. This observation finds its correspondence in the statement of the target group itself, which repeatedly articulates that films have to be funny (cf. Chap. 1, p. 1 f.). A similar connection seems to exist between the number of shooting days and the size of the budget to the number of viewers, although it can be assumed that a causality can only be presumed if shooting days and budget are used to implement humour offerings. However, the density of a film’s humour offerings alone provides little information about the necessary structural quality and its technical implementation. Both, however, differ greatly from the less successful films in the sample, especially in the case of the successful films examined here. Complex humour structures in hypotactic humour sequences seem to contribute significantly to the success of a film with an audience that consists of at least 40% male viewers. Furthermore, the structure and density of the humour offerings have an indicative effect on the success of a children’s film if (and probably only if) the cinematic-­ technical realisation and the qualitatively recorded parameters, as described above (p. 527), have been taken into account. It is therefore the interplay of themes, structure, quantity and implementation of cinematic-child-friendly humour that decisively shapes the success of a film.

388

4  Empirical Part

The only 18 children’s films in the study period that were not analysed in terms of humour structure also seem to confirm this finding, as the perceived humour density and audience figures are also correlated for these films, which are all based on books. On the other hand, individual humour categories can be less clearly identified as promoting success. It can be regarded as probable that typical children aged eight and ten from medium-sized cities and educationally close backgrounds find humour categories in the areas of “aesthetics,” “mishaps and misfortunes of others,” “deviations from the norm / absurdity” and “sounds and noises” important. It seems sufficient here, however, if these categories are used proportionately more often than others, i.e. if the popularity can be reasonably reflected in the actual occurrence in terms of quantity. For this group of children, films that contain the humour categories “playing with expectations/surprising twist,” “pranks” and “deviation from the norm/contradiction” close to the preferred frequency thus also seem to meet with greater viewer interest. It only seems possible that, contrary to the preference of the children surveyed for the actual recipients of the films analysed, (over and under) fulfilment of other humour categories did not have a negative influence on viewer interest to a certain extent, and on the contrary may even have had a viewer-enhancing effect. This may be particularly true for the humour categories “sensitive topics,” “imitations/parodies,” “language/wordplay/meaning” and “degradations,” which were less popular with the children surveyed and which were sometimes overfulfilled by up to 1000%. It seems possible, therefore, in terms of other films and their audiences, that overachievement in these categories then remains without negative impact on audience interest, provided they are used less than six times more frequently than mentioned by children in the group discussions. For “sensitive topics,” an overfulfilment of up to 30% seems harmless in this respect. It must remain open at this point whether children prefer to process sensitive topics themselves as humour producers in everyday humour, for example through jokes, rather than receiving them through films (see above Sect. 4.2.7.1, p. 174). However, individual humour parameters, such as the humour categories, cannot be attributed a determining influence on viewer interest without the interaction with other humour-relevant parameters. In addition, the statements made have arisen from the evaluations of preferences of a very specific group of children, which is not representative. In addition to the selection of a representative number of children, possible future objects of investigation for further research could include marketing campaigns and the influence of trailers, which children use to form an impression of the expected humour density of a film.

4.5 Summary: Humour in the Analysed Films

389

With regard to the films examined here, and taking into account the influence of age and gender alone, which has been proven in humour research and also confirmed in this thesis (cf. Sects. 3.4, p. 110, 4.2.7.2, p. 197 and 4.2.7.3, p. 200), it is reasonable to assume that the actual viewers of the films analysed either had differently weighted humour preferences than the children in the group discussions due to their social and age composition (different educational backgrounds, accompanying adults, older siblings and friends, etc.), or that the children interviewed were not as aware of certain humour categories in their self-perception, i.e. they believed they were laughing at different things than they ultimately did when watching cinema films.

5

Concluding Remarks

This work has taken up elements of humour-theoretical, humour-categorical and, above all, media studies research in order to reveal structures of humour in selected high-attendance children’s films using empirical and analytical procedures. In doing so, it became clear that the fulfilment or congruence between the identified humour categories from the films and those preferred by children from the group discussions help to understand the phenomenon of child-oriented humour in films, but must be supplemented by structural components. The humour density of a film is determined quite significantly by the structure of its humour offerings rather than by its conformity to a categorical ranking system. Hypotactic humour, which groups humour offerings in multiple layers or even referentially, plays an important role. Simple and paratactic humour, on the other hand, reduces the number of humour offerings and thus their density. Children are a demanding film audience when it comes to humour. They are often more honest about their needs because they don’t avoid their needs. If a film does not meet their humour expectations, they switch off and tell others. If a film is not (also) funny, it is therefore hardly ever watched. Based on the findings in this regard that have been elaborated in this thesis, a further concrete example for the term “suitable for children,” used in the definition of a children’s film (see above Sect. 2.4, p. 21), can be added to those already discussed. One will be able to call the realisation of a film appropriate for children if it deals adequately, i.e. age-appropriately, with a topic that is adapted to the needs of children and that corresponds to the developmental-psychological horizon of experience, the cognitive abilities and the resilience of children, whereby humorous treatment in particular is of decisive importance for adequate treatment.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. F. Nebe, Humour and successful children’s films, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40323-2_5

391

392

5  Concluding Remarks

Limitations Capturing children’s humour is difficult and, as shown, is insufficiently addressed by the previous theoretical discourse on humour (cf. Sect. 3.5, p. 135). This work drew attention to correlations between types, frequencies and structures of cinematic humour devices. The obvious correlations, for example with the level of attendance, open up the field for further research in this area, which can also deal with the limitations of the method used here. For instance, it made sense to let children themselves give information about what cinematic humour is for them, and revealed, among other things, that humour preferences for TV programmes differ from those for children’s cinema films (see above Sect. 4.3, p. 206). Another question is whether children are always aware of all their needs and can always name them when asked. For example, most children in the group discussions stated that they would prefer films with “real” people (see GD 1, para. 347; GD 2, para. 317; GD3, para. 345).1 However, the audience figures, especially for American animated films, suggest the opposite, as Wegener (2010) has already found for this genre, as in her survey of 128 children and pre-teens aged 7–12, more than 60% stated that animated films were their most popular film genre (cf. Wegener 2010, pp. 6, 13). Or is one explanation for the high popularity of these films that there is simply a greater supply of animated films from America and hardly any more US live-action children’s films à la “Home Alone” (1990)? Is it supply or demand that can explain the attendance figures here? Or do children perhaps not make such a big distinction between real actors and animated characters? Another consideration: parodies and imitations hardly played a role in the group discussions. To conclude from this that children like them less in films or consider them unimportant would, however, as seen, be premature, because it was precisely the films with a high proportion of parodic humour offerings that were far ahead in actual viewer favour, which supports findings by Buijzen/Valkenburg (2004), who indicated that rebellious humour and parodies are very popular with children between the ages of 8 and 11 (cf. Buijzen/Valkenburg 2004, p. 163; discussed here in Sect. 3.3.3.4, p. 91). However, for parodies to succeed, adequate prior knowledge on the part of the child viewers is necessary (cf. Mikos/Töpper 2009, p. 26). It seems, then, that children are not always fully aware of what they actually like (and not only that). Ultimately, the limits of the reliability of self-reports in group discussions in relation to action practices described above become apparent here (see above Sect. 4.2.1, p. 152).

 Cf. digital appendix (available in the university library of the Filmuniversität Potsdam-­ Babelsberg), folder “AA. Group discussions coded transcripts.” 1

5  Concluding Remarks

393

Outlook It will be up to further humour research, for example, to record actual reactions to unfamiliar films in the auditorium and to compare them with the categorically recorded results of group discussions and interviews. This is a very exciting research area, in which technical innovations will probably soon overcome the shortcomings of artificial laboratory situations. When children no longer have to press a button themselves or move a joystick in a certain direction when they laugh (cf. Ensinger 2003b, p. 72), but a so-called “activity tracker” in the form of a rubber wristband can record, among other things, heartbeat, pulse and respiration (or letting breath measurements provide information about audience reactions, cf. above, footnote 1, Chap. 4, p. 154), without the young viewers being torn away from the reception event, then one will probably gain further insights into the reactions to certain humour offerings, which in turn will give rise to new questions. Further research will also be able to reveal subtle differences in humour preferences among different age groups. In the groups of 8 and 10-year-olds studied here, it was striking that the 8-year-old children mentioned humour categories such as “mishaps and misfortunes of others” as well as “deviation from the norm/contradiction” and “aesthetics” more often than the 10-year-olds. The fact that the understanding and production of humour is essentially determined by age and gender has already been established in general sociological humour research (see above Sect. 3.3.1, p. 58) and in research on children’s everyday humour (see above, Sect. 3.4.1, p. 111). If a two-year age difference already influences humour preferences, what differences are there between 6 and 11-year-olds? Will this trend also become apparent here and confirm McGhee’s theses (cf. McGhee 1979, p. 78 f.; discussed here in Sect. 3.4.1, p. 113), according to which younger children, due to their egocentrism, have not yet sufficiently internalized other perspectives and therefore Schadenfreude is more often observed in them? And is this possibly different with girls than with boys? It should also be interesting to see how humour preferences are presented against the background of social milieus, different educational standards and, for example, musical skills. Do children from academic families laugh at different things than children whose parents engage in manual labour? Does musical education influence the sense of humour? Do children who play an instrument have different humour preferences than those who do not? Since social situation, education and lifestyle play a role for adults and their taste in humour (cf. Prommer 2012, p. 263), one may assume the same for children. It is also of interest to ask further questions that had to be left out of the scope of this thesis for reasons of research economics. For example, it would be informative to investigate whether the books on which films were based already offered humour that was taken up, ­supplemented

