PROGRAMME 24 19/2006/E

David Kleeman Sesame Street to SpongeBob

North American humour and children’s TV

Interviews with US-American pro- Alice Cahn, the Cartoon Network audience,” concludes Phil Davies of ducers reveal what is important for Vice President responsible for Tickle U UK production company Astley Ba- comedy for kids. Part of the discus- (the channel’s preschool block, cf. ker Davies. His company makes Pep- sion deals with the notion of a par- Cahn in this issue), says it is. “It’s cer- pa Pig, a popular preschool series on ticular North American humour, and tainly possible to observe what chil- Tickle U. “If we’re really good at how to negotiate global humour. dren laugh at … and then find ways what we do, then maybe (if we’re to translate that material to the lucky!), hopefully children will find screen.” Blue’s Clues research head what we do ‘funny.’” n advance warning: this Alice Wilder agrees, and continues: For some, it’s easiest to catalogue article will not be funny. “That is not to say that the degrees of known sources of laughs. “Kids and AWriting about television funny will be the same for every kid, teens laugh at different things. Boys humour is much like dancing about but there are definitely broad and girls laugh at different things,” architecture; it really is impossible to categories of humour for pre- according to Essie Chambers, Vice capture the essence. Moreover, one schoolers …Testing, testing, testing: President of Development for teen thing that virtually everyone inter- you have to try it out on them in order network The N. “There are certain viewed for this article agreed on is to know if you are hitting your mark.” things that unite genders, such as phy- that US-American children (and per- – “As an adult,” add Chris and Mar- sical comedy. But when girls reach a haps all young children) like physical tin Kratt, creators and hosts of Kratts’ certain age (12?), they don’t like co- comedy, yet typing “a man slipped on Creatures and , “the best medy that’s too over-the-top and silly.” a banana peel” just doesn’t carry the way to define what’s funny is to know Rosemarie Truglio, Vice President of same impact as the image itself. the specific audience you’re speaking Research and for Sesame To understand the challenges and to and spend time with them – joking, Workshop, tells how years of work possibilities of producing humorous laughing and having fun.” with preschoolers as they react to television for children, I went to the Others agree in part, but find it harder Sesame Street have yielded insights. experts – producers, programming to put into words or rules than it is “We found the following elements to executives and researchers involved simply to do. “The hard word here is be humorous: any manipulation with with current and recent children’s ‘define,’” suggests Peter Moss, a shows. I particularly wanted to find Canadian independent producer who out to what extent they rely on instinct has been a top executive for both US versus research in developing, writing and Canadian producers and chan- and visualising kids’ TV series. nels. “It’s certainly possible to know what will make children of different ages laugh, [but] can we ‘define’ what Can adults do “funny” is funny for adults? Humour is so per- for kids? sonal it’s impossible to come up with a single theory. It is impossible to However much we may feel “in touch know exactly what will make an au- with our inner child,” most children’s dience laugh in general, but very media is made by people decades possible to make an audience laugh away from pre-adolescence. Is it pos- specifically – this particular audience Foto: Tickle U sible for us to know what’s funny for at this particular time.” Tickle U’s Peppa Pig is snorting through the today’s young people? “We really try not to patronise our everyday experiences of childhood PROGRAMME 19/2006/E 25 their sense of reality … playing on behaviours for each segment. Laugh- children’s mastery and a rather naïve ter is one of the behaviours we re- or dumb adult … the unexpected ele- cord.” Linda Simensky of PBS adds, ments of surprise … and physical hu- “if we were testing a show, we’d want mour (this is true Muppet humour).” to know if kids thought it was funny, She defers to her executive producer and we’d consider being funny a plus for the final word on the subject: “[he] … but I’d always rather know that assures me that saying ‘underpants’ kids love the character – that bodes to children has universal appeal.” better for the show.” Adventurous creatures: Zoboo (middle), Chris “Of course, you can test humour,” and Martin present the wildlife show Zoboo- affirms Pat Tobin. “You can’t rely on mafoo with the on PBS Potential pitfalls observing