Laughter in an Ungoverned Sphere

Home , Comedic genres, Summer Heights High

laughter in an ungoverned sphere

fi f t e e n actuality humor in early cinema and

web 2.0

r o b k i n g

introductory premises The major premise of this paper can be stated as follows: the forms and strategies of moving image humor have among their conditions of possibility the technological properties of the media by which they are produced and circulated. That is, the technological processes of visual media are preconditions for specific forms of humorous representation. There is nothing earth-shattering in this claim: it has long been established, through the work of critics like Rudolph Arnheim and Walter Kerr, that the silent comedians frequently constructed gags that exploited the peculiarities of film technology (the way in which, say, the reduced sense of depth in the cinematic image allowed the gag of Keaton “entering” the movie screen in Sherlock Jr . [ 1 9 2 4 ] ) .1 Extended to a principle of comic historiography, however, such a premise becomes more far-reaching. It entails a rejection, for instance, of the idea that visual humor has developed along a linear, evo- lutionary trajectory of change, as well as of the inverse presumption of a kind of transhistorical permanence to humor’s forms. Rather, at each

8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 294 7/28/2015 6:35:42 AM actuality humor in early cinema and web 2.0 295 7/28/2015 6:35:42 AM

2 Yet early cinema early Yet 4 As such, media arche- 3 . 1903–1904) with contemporary internet c The The present paper will pursue this impulse through a comparative This This matrix of ideas is adapted from current trends within German trated its comedic genres practices and representational in relation to the social formations associated with the idea of the masses. a comparison is that, in the it bookending twentieth century, brackets off the dominant paradigm of moving image comedy as “mass” entertainment, instead allowing an assessment of technological potentialities in a relatively ungoverned sphere of their organization. For much of the last I century, have argued elsewhere, the that relevant circumstances shaped moving image humor were the operations of a mass culture that orches- exploration of exploration the of role within humor media-technological two distinct constellations, roughly a cally, century I apart. will Specifi be comparing the earliest comic motion pictures (that is, from the period prior to the ascendancy of the lm, story fi humor (particularly so-called viral videos that circulate within the web’s socially 2.0” One networked “Web incarnation). of the of advantages such takes the point of view of technological factors as catalysts for mutations in cultural perception and knowledge. Applied to the history of screen humor, what this implies is an approach that seeks the discontinuities differences that and visual media technologies may have introduced into of comic representation. conventions ology has been described as a form of “posthuman cultural studies” that given by moving image technologies—occur in relation to those technolo- those to relation in technologies—occur image moving by given with simply not dealing are we So milieus. cultural and social changing gies’ be may conditions those which in ways the with but possibility of conditions given the particulars of the social situation. frustrated or fulfilled with how the transmission of humor by particular technologies may alter of with by how technologies humor the particular transmission and inflect its for No capabilities expression. doubt such risks a standpoint lapsing into a technological determinism, so it is consequences. worth or that underlining effects necessary not preconditions, of one is here issue the Thus a second premise: that the I ous which forms—by of mean or the possibilities suppression realization emergence and development of humor- technologically technologically given moment, we are dealing with media-technological as emergence—and, the for conditions enabling become that constellations (e.g., humor forms of certain visual re-emergence—of we will see, cyclical various types of gags, sources of etc.); amusement, that is, we are dealing as a specifi c style as of a media-theoretical specifi thinking. In contrast with the cul- archeol- media studies, media Anglo-American of orientation studies tural ogy proposes a more hardware- and technology-oriented perspective for analysis which always must begin, as Ernst puts it, a from “close examina- tion of technical media as they actually operate.” media studies, in particular what Wolfgang Ernst dubs “media archeology” archeology” “media dubs Ernst Wolfgang what particular in studies, media was not yet inscribed within these standardizing logics, while contemporary media by practice new suggests displacement their forms of potential 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 295 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 296