394

5  Concluding Remarks

or modified in the film adaptations and whether directors added “toppers” through their staging on the set, if necessary. After all, many things only emerge during filming on the basis of the scripts, not infrequently even spontaneously. Often the actual circumstances also demand a deviation from the script. Other influencing factors could be the age, gender and comedy experience of the directors and scriptwriters. The question of whether negative humour, for example in the form of intense degradation in films and on television, can also have undesirable consequences for children’s health or at least significantly influence their mood, which can be assumed, is interdisciplinary and challenging. Since humour, as presented, can “heal” as an anxiety reliever (cf. Nebe 2016, pp. 152–177), it is not unreasonable to think that harmful effects are also possible against the background of the research presented on this topic. Children clearly reject such negative humour (see above Sect. 4.2.7.1 under “Bad and non-jokes”, p. 192). They probably influence their mood with it in any case, and in the sense of Fredrickson (1998, pp. 314–315) thus intuitively make a “healthy” decision (see above Sect. 3.3.2, p. 63). The procedure developed here for the humour-categorical classification and structural representation of filmic humour offerings can be further refined through additional film analyses and, above all, it can be technically simplified. This requires analysis software that meets the requirements of this research design. On average, this work required 16 weeks and six different programmes to complete a single film-based humour structure analysis. The creation of comprehensive film analysis software, or the further development of an existing one to enable the processing of all steps, would greatly facilitate future work. These requirements could possibly be met by newer versions of analysis programmes from other disciplines, such as the ELAN software developed for the psycholinguistic discipline by the Max Planck Institute, the (expensive) Oberserver (or is it Observer?) XT analysis program, and AtlasTi. Conclusion So, in the final analysis, is it now possible to make “better” and funnier children’s films, in accordance with my personal motivation that prompted this investigation? I think that this is the case. The results presented here can be particularly encouraging to filmmakers of original children’s material, because the technical and humour-structural potential that the successful adapted film material uses is in principle also available to them, even if they have less of an advertising budget at their disposal and their characters have to work hard to become known without previous familiarity from books. For, just because the adapted material examined in this work scores better in terms of its humour density and audience favourability,

5  Concluding Remarks

395

this does not mean that original children’s material has to lag behind adapted cinema material in this respect. This is also shown by the viewing of the remaining 18 children’s films of the study period, all of which were adaptations: a density of humour that is perceived as low correlates with low attendance figures here as well. Humour-free storytelling is therefore not a privilege of original children’s films. On the contrary, it is possible to use the knowledge gained about the humour-­ relevant needs of children to make films that are more suitable for them, regardless of any literary model. This is in no way to leave difficult subjects out of the equation, nor is it to question the need for adult pedagogy for children and adolescents in general. For even if the children interviewed in this study, for example, already had a well-developed (intuitive) understanding of morality, (cf. Sect. 4.2.7.1 under point “Bad and non-jokes”, p. 192), which in addition to their own experiences will also be due to education, this cannot of course be assumed for all children in this age group. Pedagogical guidance therefore has undoubted value. Avoidance, then, is not the aim, but something far more forceful and labour-intensive, namely, to develop for children a subject, of whatever kind, with humour. This is probably the main reason for the discrepancy between adult ideas about what children should see and what children want to see, namely the associated labour-intensity in terms of the how of cinematic realisation. It is not only research on the topic that is draining as Mills (2008) stated above (“… studying comedy is just too difficult”, Sect. 3.5, p. 148), the production and development of humorous children’s formats but also the selection are as well. Moreover, it seems as if adults mostly view media content through the glasses of an archaic-platonic pedagogy, for which humour in the teaching of cinematic content is an unacceptable attitude and fantastic settings represent low escapism, similar to the fact that it seems to be a specifically German phenomenon that learning should not and cannot under any circumstances go hand in hand with humour (cf. Schreiner 2003, p. 239 f., discussed here in Sect. 3.4.1, p. 121; on Plato’s value standards cf. Sect. 3.2.1, among others, p. 36). The observations of Richter (2005) for the reading motivation of children (cf. Richter 2005, pp. 64, 76), of Götz (2013a) for the rejection of humour-free TV series by children (cf. Götz 2013a, p. 589) and the distortions described at the beginning by Vollbrecht (2014) by means of exemplary forced film reception of the film “Schindler’s List” by adolescents (cf. Vollbrecht 2014, p. 21) can hardly be explained otherwise. In all these cases, adults select or produce content that, to their own surprise, does not want to develop the same appreciation among children and adolescents as it does among themselves. Children and adolescents need guidance, example and role model. The fact that this is often done without humour is not very helpful. Taming laughter, as has been shown, always seems to have something to do with the exercise of power. It must therefore be permissible to ask whether the ­phobocratic

396

5  Concluding Remarks

methods of discrediting humour in the Middle Ages do not bear a resemblance to the adult choice of material for children in postmodernity, which is practised to some extent. Here, the discursive contestation of the enforcement of meaning described by Fiske (1994, p. 5 f.) seems to be exemplified for films and television texts as well, for even if one is critical of culturally pessimistic diagnoses, such as those of Cornell (2015), according to which, for example, in American children’s films, a pedagogy that forces a behavioral conformity agreeable to the adult world is determinant (cf. above Sect. 2.2, p.  16), parallels can be drawn with German practice: the dominant adults often want to convey reality in the narrative in a different way than the subservient children would like as recipients, namely seriously. Childhood is, however, after all, a conceivably unsuitable stage of life for indulging humour-free storytelling. But how can more humorous films for children be made? The humour-structural film analysis applied here has a great advantage: it does not have to be limited to films that have already been produced, but the findings of this work can be used to analyse scripts, for example, for their humour structures even before production. In this way, potential material for children’s films can be examined at an early stage to determine whether and to what extent it is appropriate for children in the sense of age-appropriate humour offerings. If the diagnosis then shows a need for change, it is a matter of setting the creativity of authors and filmmakers in motion with the right means. This includes a suitable environment: “Pressure, social stress and fear, especially fear of making mistakes, prevent creative work” (with further evidence: Götz 2014, p. 23). Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney Animation, without question a bastion of intelligent humorous filmmaking,2 summarizes other prerequisites that have been incorporated into corporate culture under his leadership, including: “… anyone should be able to talk to anyone else, at any level, at any time, without fear of reprimand” (Catmull 2014, p. 64); “Trust doesn’t mean that you trust that someone won’t screw up – it means you trust them even when they do screw up” (Catmull 2014, p. 318); “If there is more truth in the hallway than in meetings, you have a problem” (Catmull 2014, p. 317); “If you give a good idea to a mediocre team, they will screw it up. If you give a mediocre idea to a brilliant team, they will either fix it or throw it away and come up with something better. … Getting the right people and the right chemistry is more important than getting the right idea.” (Catmull 2014, p. 74)

 E.g., “Finding Nemo,” 2003, directed by Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich; “Upstairs,” 2009, directed by Pete Docter; “Upside Down,” 2015, directed by Pete Docter. 2

5  Concluding Remarks

397

About feedback rounds, “brain trusts,” Catmull elaborates: “the Braintrust is made up of people with a deep understanding of storytelling and, usually, people who have been through the process themselves … Braintrust meetings are not top-down, do-this-or-else affairs.” (Catmull 2014, pp. 92–93)

An environment free of fear, feedback at eye level from equally creative people and trust in the same people despite setbacks – all this is still structurally feasible for development in traditionally hierarchical Germany and its institutions such as broadcasters and funding bodies. In this context, it is optimistic when the Kinderkanal (children’s channel), among others, tries out the model of the socalled “Writer’s Room” based on the American model, through which several authors can physically develop a material together in a room through moderation and under predetermined forms of communication and thereby work in a creative environment that fulfils3 many of the parameters cited above. For the optimisation of humorous creativity, I think it is also essential to overcome isolated creativity. For many things “already fail in our country because of the image of the genius author still inherent in the German soul, who allows himself to be kissed by the muse at his desk at home or in the coffee shop and gifted with brilliant ideas” (Weiß/Gößler 2014, p. 32). It is therefore significant that of the five films analysed here, three were made in author-team collaboration (“Hanni und Nanni”, “Lilly the Witch” and “Wicki”). The films reviewed with high humour density and attendance were also, with the exception of “DWK 5”, all written by at least two authors, although this also applies to some of the films with low attendance (cf. Table 4.9, p. 211). Humour thus seems to be more effectively produced collectively in many cases. That this is nevertheless enervating has also already been described by director Frank Capra for the work with other authors during the silent film era: “Toppers were what we knocked our brains out for [...]” (Capra 1971/1997, p. 52) (Capra 1971/1992, p. 111; discussed here on p. 228). If the environment and the team are right, the creative process still often needs to be jump-started. To present creativity techniques here would go beyond the scope of these lines. In my own experience, using verbs as a provocation has proven fundamentally successful in practice. Making announcements about desired results is not very helpful to the creative process. In the case of cinematic humour, this would be a request such as: “make it funnier.” Adjectives as static descriptions of states can only insufficiently inspire the activity necessary for creativity. In c­ ontrast,

 Information from “Writer’s Room” consultant and dramaturge Timo Gößler, among others, in a personal conversation. 3

398

5  Concluding Remarks

the task of degrading an antagonist, e.g. with aesthetic humour, and thus serving two of the humour categories examined and used here, is already much more concrete and can evoke associations as a creative technique, since verbs can describe and initiate plot activity. The question of how the comic situation found in this way could be exaggerated or “catastrophised” can then serve as a starting point for the design of a hypotactic humour structure that increases the humour density. Building on the findings of the humour-structural film analysis carried out here, something like a textbook of (children’s) film humour is also conceivable as a further stage. In order to tell stories in a way that is appropriate for children, it is above all useful to allow children of different age, gender and social groups to have their say (as Götz 2014, p. 23), if only because, as we have seen, humour milieus differ from one another and also change. In this context, it is worthwhile to think about breaking up the adult hegemony over interpretation in the committees of television broadcasters and film funding bodies. The appropriate participation of representatively selected groups of children in promotion committees or even in film markets4 would not only promote awareness of the process of creating audiovisual content, especially since film, unlike in France, does not have a high priority in the classroom, but it would also help to break down prejudices and misunderstandings between target groups and producers of material. The most important thing, however, is that humour can and should play a major role in everything.