children viewing because they will often laugh when they think Almost everyone agrees that one of Intuition or investigation? it is a response that is expected of the worst things possible is to tell them. You can learn the most by en- your audience to expect “funny.” In developing kids’ TV, do most pro- couraging children to retell the story Robin Agranoff, Director of Program ducers and writers rely on their in- and describe the characters. Humour Planning and Acquisitions for The tuition, or do they conduct situation- is important to children and what they Disney Channel, says “you need to specific research? Most start from find humorous in a show will become show the audience that something is instinct, and the jury is divided on the clear in their retelling.” funny, not tell the audience that it’s question of what is possible to test. Kathy Hirsh-Pasek is a Temple Uni- funny.” It’s a matter of faith, echoes “Dead simple,” explains producer Pe- versity Professor of Psychology, spe- PBS Senior Director of Children’s ter Moss about what he studies, “have cialising in human development. She Programming Linda Simensky. “If they laughed?” For Cartoon Net- was a consultant with Cartoon Net- you tell someone something is funny work’s Alice Cahn, it’s more complex work and its Tickle U block. Hirsh- and then they don’t think it’s funny, going from study to practice. “We Pasek stresses the importance of pa- you’ve eroded your trust bond with know and can observe what makes rental co-viewing for young children, kids.” Independent researcher Pat children laugh and be happy. The and therefore testing for appeal to Tobin suggests special care with older challenge is translating what works kids and parents. “In young children, children. “Kids of school age and up in a live setting to the more removed you can’t really test humour in the can be cynical about accepting claims screens.” Researcher Alice Wilder same way you might test whether made. The branding and previews of agrees that the formative research is older children grasp learning goals,” a show can make it clear that it is just the prelude. “If something is she proposes, “What we know in our comical without making that claim.” funny in the script, I try to ensure that field is that learning occurs by watch- Another potential pitfall (or banana the humour remains by how we show ing with sensitive and responsive peel slip) is trying too hard to be funny. it visually; many a joke is lost if it is adults. It’s hard to get parents to co- Keep it simple, recommends Rosema- not delivered properly visually, par- view; we have to get parents engaged rie Truglio. “Humour comes out of ticularly for preschoolers. A producer enough to play the games or recog- simple things and it is those simple might need to put themselves with nise the value of humour.” things (such as a pratfall) that are their audience for an extended period difficult to write and are often of time before they ever start writing overwritten.” Chris and Martin Kratt a script.” Think globally, agree: “It’s impossible to ‘try too hard’ Sesame Workshop’s Rosemarie Truglio laugh locally? to know your audience, but it is says, “we rely more on instinct and possible to ‘try too hard’ to be funny – talented comedy writers, but forma- Given the amount of US-American in its final presentation the humour tive research does help in defining programming that is exported inter- must be natural and effortless.” In what works with young children. nationally, is there a particularly Alice Wilder’s experience “a show There’s a real balance not to let the “American” sense of humour or style concept has to be about more than just comedy get in the way of learning, of funny programming? Has US- funny. Have a concept for what you but we know that if the show isn’t American humour become global, want to get across to kids, what appeals appealing, children won’t be exposed simply by virtue of the marketplace? to them and why, and then make it to the educational content … we ob- From a research perspective, Tickle U funny. Kids know when they are being serve preschoolers watching the pro- consultant Kathy Hirsh-Pasek pro- talked down to or patronised.” gramme and we record while viewing poses that “at the kiddie level, humour PROGRAMME 26 19/2006/E is what violates expectations, and for not fair to identify them as ‘Ameri- is a waste of time,” according to little kids that’s the same everywhere can’ in style, any more than Aardman researcher Pat Tobin. “Of course, – when a ball doesn’t drop. As you get is ‘British’ in style. Both companies there are some shows that layer older, a lot changes. British humour, draw on their own cultural references, humour and entertain a broad age for