rob king 296 “comic.” is which that from “comedy” separating distinction terminological the image technologies makeavailable. the aboutbut comedy aboutnot talk to need will we that so discourse; and culture within formalization or symbolization their precede that effects media about practices, non-discursive about is archeology media But tradition. or practice discursive a for words, other is laughter in stands, it comedy,romanticstand-upcomedy); (e.g., intended goal the which for mode cultural established an designates comedy suggest newframeworks forthehistoriography ofscreenhumor? What kinds of humor will we find there? And how might attention to these circumscribed by a necessary deference to the logic of mass entertainment. andparadigm—ontonolongernotyet cultural both mass territories a to sibilities both both possibilities onto opens that purview a generates it that is sense, this in videos, grassroots creativity online. The value of comparing early film with online highest slapstick art, yet not itself slapstick comedy.) slapstick itself not yet art, slapstick highest the of worthy need bodily raw of face the in dignity political maintain to struggle split-second Address—a Union the of State 2013 Obama’s dent Presi- to response Republican televised nationally the during bottle water a for grab thirsty Rubio’sMarco instance,Senator (Consider,comedy.for wouldmaybemetaphorically—describea we never—except being that as intention, just as it is easy to think of something that provokes a guffaw but mirthful its in fails that comic, not is that comedy a of think to instance, for easy, is converge.It not need terms two These laugh. to expect to us cue that codes performative and aesthetic certain obeys it which in sense of representation and intent: something is presented to us pavingstone.a contrast over By spheresstumbling to limited is “comedy” individualawkwardlyan or club a in joke a telling professionalcomedian to referring in “comical” or ment, irrespective of intention. In this sense, the term is identical to “funny” the tongue /Ofhimthatmakesit.” Labour’sLost jokes,quoteof Shakespeare’sThusstudy his Sigmund in does Freud, at it. Otherwise—and assuming it has been understood—it is a failed joke. audienceof instance,joke,response:funnyfor anda youis if only if laugh the peculiarities of comedy among all the arts, indeed, is the incorrigibility humor.situatedof of socially One nature the given necessary so—is be to tence on perception—that something is comical if and only if it is perceived “finot do I insis- Thisbutetc.). comedy comic, a it nd”“is” [2007–present] representation a as comedy differentiating nuanceby further terms ourmight we T e hr peie f u acelg o sre hmr il hs be thus will humor screen of archeology our of premise third The term Thefar. so “comedy” word the avoided largely have I that Note 5 Something is “comic,” it is said, if it simply generates our amuse- “A: jest’s prosperityin never it, hears that him ear/Of the in lies from the comic as a before arguably,and, anything property of perception after 7

ta cue u t luh wehr a whether laugh, to us causes that the conscription of screen humor screen of conscription the . (Thus, comic effectscomic 6 With that in mind, in that With The Big Bang Theory as a comedy moving that in the mode of mode Love’s 7/28/2015 6:35:42 AM actuality humor in early cinema and web 2.0 297 7/28/2015 6:35:42 AM R a t h e r , G a u d - 9 ). Already at the include a include famous Such a hypothesis, at least insofar as it was shaped by 8 cinématographe comedy The The Sprinkler Sprinkled ( ; hence the centrality of found-footage found-footage of centrality the hence ; comic The early development of development early film The form was then 10 L’Arroseur arrosé L’Arroseur ,” ,” in the sense in which the medium, at least until was not yet cinema There is no trick to applying this model to early fi lm In comedy. is There point no trick to applying this model to fi early These qualifi cations will, it is hoped, bear fruit later. For the it present, qualifi These spring of 1895 with their recently patented case in a point: staged sketch about a bad a boy, and a gardener, hose gen- erally known today as lm’s time making, of the the gag fi was a familiar comic-strip chestnut in not a specifically “cinematic” development at all, but rather an application application an rather but all, at development “cinematic” specifically a not forms. media non-cinematic of norms representational the to film of of lms fact, made the by very Auguste earliest and fi Louis Lumière in the or or actuality-style material—including such familiar classics as “Double “Leave Britney Alone!” comicality and many others—whose is Rainbow,” not a matter of deliberate staging or intent but exists tion and in circulation, the “ear solelythat hears it.” in its percep- 2.0, 2.0, comedy/comic) atop of one another. Early cinema, one can imagine proposing, was at the start a vehicle for preexisting comedic media—vaudeville, comic strips, etc.—whose practices were the simply into new extended medium. by Online con- humor, unmediated, of kind a involves it when viral reliably most proven has trast, the with encounter real-world early cinema and comedy cinema and comedy early misleading—answer show, to hope I as straightforward—although very A cinema/Web (early pairings two our mapping by simply advanced be might have served as media for humor? as media for humor? served have suffi ces to consider how they apply to the objects suffi of our in analysis: How, short, does the distinction between “comedy” and the “comic” provide a these as 2.0 Web and cinema early between relation the assessing for rubric “cultural “cultural series”): for photography the Lumières, vaudeville for Dickson, magic sketches for Méliès. reault understands early film as no more or less than a tool, an instrument instrument an tool, a than less or more no as film early understands reault whose optical rendering was put in the service of adjacent media “did,” Méliès Georges and forms Dickson, W.K.L. Lumières, the What genres. and in this respect, was simply to use the new device as a for vehicle reproduc- terms Gaudreault (what traditions cultural pre-existing extending and ing around 1908, lacked an autonomous institutional identity. 1908, lacked institutional identity. an around autonomous dence dence upon preexisting media forms—during its earliest years. What we call cinema, it is said today, initially existed in for an which intermedial technological situation novelty was harnessed to a range of cultural preceding practices. The leading scholarly voice here has surely been that of André Gaudreault, who has gone so far as to propose that “Early ‘cinema’ as it touches cinema, is broadly in keeping with recent historiographic per- historiographic recent with keeping in broadly is cinema, touches it as depen- profound intermediality—its medium’s the on insist that spectives 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 297 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 298