 At the Film Financing Forum in Malmö in 2016, an exchange for children’s entertainment material, children were directly involved in the development of material: (1) http://blog.thefinancingforum.com/that-bring-in-kids-as-co-creators/; (2) http://www.nordiskfilmogtvfond.com/index.php/news/stories/financing-forum-kids-celebrates-10-years/ (both links retrieved 05.07.16). 4

References

Acuff, Dans S./Reiher, Robert H. (1997) What Kids Buy and Why. New York. Alic, Selma (2014) Comedy Narrative. Erzählstrukturen und Komik in der Hollywood-­ Komödie. Marburg. Amir, Lydia B. (2014a) Philosophy’s attitude towards the comic. A re-evaluation. In: European Journal of Humour Research 1(1), pp. 6–21. Amir, Lydia B. (2014b) Taking the History of Philosophy on Humor and laughter Seriously. In: Israeli Journal of Humor research. Volume 5, pp. 43–87. Ang, Ien (2006) Radikaler Kontextualismus und Ethnografie in der Rezeptionsforschung. In: Hepp, Andreas/Winter, Rainer (Eds.): Kultur, Medien, Macht. Culture Studies und Medienanalyse. 3rd ed. Wiesbaden. S. 61–79. Apter, Michael/Desselles, Mitzi (2014) Reversal Theory. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies II. Los Angeles et al, pp. 641–642. Apter, Michael J. (1991) A structural-phenomenology of play. In: Kerr, J. H./Apter, M. J. (Eds.): Adult play: A reversal theory approach. Amsterdam, pp. 13–29. Apter, Michael J. (1982) The Experience of Motivation. The Theory of Psychological Reversal. London/New York et al. Aristoteles (n.d./2007) Über die Teile der Lebewesen. In: Aristoteles. Werke in Deutscher Übersetzung, Band 17, Zoologische Schriften II, Teil I. Berlin. Aristoteles (n.d./2001) Poetik. Stuttgart. Aristoteles (n.d./1969) Nikomachische Ethik. Stuttgart. Aßmann, Alex (2008) Pädagogik und Ironie. Wiesbaden. Attardo, Salvatore/Giora, Rachel (2014) Irony. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies I. Los Angeles et al, pp. 397–402. Attardo, Salvatore (2001) Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin. New York. Attardo, Salvatore (1994) Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin/New York. Atteslander, Peter (2010) Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. 13th ed. Berlin.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. F. Nebe, Humour and successful children’s films, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40323-2

399

400

References

Ballhaus, M., Tykwer, T., & Binotto, T. (2002). Das fliegende Auge. Berlin Verlag. Barg, Werner C. (2009) Kinderbilder und Kindheitsdarstellungen in Spielfilmen für Erwachsene - Versuch einer Typologie. In: Schäfer, Horst/Wegener, Claudia (Eds.): Kindheit und Film. Geschichte, Themen und Perspektiven des Kinderfilms in Deutschland. Konstanz. pp. 201–220. Baron, Cynthia/Carnicke, Sharon Marie (2008) Reframing Screen Performance. Univ. of Michigan Press. Baur, Nina/Lamnek, Siegfried (2005) Einzefallanalyse. In: Mikos, Lothar/Wegener, Claudia (Eds.): Qualitative Medienforschung. Konstanz, pp. 241–252. Bayless, Martha (2014) History of Humor: Medieval Europe. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies I. Los Angeles et al, pp. 298–302. Bazalgette, Cary/Staples, Terry (1995) Unshrinking the Kids: Children’s Cinema and the Family Film. In: Bazalgette, Cary/Buckingham, David (Eds.): In front of the children. Screen entertainment and Young Audiences. London, pp. 92–108. Bell, Nancy (2014) Failed Humor. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies I. Los Angeles et al, pp. 231–233. Bell, Nancy J./McGhee, Paul E./Duffey, Nelda S. (1986) Interpersonal competence, social assertiveness and the development of humour. In: British Journal of developmental Psychology, 4, pp. 51–55. Benedict (n.d./1990) Die Regel des Hl. Benedikt. Beuron. Berger, Arthur Asa (2014) Release Theories of Humor. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies II. Los Angeles et al, pp. 633–636. Berger, Arthur Asa (1993) An anatomy of humor. New Brunswick, New Jersey. Berger, Peter L. (2014) Erlösendes Lachen. Das Komische in der menschlichen Erfahrung. Berlin/Boston. Bergson, Henri (1900/1921) Das Lachen. Jena. Bienk, Alice (2006) Filmsprache. Einführung in die interaktive Filmanalyse. Marburg. Bierbaum, Otto Julius (1909/1984) Die Yankeedoodle-Fahrt. Leipzig. Bleicher, Joan-Kristin (2003) Vom Volkshumor zur Comedy. Streifzüge durch die Humorgeschichte des Fernsehens. In: Klingler, Walter/Roters, Gunnar/Gerhards, Maria (Eds.): Humor in den Medien. Baden-Baden. pp. 75–85. Blume, Hans-Dieter (1991) Einführung in das antike Theaterwesen. 3rd. ed. Darmstadt. Bönsch-Kauke, Marion (2003a) Kinderhumor im Schulalltag beobachtet. In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). Worüber lachen Kinder? TELEVIZION 16/2003/1, pp. 18–22. Bönsch-Kauke, Marion (2003b) Kinderhumor. Schulkinder unter sich. Opladen. Bohnsack, Ralf (2012) Gruppendiskussion. In: Flick, Uwe/Kardorff, Ernst von/Steinke, Ines (Eds.): Qualitative Forschung. 9th ed. Hamburg. pp. 369–384. Bomnüter, Udo (2013) Von der Bühne auf die Leinwand. Analyse potenzieller Erfolgsfaktoren für die filmische Adaption englischsprachiger Theaterstücke seit 1960. Berlin. Branner, Rebecca (2003) Scherzkommunikation unter Mädchen. Frankfurt. Brock, Alexander (2004) Blackadder, Monty Python und Red Dwarf. Eine linguistische Untersuchung britischer Fernsehkomödien. Tübingen. Brock, Alexander (2007) Vergnügliche Aggressionen. Zur analytischen Erfassung aggressiver Komik in Fernsehkomödien. In: Klemm, Michael/Jakobs, Eva-Maria (Eds.): Das Vergnügen in und an den Medien. Frankfurt a.M. pp. 49–65.

References

401

Budzinski, Klaus/Hippen, Reinhard (1996) Satire. Artikel in: Metzler Kabarett Lexikon. Stuttgart. Weimar. pp. 344. Buijzen, Moniek/Valkenburg, Patti M. (2008) Fear Responses to Media Entertainment. In: Calvert, Sandra L./Wilson, Barbara J. (Eds.): The Handbook of Children, Media, and Development. Chichester, pp. 334–352. Buijzen, Moniek/Valkenburg, Patti M. (2004) Developing a Typology of Humor in Audiovisual Media. In: Media Psychology, 6, pp. 147–167. Butzmann, Frieder/Martin, Jean (2012) Filmgeräusch. Wahrnehmungsfelder eines Mediums. Hofheim. Cann, Arnie/Etzel, Katherine C. (2008) Remembering and anticipating stressors: Positive personality mediates the relationship with sense of humor. Article in: Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, Volume 21–2, pp. 157–178. Capra, Frank (1971/1997) The name above the title: an autobiography. Carroll, James (1990) The relationship between humor appreciation and perceived physical health. In: Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior. Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 34–37. Caroll, Noell (2014) Humour. A very short introduction. Oxford. Caroll, Noell (1999) Film, Emotion, and Genre. In: Plantinga, Carl/Smith, Greg M. (Eds.): Passionate Views. Film, Cognition, and Emotion. Baltimore, London, pp. 21–47. Caroll, Noell (1991) Notes on the Sight Gag. In: Horton, Andrew S. (Ed.): Comedy, Cinema, Theory. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford, pp. 25–42. Catmull, E./Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc: overcoming the unseen forces that stand in the way of true inspiration. Random House. Chapman, A. J./Hugh, C. (1976) Foot (eds.), Humor and Laughter. Theory, Research and Applications (London/New York 1976). Charlton, Michael (2004) Entwicklungspsychologische Grundlagen. In: Mangold, Roland/ Vorderer, Peter/Bente, Gary (Eds.): Lehrbuch der Medienpsychologie. Göttingen et al. pp. 129–150. Charney, Maurice (2005/1987) Comedy High and Low. An introduction to the Experience of Comedy. New York et al. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (n.d./1976) De oratore. Über den Redner. Lateinisch/Deutsch. Translated and edited by Harald Merklin. Stuttgart. Cohen, Sheldon (1988) Psychosocial Models of the Role of Social Support in the Etiology of Physical Disease. In: Health Psychology, 1988, 7(3), pp. 269–297. Cornell, Julian (2015) No Place Like Home: Circumscribing Fantasy in Children’s Film. In: Beeler, Karin/Beeler, Stan (Eds.): Children’s Film in the digital age. Essays on Audience. Adaption and Consumer Culture. Jefferson, North Carolina, pp. 9–27. Coser, Rose Laub (1960/1996) Lachen in der Fakultät. In: Kotthoff, Helga (Ed.) (1996): Das Gelächter der Geschlechter. Humor und Macht in Gesprächen von Frauen und Männern. Konstanz. pp. 97–120. Coulson, Andrew S. (1991) Cognitive synergy in televised entertainment. In: Kerr, J.  H./ Apter, M. J. (Eds.): Adult play: A reversal theory approach. Amsterdam, pp. 71–85. Cousins, Norman (1979/1996) Der Arzt in uns selbst. Wie Sie Ihre Selbstheilungskräfte aktivieren können. Reinbeck bei Hamburg. Crowe, Cameron (1999) Conversations with Wilder. New York. Curtius, Ernst Robert (1948, 1993) Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter. 11th ed. Tübingen.