example, is more sarcastic than but don’t exemplify a national style.” range … like SpongeBob.” American humour. Pacing is also a big Chris and Martin Kratt echo the idea Gross kid humour, a staple of chil- part of it; how humour works will be of searching for commonalities. dren’s TV, can draw adult ire. The contingent on timing.” “Since humour often happens when Parents Television Council (PTC), an Most of those interviewed agreed that a basic context or norm is turned on organization that roots out perceived there is a uniquely North American its head in an unexpected way, any indecency in US-American media, re- sense of humour, and in one way or cultural norm that is ingrained in a cently published a report on chil- another, most referred to its physi- person is the starting point for hu- dren’s TV content. It searched for cality. Essie Chambers of The N, who mour. If a person isn’t aware of a (and, of course, found) a lengthy list is involved in international drama co- particular norm, chances are the joke of behaviours it deemed inappro- productions, says “American humour won’t be funny. In creating the most priate for young people, including is definitely specific. I find it more universally funny humour, stick to the drooling, flatulence, burping, disobe- broad and physical, while internatio- norms that are the most consistent dience, negative portrayals of parents nal humour has more verbal sophis- among cultures or age groups.” and more. A producer adhering strict- tication (irony, satire, etc.). Global Here, as with other points, the intent ly to the PTC guidelines might create humour hasn’t worked well for us in of the programme is as important as a ‘tasteful’ show, but surely it would the past, but I imagine it’s different the audience it is aimed at. Cartoon also be flavourless. and easier with animation.” Network’s Alice Cahn points out that In an increasingly serious world, the From the other side of the 49th paral- “there are those properties that work rewards of amusing children far out- lel (US/ border), Peter Moss well globally as originally developed weigh the challenges. Physiologically addresses animation: “There is a par- (, for instance, is a classic (in the release of endorphins), psy- ticular style of American cartoon hu- pre-kindergarten comedy that works chologically (in the development of mour, universal and very visual (e. g., across borders) as well as those that coping and social strategies, and self- Roadrunner) but I don’t believe that need to be re-developed to meet dif- esteem) and educationally (in foster- American humour has overtaken the ferent cultural exigencies (Sesame ing flexibility and creativity), laughter world, not for kids nor adults. In ge- Street’s multiple versions come to is quite simply good for kids. It’s neral, I find that U.S. kids’ shows rely mind).” good for producers, as well, since on visual sight gags more than ver- there are few rewards greater than bal wit, but of course there are as ma- seeing your audience giggling along ny exceptions to that as there are ex- Humour: risk and reward with your work. amples.” Moss goes on to propose In conclusion … underpants. that “once you leave English, there Creating humorous kids’ TV has its is little that translates from culture to risks. In shows designed for learning, THE AUTHOR culture without serious adapting – sometimes attempts to be funny get usually in the translation. One in the way of education. Sesame couldn’t say that German or French Workshop, in trying to encourage kids’ shows are American in their parental co-viewing, often builds in style of humour, only that American parodies of adult programmes, but shows are present in their market and “we never want these portrayals to be usually popular because of marketing at the expense of the learning goals,” pressure, production values and qua- says Rosemarie Truglio. Some shows lity. But, most popular US shows are believe they need to appeal to broad not comedies (Nick excepted) … audiences to survive financially, but before the Nick explosion of co- the attempt to create humour that David Kleeman is President of the medies … I don’t think there was a works on multiple levels may not sa- American Center for Children and huge US contingent of TV kids’ tisfy anyone. “Some producers be- Media (Chicago, USA), an execu- comedies that dominated the world’s lieve that as long as it is not distract- tive roundtable for the children’s airwaves. I would maintain that Nick ing or confusing to the target au- media industry, guided and sup- is sui generis – they make good dience, there is no problem. This ported by executives from leading media companies. comedy and good kids’ shows but it’s shortchanges the target audience and