rob king 298 what transpires emerges out of accident, from the unselfconsciousaccident,emergesfromoutthe of sadism transpires what in whereas comic, as predetermined is of case funda- the in a that difference—namely masks mental here designation shared the although comedy”), little “laughable a being latter (the year following the US the in released when comedies classififias were both ed Interestingly,lms spoon? a over gling movie, home prototypical their than amusing more any reason that for it is but Lumières’ the is here,Ibelieve,thatmediaarcheology shows itsusefulness.Forexample, was that laughter—material produced have may nonetheless that that but genres material such within of fall not presencedid the is unstated leaves etiology an such what Still, media. comedic existing already of transposition a through plished early of emergence the that clear, be already victim (a bucket of water propped atop a door, a shoelace tied to a laun- a to tied shoelace a door, a atop propped water of bucket (a victim ter like Happy Hooligan—sets up a prank to which a second character falls L’Arroseurarrosé of template gag cause-effect straightforward the followed that narratives prank of proliferation a generating cinema, early of framework one-shot routine oftheturn-of-the-century vaudevillestage. machine” “sausage numerousfifamiliar of the one of 1904), records lmed the earliest Edison shorts through to later films like routines and performed before the camera—a tendency that extends from modular format readily allowed for brief “bits” to be extracted from longer whose acts, vaudeville comedic were well-suited Also etc.). wringer, dry erickOpper’sBurr Etc.). strip, Grandpa”“Foxy onbased 1903, in series Hooligan” “Happy a 1902, in Fred- pictures funnymore than any other US studio (e.g., a the series based on Carl Schultze’s from material derived which Biograph, and Mutoscope beyond and provided by France’s leading comic-strip artist Christophe in 1889. in Christophe artist comic-strip leading France’s by provided France: a first version had appeared in 1885, two more in 1887, with a fourth acs dtn a fr ak fr xml, s hms aly lrc’ Aldrich’s Bailey ThomasBoy Bad a of Story as example, for back, far as (dating stage farces and tales comic small-town in tradition rich a from derive which fiAmerican in genre importantearliest the perhaps fiction yet lmmaking, constitute that prank “bad-boy” a the of be pulling fithe would fi pointdepicting lm—single-shot lms in case A particular. sketches in media—vaudeville strips comic adjacent and in comedy of repertory existing already an from types character and situations gag of appropriations of series a of because possible only was 1890s late to mid- the during screen comedy of existence very The exceptional. transposition direct such was Other examples could be cited, but only to confirm a point that should urle enfantine Querelle L’Arroseur arrosé L’Arroseur charac- comic-strip a not youngboy,if rascal—usuallya a : ’roer arrosé L’Arroseur [1869]). 12 ( equally,strips, Comic mainstayabove a remained ais Quarrel Babies’ , perhaps nowhere more so than at American at than so more nowhere perhaps , my el e h bohr’ fi “comedy,” brothers’ rst the be well may 13 comic Such sources accorded brief, the with well without actually being being actually without ) 19) soig w bbe strug- babies two showing (1896), ) Babies’ QuarrelBabies’ L’Arroseur arrosé L’Arroseur fi lm cmd ws accom- was comedy The Dog Factory 14 , the comic nature of nature comic the ,