402

References

Dallmann, Christine/Vollbrecht, Ralf (2014) Die gefährdete Jugend? Sex und Gewalt in den Medien – Zur Entwicklung und Aktualität der Debatten und pädagogischen Herausforderungen. In: medienConcret – Magazin für die pädagogische Praxis, Themenheft Sex & Crime – Zwischen Lust und Grauen, Vol. 1, 2014, pp. 6–9. DaSilva, Zenia Sacks (2013) Introduction. In: DaSilva, Zenia Sacks/M. Pell, Gregory (Eds.): At Whom Are We Laughing? Humor in Romance Language Literatures, Cambridge/ Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. xi–xx. Davis, Jessica Milner (2014) Bergson’s theory of the comic. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies I. Los Angeles et al, pp. 77–80. Deppermann, Arnulf/Schmidt, Axel (2001) Hauptsache Spaß: zur Eigenart der Unterhaltungskultur Jugendlicher. In: Der Deutschunterricht: Beiträge zu seiner Praxis und wissenschaftlichen Grundlegung, 53(6), S. 27–37. Deutsch, Karl-Heinz (2003) Jetzt müßten die doch lachen. In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). Worüber lachen Kinder? TELEVIZION 16/2003/1, pp. 41–44. Diaz-Bone, Rainer (2005) Diskursanalyse. In: Mikos, Lothar/Wegener, Claudia (Eds.): Qualitative Medienforschung. Konstanz, pp. 538–552. Diaz-Bone, Rainer (2002) Diskursanalyse und Populärkultur. In: Göttlich, Udo/Albrecht, Clemens/Winfried, Gebhardt (Eds.): Populäre Kultur als repräsentative Kultur. Die Herausforderung der Cultural Studies. Köln. pp. 125–150. Dobschütz, Ernst von (1899) Christusbilder: Untersuchungen zur christlichen Legende. Leipzig. Duden (2010) Das Fremdwörterbuch, 10th ed., Mannheim. Duden (2007) Deutsches Universalwörterbuch, 6th ed., Mannheim. Dynel, Marta (2013) Humorous phenomena in dramatic discourse. In: European Journal of Humour Research 1 (1), pp. 22–60. Earleywine, Mitch (2014) Humor production. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies I. Los Angeles et al, pp. 362–364. Eastman, Max (1936/2009) Enjoyment of Laughter. New Brunswick, London. Ebert, S. (2019). Daten zum Europäischen Kinderfilm: Ergebnisse, Herausforderungen & Fragestellungen. https://opendata.uni-halle.de/bitstream/1981185920/32144/3/Ebert_ EuropaeischeKinderfilme_pdfa.pdf Ehlers, Ulrich/Lange-Fuchs, Hauke (Eds.) (1992) … am liebsten sehe ich lustige Filme …. Lachen im Kinderfilm. Frankfurt a.M. Elm, Theo (2004) Das soziale Drama. Stuttgart. Ensinger, Carolina (2003a) „Ich denke, das ist auch witzig …“. In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). Worüber lachen Kinder? TELEVIZION 16/2003/1, pp. 54–57. Ensinger, Carolina (2003b) Intendierter Humor im Kinderfernsehen und seine Rezeption. Unpublished Master’s thesis. München. Ewers, Hans-Heino (2012) Literatur für Kinder und Jugendliche. Eine Einführung. Paderborn. Fahl-Dreger, Axel (2014) Versteinertes Lachen: Über das Lachen in der mittelalterlichen Gesellschaft. In: Schubert, Christoph (Ed.): Kommunikation und Humor. Multidisziplinäre Perspektiven. Berlin/Münster. pp. 123–146.

References

403

Fahle, Oliver (2008) Woher kommt das Lied? Alain Resnais‘ DAS LEBEN IST EIN CHANSON. In: Glasenapp, Jörn/Lillge, Claudia (Eds.) (2008): Die Filmkomödie der Gegenwart. Paderborn. pp. 33–46. Faulstich, Werner (2013) Grundkurs Filmanalyse. 3rd ed. Paderborn. Fearman, Robert J. (2014) Punchline Predictability, Comprehension Speed, and Joke Funniness: Investigating Incongruity Theories of Humour. Undergraduate Honors Thesis. Paper 5. Thesis Advisor: Rod A. Martin PhD [online publication]. http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=psychd_uht. Accessed on 13.07.16. Feierabend, Sabine/Klingler, Walter (2015) Was Kinder sehen. Eine Analyse der Fernsehnutzung Drei- bis 13-jähriger 2012. In: Media Perspektiven 4/2015, pp. 174–185. Feierabend, Sabine/Klingler, Walter (2013) Was Kinder sehen. Eine Analyse der Fernsehnutzung Drei- bis 13-jähriger 2012. In: Media Perspektiven 4/2013, pp. 190–201. Feierabend, Sabine/Klingler, Walter (2010) Was Kinder sehen. Eine Analyse der Fernsehnutzung Drei- bis 13-jähriger 2009. In: Media Perspektiven 4/2010, S. 182–194. Filmförderungsanstalt des Bundes [FFA] (2008–2011) Aktuelle Informationen aus der Filmwirtschaft. FFA Info 1/2008; 1/2009; 1/2010; 1/2011. Berlin. Accessed on 22.04.16 under: http://www.ffa.de/studien-­und-­publikationen.html. Filmförderungsanstalt des Bundes [FFA] (2007–2010) Top 50-Filme. Fine, Gary Alan (1987) With the Boys. Little League Baseball and Preadoloscent Culture, Chicago. London. Fischer-Lichte, Erika (1998) Inszenierung und Theatralität. In: Willems, Herbert/Jurga, Martin (Eds.): Inszenierungsgesellschaft. Wiesbaden. pp. 81–90. Fiske, John (1994) Media matters. Everyday culture and Political Change. Minneapolis, London. Flick, Uwe (1991) Stationen des qualitativen Forschungsprozesses. In: Flick, Uwe et  al (Eds.) (1991): Handbuch Qualitative Sozialforschung. München. pp. 148–171. Foucault, Michael (1981) Archäologie des Wissens. Frankfurt am Main. Fredrickson, Barbara L. (1998) What Good Are Positive Emotions? In: Review of General Psychology 1998, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 300–319. Freud, Sigmund (1927/1992) Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewußten. Der Humor. Frankfurt a.M. Freud, Sigmund (1905/1992) Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewußten. Der Humor. Frankfurt a.M. Friedman, Howard S./Tucker, Joan S./Tomlinson-Keasey, Carol/Schwartz, Joseph E./Wingard, Deborah L./Criqui, Michael (1993) Does Childhood Personality Predict Longevity? In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, Volume 1, pp. 176–185. Friedrich, Andreas (2003) Filmgenres. Fantasy- und Märchenfilm. Stuttgart. Friedrichs, Jürgen (1990) Methoden empirischer Sozialforschung. Opladen. Fry, Prem S. (1995) Perfectionism, Humor, and Optimism as Moderators of Health Outcomes and Determinants of Coping Styles of Women Executives. Article in: Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, Vol. 121(2), pp. 211–245. Fry, William F. (1994) The biology of humor. In: Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, Volume 7–2, pp. 111–126. Fry, William F. (1986) Humor, Psychology, and the Aging Process. In: Nahemow, Lucille/ McClusky-Fawcett, Kathleen A./McGhee, Paul (Eds.): Humor and Aging. Orlando. pp. 81–98.

404

References

Führer, Rebekka/Matthes, Jörg (2014) Zur Wirkungsweise von Selbstironie und Spott in der politischen Rede. In: medien & zeit 29, 3/2014. pp. 33–42. Geiger, Jeffrey/Rutsky, R.L. (2013) Film Analysis: Approaches and Strategies. In: Geiger, Jeffrey/Rutsky, R.L (Eds.): Film Analysis. A Norton Reader. New  York/London, pp. 1014–1060. Gelfert, Hans-Dieter (1998) Max und Monty. Kleine Geschichte des deutschen und englischen Humors. München. Gemoll, Wilhelm (1988) Griechisch-Deutsches Schul- und Handwörterbuch. München/ Wien. Gerhards, Maria/Klingler, Walter (2003) Humorangebote in den elektronischen Medien heute und das Publikum. In: In: Klingler, Walter/Roters, Gunnar/Gerhards, Maria (Eds.): Humor in den Medien. Baden-Baden. pp. 87–113. Gierl, Heribert (2007) Überzeugungswirkung von Humor als Stilmittel in der Werbung. In: Transfer. Werbeforschung & Praxis, 52, 1/2007, pp. 16–24. Glasenapp, Jörn/Lillge, Claudia (Eds.) (2008) Einleitung. In: Glasenapp, Jörn/Lillge, Claudia (Eds.) (2008): Die Filmkomödie der Gegenwart. Paderborn. pp. 7–12. Gleich, Uli (2009) Aktuelle Ergebnisse der Werbewirkungsforschung. ARD-­ Forschungsdienst. In: Media Perspektiven 5/2009, pp. 267–273. Goehlnich, Birgit (2003) Resümee und Ausblick. In: MKFS – Stiftung Medienkompetenz Forum Südwest/MBFJ – Ministerium für Bildung, Frauen, und Jugend Rheinland Pfalz, Ständige Vertreter der Obersten Jugendbehörde bei der FSK/FSK – Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft GmbH (Eds.): Medienkompetenz und Jugendschutz II – Wir wirken Kinofilme auf Kinder?, Wiesbaden. pp. 50–54. Götz, Maya (2014) Wo kommen die neuen Ideen her? Zum Entstehungsprozess von Innovationen im Kinderfernsehen. In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). Kreativität. TELEVIZION 27/2014/1. pp. 20–23. Götz, Maya/Berg, Maria (2014) “So, what’s so funny about that?” Humour in children’s TV.  In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). TELEVIZION 27/2014/E, pp. 30–33. Götz, Maya (2013a) Der Gebrauchswert von Lieblingsfiguren. Die Quantifizierung des Nutzens als Teil von Qualitätsdiskussion. In: Götz, Maya: Die Fernsehheld(in)en der Mädchen und Jungen. Geschlechterspezifische Studien zum Kinderfernsehen. München. pp. 575–617. Götz, Maya (2013b) Die Lieblingsfiguren der Kinder. Eine Repräsentativbefragung. In: Götz, Maya: Die Fernsehheld(inn)en der Mädchen und Jungen. Geschlechterspezifische Studien zum Kinderfernsehen. München. pp. 559–574. Götz, Maya/Schwarz, Judith/Mendel, Caroline/Stukanova, Anastasia (2012) Man fühlt, was man hört. Die Bedeutung der Vertonung für die Deutung von Bildern. In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). Wie Kinder Geschichten verstehen. TELEVIZION 25/2012/2. pp. 25–29. Götz, Maya (2003) Was Kinder bei Wissens- und Comedy-Sendungen lustig finden. In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). Worüber lachen Kinder? TELELEVIZION 16/2003/1, pp. 45–53. Goldstein, Jeffrey H. (1994) Humor and Comedy in Mass Media. In: Bosshart, Louis/ Hoffmann-­ Riem, Wolfgang (Eds.): Medienlust und Mediennutz. Unterhaltung als öffentliche Kommunikation. München. pp. 320–332.

References

405

Gottberg, Joachim von (2013) Kulturelle Grenzen statt gesetzlicher Altersfreigaben. Gesetzliche Altersbeschränkungen sind im Internet nicht durchsetzbar. In: Friedrichs Henrike/Junge, Thorsten/Sander, Uwe: Jugendmedienschutz in Deutschland. Wiesbaden. pp. 339–343. Grimm, Jürgen (2014) Lachen im sozialen Kontext. Konstruktion und Evaluation des Humor-­Dispositions-Tests. In: medien & zeit 29, 3/2014. pp. 13–24. Groch, Alice S. (1974) Joking and Appreciation of Humor in Nursery School Children. In: Child Development (45) (4), pp. 1098–1102. Grodal, Torben (2000) Moving Pictures. A New Theory of Film, Genres, Feelings and Cognition. Oxford. Gruner, Charles R. (1997) The game of humor: a comprehensive theory of why we laugh. New Brunswick/New Jersey. Hartung, Anja (2008) Humor im Hörfunk und seine Aneignung durch Kinder und Jugendliche. München Hartung, Anja (2005) Was ist Humor? Zur Ideengeschichte und theoretischen Fundierung des Humorbegriffs. In: merz, Zeitschrift für Medienpädagogik, No. 4, 2005, pp. 9–15. Hastall, Matthias R. (2013) Spannung. In: Schweiger, Wolfgang/Fahr, Andreas: Handbuch Medienwirkungsforschung. Wiesbaden. pp. 263–278. Heers, Jaques (2003) Feste, A. Lateinischer Westen. Articlew in: Lexikon des Mittelalters IV, ed. by Gloria Avella-Widhalm, Liselotte Lutz, Roswitha Mattejiet u. Ulrich Mattejiet. München. pp. 399–405. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1838, 1986) Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik III. Werke 15. Frankfurt a.M. Heller, Heinz-B./Steinle, Matthias (2005) Filmgenres. Komödie. Stuttgart. Helmers, Hermann (1971) Sprache und Humor des Kindes. Stuttgart. Henningsen, Jürgen (1967) Theorie des Kabaretts. Ratingen. Hickethier, Knut (2012) Film- und Fernsehanalyse. 5. ed. Stuttgart, Weimar. Hickethier, Knut (2007) Genretheorie und Genreanalyse. In: Felix, Jürgen (Ed.): Moderne Film Theorie. pp. 62–96. Hickethier, Knut (2005) Filmgenres. Kriminalfilm. Stuttgart: Reclam. Hobbes, Thomas (1658/1959) Vom Menschen. Vom Bürger. Hamburg. Hörhammer, Dieter (2010) Humor. In: Ästhetische Grundbegriffe. Vol. 3. Stuttgart, Weimar. pp. 66–85. Hoffmann, Katrin (2012) Kein Mut, kein Geld. Steckt der deutsche Kinder- und Jugendfilm in einer Krise? In: epd film 2012 (1), pp. 28–33. Horton, Andrew S. (1991) Introduction. In: In: Horton, Andrew S. (Ed.): Comedy, Cinema, Theory. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford, pp. 1–21. Jahn-Sudmann, Andreas (2008) Eine Dogma-romantic comedy: Lone Scherfigs ITALIENISCH FÜR ANFÄNGER.  In: Glasenapp, Jörn/Lillge, Claudia (Eds.) (2008): Die Filmkomödie der Gegenwart. Paderborn. pp. 139–159. James, Lucy Amelia/Fox, Claire Louise (2016) Children’s understanding of self-focused humor styles. Europe’s journal of psychology, 12(3), pp. 420–433. Jefferson, Gail (1989) An Exercise in the Transcription and Analysis of Laughter. In.: Dijk, Teun Adrianus van (Ed.): Handbook of discourse analysis. Volume 3, Discourse and dialogue. London. pp. 25–34.

406

References

Joeckel, Samuel (2014) Christianity. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies I. Los Angeles et al, pp. 127–129. Kammerer, Paul (1919) Das Gesetz der Serie. Stuttgart/Berlin. Kandorfer, Pierre (1994) DuMont’s Lehrbuch der Filmgestaltung. Theoretisch-technische Grundlagen der Filmkunde. Köln. Kant, Immanuel (1790/1963) Kritik der Urteilskraft. Stuttgart. King, Geoff (2002) Film Comedy. London/New York. Kirchner, Karin/Plath, Monika (2005) Lesemotivation in der Grundschule. Empirische Befunde und Modelle für den Unterricht. Weinheim und München. Klepper, Martin (2008) Mit den Coen Brothers auf der Bowlingbahn: THE BIG LEBOWSKI. In: Glasenapp, Jörn/Lillge, Claudia (Eds.) (2008): Die Filmkomödie der Gegenwart. Paderborn. pp. 109–124. Kluge, Friedrich (1995) Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Adapted by Elmar Seebold. 23rd ed. Berlin/New York. Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia (2006) Mood Management Theory, Evidence, and Advancements. In: Bryant, Jennings/Vorderer, Peter (Eds.): Psychology of Entertainment. Mahwah, London, pp. 239–254. Knop, Karin (2007) Comedy in Serie. Bielefeld. Köbler, Gerhard (1995) Juristisches Wörterbuch. Für Studium und Ausbildung. 7th ed., München. Koestler, Arthur (1966) Der göttliche Funke. Der schöpferische Akt in Kunst und Wissenschaft. Berlin, München, Wien. Korte, Helmut (2010) Einführung in die Systematische Filmanalyse. Berlin. Kotthoff, Helga (2003) Lachkulturen heute. Humor in Gesprächen. In: Klingler, Walter/Roters, Gunnar/Gerhards, Maria (Eds.): Humor in den Medien. Baden-Baden. pp. 45–73. Kotthoff, Helga (1998) Spaß Verstehen. Zur Pragmatik von konversationellem Humor. Tübingen. Kotthoff, Helga (1996) Das Gelächter der Geschlechter. Humor und Macht in Gesprächen von Frauen und Männern. Konstanz. Kuckartz, Udo (2016) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. 3. Aufl. Weinheim/Basel. Kuckartz, Udo (2010) Einführung in die computergestützte Analyse qualitativer Daten. Wiesbaden. Kübler, Hans-Dieter (2005) Was ist denn da (so) lustig …? Anmerkungen zum Stand der Forschung. In: merz, Zeitschrift für Medienpädagogik, No. 4, pp. 29–33. Kümmerling-Meibauer, Bettina (2013) Introduction: New Perspectives in Children’s Film Studies. In: Journal of Educational Media, Memory, and Society 5.2 (2013): pp. 39–44. Kümmerling-Meibauer, Bettina (2010) Filmgenres. Kinder und Jugendfilm. Stuttgart. Kümpel, Anna Sophie/Keyling, Till/Brosius, Hans-Bernd (2014) Zwischen Bundestagsdebakeln und bitterer Ironie. Die Rolle von Humor bei der Darstellung von Politikern auf YouTube. In: Dittler, Ullrich/Hoyer, Michael: Social Network – Die Revolution der Kommunikation. München. pp. 217–233. Kuiper, Nicholas (2014) Health benefits of humor, psychological. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies I. Los Angeles et al., pp. 281–284. Kuiper, Nicholas A./Nicholl, Sorrel (2004) Thoughts of feeling better? Sense of humor and physical health. In: Int. Journal of Humour Research, 17.1/2., pp. 37–66.

References

407

Kuiper, Nicholas A./ Grimshaw, Melissa/Leite, Catherine/Kirsh, Gillian (2004) Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. In: Int. Journal of Humour Research, 17.1/2., pp. 135–168. Kurwinkel, Tobias/Schmerheim, Philipp (2013) Kinder- und Jugendfilmanalyse. Konstanz, München Laineste, Liisi (2013) Funny or Aggressive? Failed Humour in Internet Comments. In: Folklore (Electronic Journal of Folklore), 53, pp. 29–49, accessed at www.ceeol.com (Central and Eastern European Online Library) on 28.11.14. Lambernd, Jochen (1998) Scherz ist Trumpf: Humor im Fernsehen. Eine empirische Analyse am Beispiel der Comedy-Show “RTL Samstag Nacht.”. Aachen. Lambrecht, Clemens (2003) Was Kinderfernsehen Lustiges zu bieten hat. In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). Worüber lachen Kinder? TELEVIZION 16/2003/1, pp. 36–40. Lamnek, Siegfried (2005) Gruppendiskussion. Theorie und Praxis. 2nded. Weinheim/Basel. Lamnek, Siegfried (1995) Qualitative Sozialforschung. Vol. 1: Methodologie. 3rd ed. Weinheim. Lampert, Martin Daniel (2014) Gender and humor, psychological aspects of. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies I. Los Angeles et al, pp. 259–261. Lange, Sigrid (2007) Einführung in die Filmwissenschaft. Darmstadt. Lefcourt, Herbert. M./Martin, Rod A. (1986) Humor and life stress: Antidote to adversity. New York et al. Lefcourt, Herbert M. (2001) Humor. The Psychology of Living Buoyantly. New York et al. Le Goff, Jaques (2004) Das Lachen im Mittelalter. Stuttgart. Lexikon des internationalen Films [LIF] (2007) Paulas Geheimnis. Article in: Koll, Han Peter/Messias, Hans/Gerle, Jörg (Eds.): Lexikon des internationalen Films. Das komplette Angebot in Kino, Fernsehen und auf DVD. Marburg. pp. 335. Kraus, Walther (1979) Platon. Article in: Ziegler, Konrat/Sontheimer, Walther: Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike. 5 volumes. Vol. 4. München. pp. 894–905. Lindvall, Terry (2014) Movies. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies II. Los Angeles et al, pp. 522–528. Linz, Stefan (2004) Zeichentrick- und Animationsfilme. “Ich hatte keine Angst, weil es immer gut ausgeht.” In: MKFS – Stiftung Medienkompetenz Forum Südwest/MBFJ – Ministerium für Bildung, Frauen, und Jugend Rheinland Pfalz, Ständige Vertreter der Obersten Jugendbehörde bei der FSK/FSK – Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft GmbH (Ed.): Medienkompetenz und Jugendschutz II  – Wir wirken Kinofilme auf Kinder?, Wiesbaden. pp. 14–23. Loizou, Eleni/Kyriakou, Maria (2016) Young children’s appreciation and production of verbal and visual humor. In: Humor. International Journal of Humor Research, pp. 99–124. Loizou, Eleni (2011) Disposable Cameras, Humour and Children’s Abilities. In: Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. Volume 12, Number 2. pp. 148–162. Loizou, Eleni (2005) Infant humor: The theory of the absurd and the empowerment theory. International Journal of Early Years Education, 2005, 13th year, No. 1, pp. 43–53. Lorenz, Konrad (1962/2002) Das sogenannte Böse. München Lyon, Catherine (2006) Humour and the young child. In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). Children – Humour – Television. TELEVIZION 19/2006/E, pp. 4–9.

408

References

Mader, Michael (1977) Das Problem des Lachens und der Komödie bei Platon. Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln, Mainz. Maiwald, Klaus (2010) Grundlegende filmanalytische Begriffe und Kategorien. In: Josting, Petra/Maiwald, Klaus (Eds.): Verfilmte Kinderliteratur. Gattungen, Produktion, Distribution, Rezeption und Modelle für den Deutschunterricht. München. pp. 168–176. Marshall, Kelli (2014) Slapstick. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies II. Los Angeles et al, pp. 700–702. Martin, Rod A. (2007) The Psychology of Humor. An integrative Approach. Amsterdam, Boston et al. Martin, Rod A. (2004) Sense of Humor and Physical Health: Theoretical Issues, Recent Findings, and Future Directions. In: Int. Journal of Humour Research, 17.1/2, pp. 1–19. Martin, Rod A. (2001) Humor, Laughter and Physical Health: Methodological Issues and Research Findings. In: Psychological Bullet, Vol. 127, No. 4, pp. 504–519. Martin, Rod A. (1998) Approaches to the sense of humor: A historical review. In: Ruch, Willibald (Ed.): The Sense of Humor – Explorations of a Personality Characteristic. Berlin, New York, pp. 15–60. Marszalek, Agnes (2016) The Humorous Worlds of Film Comedy. In: Gavins, Joanna/Lahey, Ernestine (Eds.): World Building. Discourse in the Mind. London, Oxford, New York, New Delhi, Sydney, pp. 203–219. Mast, Gerald (1979) The comic mind. Comedy and the movies. Chicago/London. Mayring, Philipp (2015) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 12th ed. Weinheim/Basel. Mayring, Philipp/Hurst, Alfred (2005) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Mikos, Lothar/Wegener, Claudia (Eds.): Qualitative Medienforschung. Konstanz, pp. 436–444. McGhee, Paul E. (1981) A Developmental Test of the Disposition Theory of Humor. In: Child Development, 1982, 52, pp. 925–931. McGhee, Paul E. (1980) Development of the Creative Aspects of Humour. In: McGhee, Paul E./Chapman, Antony J. (Eds.): Children’s Humour. Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto, pp. 119–139. McGhee, Paul E. (1979) Humour. Its origin and development. San Francisco. McGhee, Paul E. (1977) Children’s humour. A review of current research trends. In: Chapman, A. J./Foot, H. C. (Eds.): It’s a funny thing, Humour: Proceedings of The International Conference on Humour and Laughter 1976. Oxford, pp. 199–210. McGhee, Paul E. (1976) Children’s Appreciation of Humor: A Test of the Cognitive Congruency Principle. In: Child Development, 47, pp. 420–426. McGhee, Paul E. (1971) Cognitive development and children’s comprehension of humor. In: Child Development, 42, pp. 123–138. McGhee, Paul E. (1999) Health Healing and Amuse System: Humor as Survival Training, 3rd Edn Dubuque. IA: Kendall Hunt Pub Co. Mellor, Aubrey (2014) Gag. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies I. Los Angeles et al, pp. 253–255. Mikos, Lothar (2013) Qualitative Verfahren. In: Schweiger, Wolfgang/Fahr, Andreas: Handbuch Medienwirkungsforschung. Wiesbaden. pp. 627–641. Mikos, Lothar/Töpper, Claudia (2009) Forschungsbericht der Studie: “Analyse dramaturgisch und narrativer Strukturen erfolgreicher ‚Familiensendungen” [oOnline publica-

References

409

tion]: http://www.br-­online.de/jugend/izi/deutsch/forschung/familiensendungen.htm. Accessed on 03.11.2010. Mikos, Lothar (2008) Film- und Fernsehanalyse. Konstanz. Mikos, Lothar (2005) Film-, Fernseh- und Fotoanalyse. In: Mikos, Lothar/Wegener, Claudia (Eds.): Qualitative Medienforschung. Konstanz, pp. 458–465. Mikos, Lothar/Prommer, Elizabeth (2005) Rezeptionsforschung. In: Mikos, Lothar/Wegener, Claudia (Eds.): Qualitative Medienforschung. Konstanz, pp. 193–199. Mikos, Lothar (1996) The Experience of Suspense: Between Fear and Pleasure. In: Vorderer, Peter/Wulff, Hans J./Friderichsen, Mike (Eds.): Suspense. Conceptualizations, Theoretical Analyses, and Empirical Explorations. Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 37–49. Mills, Brett (2008) Studying Comedy. In: Creeber, Glenn (Ed.): The Television Genre Book. London, pp. 74–76. Monaco, James/Bock, Hans-Michael (2011) Score (1). Cue (2). Article in: Film verstehen. Das Lexikon. Die wichtigsten Fachbegriffe zu Film und Neuen Medien. Reinbek bei Hamburg. pp. 219 (1), pp. 59 (2). Morreall, John (2014) Philosophy of humor. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies II. Los Angeles et al., pp. 566–570. Moskopp, Nils Dagsson/Heller, Christian (2013) Published under pseudonyms: erlehmann (Nils Dagsson Moskopp) and plomlompon (Christian Heller) Internet-MEME. Köln. Müller, Eggo (1997) Genre. Article in: Rother, Rainer (Ed.): Sachlexikon Film. Reinbek bei Hamburg. pp. 141–142. Müller, Gottfried (1964) Theorie der Komik. Würzburg. Müller, Maria E. (2003) Fastnachtspiel, Article in: Lexikon des Mittelalters IV, edited by Gloria Avella-Widhalm, Liselotte Lutz, Roswitha Mattejiet and Ulrich Mattejiet. München. pp. 314–316. Müller, Rolf Arnold (1973) Komik und Satire. Zürich. Müller, Wolfgang E. (2007) Ironie. Article in: Braungart, Georg/Fricke, Harald/Grubmüller, Klaus/Müller, Jan-Dirk/Vollhardt, Friedrich/Weimar, Klaus (Eds.): Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft: Neubearbeitung des Reallexikons der deutschen Literaturgeschichte. 3rd ed. Vol. II: H – O. Berlin/New York. pp. 185–189. Murgatroyd, Stephen (1991) The nature and social functions of humour. In: Kerr, J. H./Apter, M. J. (Eds.): Adult play: A reversal theory approach. Amsterdam, pp. 119–129. Neale, Steve/Krutnik, Frank (1994, 1990) Popular Film and Television Comedy. London/ New York. Nebe, André F. (2016) Humor – Strukturen eines filmischen Mittels in ausgewählten besucherstarken deutschen Kinderfilmen. Dissertation, Potsdam-Babelsberg. Neuss, Norbert (2003a) “Eine orangene Kuh, die war mal ganz schwarz …” – Humor und Lernen im Alltag und beim Fernsehen. Empirische Studien mit Grundschulkindern, accessed on 26.07.2010 at www.dr-­neuss.de Neuss, Norbert (2003b) Humor von Kindern. Empirische Befunde zum Humorverständnis von Grundschulkindern. In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). Worüber lachen Kinder? TELEVIZION 16/2003/1, pp. 54–57. Niekisch, Sibylle (2002) Kolonisation und Konsum. Kulturkonzepte in Ethnologie und Cultural Studies. Bielefeld. Nietzsche, Friedrich (1886/1990) Menschliches, Allzumenschliches. München.

410

References

Nörenberg, Britta (2011) Auswertung der Top 50-Filmtitel des Jahres 2010 nach soziodemografischen sowie kino- u. filmspezifischen Informationen auf Basis des GfK Panels. Berlin. Nörenberg, Britta (2010) Auswertung der Top 50-Filmtitel des Jahres 2009 nach soziodemografischen sowie kino- u. filmspezifischen Informationen auf Basis des GfK Panels. Berlin. Nörenberg, Britta (2009) Auswertung der Top 50-Filmtitel des Jahres 2008 nach soziodemografischen sowie kino- u. filmspezifischen Informationen auf Basis des GfK Panels. Berlin. Nörenberg, Britta (2008) Auswertung der Top 50-Filmtitel des Jahres 2007 nach soziodemografischen sowie kino- u. filmspezifischen Informationen auf Basis des GfK Panels. Berlin. Oerter, Rolf/Montada, Leo (1998) Entwicklungspsychologie. 4th ed. Weinheim. Online-Duden (1) Ironie. Gag. Running-Gag. Spott: http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/ Ironie; http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Gag; http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Running_Gag; http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Spott; all accessed on 28.01.15. (2) Karikatur. Parodie. Sarkasmus, Satire. Zynismus: http://www.duden.de/ rechtschreibung/Karikatur; http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Parodie; http://www. duden.de/rechtschreibung/Sarkasmus; http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Satire; http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Zynismus; all accessed on 29.01.15. Palmer, Jerry (1994) Taking humour seriously. London/New York. Palmer, Jerry (1987) The Logic of the Absurd. On film and television comedy. London. Parry, Rebecca (2013) Children, film and literacy. Houndmills, Basingstoke. Paul, Jean (1812, 1973) Vorschule der Ästhetik. In: Jean Paul, Sämtliche Werke, fifth volume. Vorschule der Ästhetik, Levana oder Erziehlehre, Politische Schriften. München. pp. 7–514. Paus-Hasebrink Ingrid (2005) Forschung mit Kindern und Jugendlichen. In: Mikos, Lothar/ Wegener, Claudia (Eds.): Qualitative Medienforschung. Konstanz, pp. 222–231. Pennington, Natalie/Hall, Jeffrey A. (2014) An analysis of humor orientation on Facebook: A lens model approach. In: Humor, International Journal of Humor Research, edition 27(1), pp. 1–21. Pérès, Jacques-Noel (2000) Untersuchungen im Zusammenhang mit der sogenannten Epistula Lentuli. In: Apocrypha. revue internationale des littératures apocryphes, 11, 2000, pp. 59–75. Piaget, Jean/Inhelder, Bärbel (1986) Die Psychologie des Kindes. Stuttgart. Piaget (1948/1983) Das moralische Urteil beim Kinde. Stuttgart. Pittorf, Martin L./Huckauf, Anke/Lehman, Wolfgang (2010) Zum kindlichen Verständnis der typischen technischen Filmelemente Schwenk und Umschnitt. In: merz, Zeitschrift für Medienpädagogik, No. 6, 2010, pp. 94–105. Pizzine, Franca (1991/1996) Hierarchie in der Scherzkommunikation. Kommunikation im gynäkologischen geburtshilflichen Bereich. In: Kotthoff, Helga (Ed.) (1996): Das Gelächter der Geschlechter. Humor und Macht in Gesprächen von Frauen und Männern. Konstanz. pp. 201–217. Platon (n.d./1991a) Platon. Nomoi. Sämtliche Werke IX. Frankfurt a.M./Leipzig. Platon (n.d./1991b) Platon. Philebos, Timaios, Kritias. Sämtliche Werke VIII.  Frankfurt a.M./Leipzig.

References

411

Platon (n.d./1991c) Platon. Politeia. Sämtliche Werke V. Frankfurt a.M./Leipzig. Platon (n.d./1991d) Platon. Symposion. Phaidon. Sämtliche Werke IV.  Frankfurt a.M./ Leipzig. Plotzek, Joachim M. (2003) Drolerie(n). Article in: Lexikon des Mittelalters. Vol. 3 Codex Wintoniensis bis Erziehungs- und Bildungswesen. München pp. 1406–1407. Prommer, Elizabeth (2014) Stirring up a good comedy. The recipe for funny children’s television. In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). TELEVIZION 27/2024/E, pp. 26–29. Prommer, Elizabeth (2012) Fernsehgeschmack, Lebensstil und Comedy. Eine handlungstheoretische Analyse. Konstanz/München. Prommer, Elizabeth (2005) Codierung. In: Mikos, Lothar/Wegener, Claudia (Eds.): Qualitative Medienforschung. Konstanz, pp. 404–413. Prommer, Elizabeth/Mikos, Lothar/Schäfer, Sabine (2003) Pre-Teens und Erwachsene lachen anders. In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). Worüber lachen Kinder? TELEVIZION 16/2003/1, pp. 58–67. Rabenalt, Peter (2014) Der Klang des Filmes. Dramaturgie und Geschichte des Filmtons. Berlin. Räwel, Jörg (2005) Humor als Kommunikationsmedium. Konstanz. Raskin, Victor (2014) Humor Theories. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies I. Los Angeles et al, pp. 367–371. Raskin, Victor (2012) The hidden media humour and hidden theory. In: Chovanec, Jan/Ermida, Isabel (Eds.): Language and humour in the media. Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 45–66. Raskin, Victor (1985) Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Boston. Rathmann, Claudia (2004) Was gibt’s denn da zu lachen? Lustige Zeichentrickserien und ihre Rezeption durch Kinder unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der präsentierten Gewalt. München. Reiser, Marius (2012) Von allen Lebewesen lacht nur der Mensch – Die griechisch-römische Lachkultur. In: Wilhelmy, Winfried: Seliges Lächeln und höllisches Gelächter, Das Lachen in Kunst und Kultur des Mittelalters. Mainz. pp. 16–25. Richter, Karin/Plath, Monika (2005) Lesemotivation in der Grundschule. Empirische Befunde und Modelle für den Unterricht. Weinheim. München. Rogge, Jan-Uwe (1999) Kinder können Fernsehen. Vom Umgang mit der Flimmerkiste. Reinbek bei Hamburg. Rotton, James (1992) Trait Humor and Longevity: Do Comics Have the Last Laugh? In: Health Psychology, 1992, 11 (4), pp. 262–266. Schäffer, Burkhardt (2005) Gruppendiskussion. In: Mikos, Lothar/Wegener, Claudia (Eds.): Qualitative Medienforschung. Konstanz, pp. 304–314. Schmidt-Hidding (1963) Wit and Humour. Humor und Witz. In: Europäische Schlüsselwörter. Vol. I: Humor und Witz. München, pp. 37–160. Schneider, Rolf Michael (2004) Plädoyer für eine Geschichte des Lachens. In: Le Goff, Jaques: Das Lachen im Mittelalter. Stuttgart. pp. 79–123. Schnell, Rainer/Hill, Paul B./Esser, Elke (2013) Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. 10th ed. München. Schopenhauer, Arthur (1844/1987) Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. Vol. 2. Stuttgart. pp. 124–136.

412

References

Schramm, Christine (2012) Die Komik der Chaplin-Filme. München. Schreiner, Joachim (2003) Humor bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Eine Reise durch die Welt des kindlichen Humors unter Berücksichtigung entwicklungspsychologischer, pädagogischer, psychotherapeutischer und diagnostischer Aspekte. Berlin. Schröter, Jens (Ed.) (2014) Handbuch Medienwissenschaft. Stuttgart, Weimar. Schubert, Christoph (2014) Was gibt’s denn da zu lachen? – Witze und Humor aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht. In: Schubert, Christoph (Ed.): Kommunikation und Humor. Multidisziplinäre Perspektiven. Berlin/Münster. pp. 17–35. Schütte, Wilfried (1991) Scherzkommunikation unter Orchestermusikern. Tübingen. Schütz, Karl-Otto (1963) Witz und Humor. In: Europäische Schlüsselwörter. Vol. I: Humor und Witz. München. pp. 161–240. Schumacher, Gerlinde/Hammer, Daniela (2000) Humorsendungen im Fernsehen: Angebot, Nutzung, Anforderungen. In: Media Perspektiven 12/2000, pp. 562–573. Schwab, Ulrike (2006) Erzähltext und Spielfilm. Zur Ästhetik und Analyse der Filmadaption. Berlin. Seger, Linda (2003) Wie gute Autoren noch besser werden, Köln. Shephard, Benjamin (2014) Play and Humor. Article in: Attardo, Salvatore (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Humor Studies II. Los Angeles et al, pp. 577–579. Shifman, Limor (2014) Meme. Kunst, Kultur und Politik im digitalen Zeitalter. Berlin. Shifman, Limor (2007) Humor in the Age of Digital Reproduction: Continuity and Change in Internet-Based Comic Texts. In: International Journal of Communication 1 (2007), pp. 187–209. Shifman, Limor/Dafna Lemish (2011) “Mars and Venus” in Virtual Space: Post-feminist Humor and the internet. In: Critical Studies in Media Communication, 28:3, pp. 253–273. Sicks, Kai Marcel/Stauff, Markus (2010) Filmgenres. Sportfilm. Stuttgart. Sturm, Hertha/Jörg, Sabine (1980) Informationsverarbeitung durch Kinder. Piagets Entwicklungstheorie auf Hörfunk und Fernsehen angewandt. Stutterheim, Kerstin (2015) Handbuch Angewandter Dramaturgie. Vom Geheimnis des filmischen Erzählens. Film, TV und Games. Frankfurt a.M. Sully, James, (1902) Essay on laughter. ITS FORMS, ITS CAUSES, ITS DEVELOPMENT AND ITS VALUE. London, New York, Bombay. Svebak, S./Romundstad, S./Holmen, J. (2010) A 7-Year Prospective Study of Sense of Humor and Mortality in an Adult County Population: The Hunt-2 Study. In: International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 40, pp. 125–146. Tatsch, Isabell (2010) Filmwahrnehmung und Filmerleben von Kindern. In: Josting, Petra/ Maiwald, Klaus (Eds.): Verfilmte Kinderliteratur. Gattungen, Produktion, Distribution, Rezeption und Modelle für den Deutschunterricht. München. pp. 143–153. Titze, Michael (1988) Humor und Lachen: Spekulationen, Theorien und Ergebnisse der Lachforschung. In: Praxis Spiel + Gruppe, 1988, 1, pp. 3–12. Türschmann, Jörg (2008) Jean-Pierre Jeunets DIE FABELHAFTE WELT DER AMÉLIE und das Gesetz der Serie. In: Glasenapp, Jörn/Lillge, Claudia (Eds.) (2008): Die Filmkomödie der Gegenwart. Paderborn. pp. 216–235. Twele, Holger (2012) Der Kinderfilm kann gar nicht besser sein. Wider überholte Denkmuster des Jugendmedienschutzes. In: epd film 2012 (2), pp. 16–19. Unterstell, Sabrina/Müller, Amelie (2014) “Es war so schaurig schön!” StudentInnen über vergangene Erlebnisse von Spannungslust beim Fernsehen. In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). TELELEVIZION 27/2014/2, pp. 37–39.

References

413

UNIC (2018) EUROPEAN CINEMA - FACTS AND FIGURES, Union Internationale des Cinémas / International Union of Cinemas / UNIC. https://www.unic-cinemas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/UNIC_Impact_brochure__1_.pdf Valliant, G.E. (1977) Adaptation to life. Boston. Toronto. Valkenburg, Patti M./Cantor, Joanne (2000) Children’s Likes and Dislikes of Entertainment Programs. In: Zillmann, Dolf/Vorderer, Peter (Eds.): Media entertainment: the psychology of its appeal. Mahwah, pp. 135–152. van Alphen, Ingrid C. (1996, 1984) Wie die Jungen das Lachen lernten – und wie es den Mädchen wieder verging … In: Kotthoff, Helga (Ed.) (1996): Das Gelächter der Geschlechter. Humor und Macht in Gesprächen von Frauen und Männern. Konstanz. pp. 217–227. Visarius, Karsten (1997) Ohne Sinn und Verstand? Annäherungen an die Lachkultur. In: Karpf, Ernst/Kiesel, Doron/Visarius, Karsten (Eds.): “Ins Kino gegangen, gelacht.” Filmische Konditionen eines populären Affekts. Marburg. pp. 9–15. Völcker, Beate (2009) Kinderfilm oder Family Entertainment? In: Schäfer, Horst/Wegener, Claudia (Eds.): Kindheit und Film. Geschichte, Themen und Perspektiven des Kinderfilms in Deutschland. Konstanz. pp. 231–241. Völcker, Beate (2005) Kinderfilm: Stoff- und Projektentwicklung, Konstanz. Vogt, Rüdiger (2007) Pointeninszenierung in Comedy-Shows. Didaktische Perspektiven einer linguistischen Medienanalyse. In: Klemm, Michael/Jakobs, Eva-Maria (Eds.): Das Vergnügen in und an den Medien. Frankfurt a.M. pp. 127–153. Vollbrecht, Ralf (2014) Konzepte der Filmbildung und der pädagogische Widerwille gegen den Seh-Sinn. In: Medienwelten – Zeitschrift für Medienpädagogik 3/2014. pp. 10–32. Vonderau, Patrick (2005) Computergestützte Filmanalyse. In: Mikos, Lothar/Wegener, Claudia (Eds.): Qualitative Medienforschung. Konstanz, pp. 466–473. Voytilla, Stuart/Petri, Scott (2003) Writing the Comedy Film: Make ‘em Laugh. Los Angeles (Studio City). Wegener, Claudia (2011) Der Kinderfilm: Themen und Tendenzen. In: Schick, Thomas/ Ebbrecht, Tobias (Eds.): Kino in Bewegung. Perspektiven des deutschen Gegenwartsfilms. Wiesbaden. Wegener, Claudia (2010) Spannung, Spaß, Humor. Eine Studie zum Filmerleben von Kindern und Jugendlichen. In: Schäfer, Horst (Ed.): Lexikon des Kinder- und Jugendfilms im Kino, im Fernsehen und auf Video. Part 6: Genre, Themen und Aspekte. Meitingen. pp. 1–32. Wegener, Claudia (2005) Inhaltsanalyse. In: Mikos, Lothar/Wegener, Claudia (Eds.): Qualitative Medienforschung. Konstanz, pp. 200–208. Wegener, Claudia/Gibbon, Mariann (2010) 3-D im Kino: Gefahr der Ängstigung bei Kindern? In: tv diskurs 53, (3) 2010. pp. 58–61. Wegener, Claudia/Mikos, Lothar (2005) Wie lege ich eine Studie an? In: Mikos, Lothar/ Wegener, Claudia (Eds.): Qualitative Medienforschung. Konstanz, pp. 172–180. Wehn, Karin (2010) Humor als Geburtshelfer. Worüber wir im Internet lachen und welche neuen Kunstformen das hervorbringt. In: tv diskurs 52, pp. 34–39. Wehn, Karin (2003) Humor im Internet. In: Klingler, Walter/Roters, Gunnar/Gerhards, Maria (Eds.): Humor in den Medien. Baden-Baden. pp. 115–129. Weinberger, Marc G./Campbell Leland (1990) The use and impact of humor in radio advertising. In: Journal of Advertising Research, December 1990/January 1991, pp. 644–652. Weinkauff, Gina (2009) “Volle Kanne Witzigkeit.” Über Komik und Humor in der Kinderund Jugendliteratur, in den Medien und in der Entwicklung Heranwachsender. In: kjl&m,

414

References

Kinder-/Jugendliteratur und Medien in Forschung, Schule und Bibliothek. 2nd quarter 2009, pp. 3–14. Weinrebe, Helge M.A. (1979) Vom Umgang mit Witzen. Zur Didaktik und Methodik von Witz und Witzigem. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, München. Weiß, Frank/Gößler, Timo (2014) Kreativitaetsindustrie: Writers Room. Das US-­ amerikanische Konzept zur Serienproduktion. In: Internationales Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und Bildungsfernsehen (IZI). TELELEVIZION 27/2014/1, pp. 30–34. Wilhelmy, Winfried (2012) Seliges Lächeln und höllisches Gelächter, Das Lachen in Kunst und Kultur des Mittelalters. Mainz. Wilhelmy, Winfried (2012a) Das leise Lachen des Mittelalters  – Lächeln, Lachen und Gelächter in den Schriften christlicher Gelehrter (300–1500). In: Wilhelmy, Winfried: Seliges Lächeln und höllisches Gelächter, Das Lachen in Kunst und Kultur des Mittelalters. Mainz. pp. 38–55. Wilhelmy, Winfried (2012b) Jene lächerliche Monstrosität: Worüber lachte der Mensch des Mittelalters. In: Wilhelmy, Winfried: Seliges Lächeln und höllisches Gelächter, Das Lachen in Kunst und Kultur des Mittelalters. Mainz. pp. 214–233. Williams, Jonathan/Stönner, Christof/Wicker, Jörg/Krauter, Nicolas/Derstroff, Bettina/ Bourtsoukidis, Efstratios/Klüpfel, Thomas/Kramer, Stefan (2016) Cinema audiences reproducibly vary the chemical composition of air during films, by broadcasting scene specific emissions on breath. In: Scientific reports 6 (2016). PDF-Version accessed on 22.06.16 at: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep25464#t1. Winter, Rainer (1997) Cultural Studies als kritische Medienanalyse: Vom „encoding/ decoding“-Modell zur Diskursanalyse. In: Hepp, Andreas/Winter, Rainer (Eds.): Kultur – Medien – Macht: Cultural Studies und Medienanalyse. Opladen. pp. 47–63. Wojcik-Andrews, Ian (2000) Children’s films: history, ideology, pedagogy, theory. New York/London. Wolf, April (2016) Yes, Comedies Look Better Than They Used To. Brandon Trost Is Why. Accessed on 02.06.16 at: http://www.villagevoice.com/film/yes-­comedies-­look-­better-­ than-­they-­used-­to-­brandon-­trost-­is-­why-­8677511 Wolfenstein, Martha (1954) Children’s humor. Indiana. Wulff, Hans J. (2004) Einleitung. In: Traber, Bodo/Wulff, Hans J. (Eds.): Filmgenres. Abenteuerfilm. Stuttgart. pp. 9–30. Wuss, Peter (1993) Filmanalyse und Psychologie. Strukturen des Films im Wahrnehmungsprozeß. Berlin.