comedy the action the it —and (Edison, 11 Nor The 7/28/2015 6:35:42 AM actuality humor in early cinema and web 2.0 299 7/28/2015 6:35:43 AM In 19 as “subordinate” to pho- Humor, however, thrives 18 here taking on the recording Babies’ Babies’ Quarrel photography is not so well ﬁ tted to these is so not well ﬁ photography cinématographe still But such a position, while it surely respects 16 belong? The obvious answer would be still pho- But the temporality of reading a photograph tends toward 17 Babies’ Babies’ Quarrel

15 None None of this is meant to imply a hard and fast distinction: there obvi- It is in fact precisely the “accidental” quality to what is here recorded mal premise, is a durational temporality: the perception of humor, one recent cognitive study proposes, engages the mind in a “time-pressured heuristic” that involves the framing of expectations and their subsequent derailment. the impulse the behind Lumières’ use leaves the of comic their invention, upshot of lm the strangely fi untouched, and for a that analysis; namely, eludes reason that hardly kinds of comic effects. describe To tography thus risks overlooking the mirth-provoking aspect of lm the fi for mirth, as a mini- is required What subordination. such that transcends rary viral trend of photobombing is a good example); or, alternately, when when alternately, or, example); good a is photobombing of trend viral rary the photo itself, as a whole, is the thing that deviates from expectations (successiveness here being realized in the way viewing). of the instant viewer the at carries overturned are certain that expectations pre-existing ously are funny photos. In such instances, however, humor succeeds humor only however, In instances, such photos. are ously funny rubs the against grain of its own the medial still “all-at- when photograph one in occurs typically This decoding. linear more a encourage to onceness” rst, there when is a temporality directional somehow “built of two ways: fi focus primary a establishes composition photo’s a way (the image the into” that is ated then by comically some defl secondary detail; the contempo- not not on “dams,” but on “happenings”; it requires a form of succession for as soon As surprise. and emergence of process a in unfolds meaning which into transitions successiveness is secured—as photography such it is when available. becomes permanently moving images—humor with which with one baby which steals a spoon from the other uses and it as a poking weapon—none of which, surely, was immanent to the decision to start lming. fi that betrays the crucial blindspot in any intermedial reading humor, since it points of to forms of screen comic attraction that cannot easily be related to previous cultural series. After all, to what pre-existing cultural series does tography, with the Lumières’ duties of the family photo. of history, jamming historical happenings.” awkwardly awkwardly within the same moment of apprehension. As Vilém Flusser notes, the process of interpreting still images differs fundamentally from their moving counterparts, since the former tend not to be decoded in strictly linear fashion, from nish.” a Rather, in “start” a to still a image “fi rst”—all then at try once—“and we to “get decompose the it.” message fi are, Photographs in this sense, like “dams placed in the way of the stream an “all-at-onceness” that renders this cognitive cult two-step (albeit diffi not impossible; see below), forcing expectation and deviation to coexist 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 299 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 300

rob king 300 with the same fecklessly impartial eye.” impartial fecklessly same the with distant, the and near the important,and trivial the see they way; their in “are both that ing not- painters, pre-Raphaelite of “realism” the called he what fi with lm Dover at Sea fithe Acre’sin Birt in fisurf Lumière the rst poundingof the or lms, trees the in leaves the rustling breeze the celebrated who commentators the codifications of any intended signification. One thinks here of the early from freed representation, of dehierarchizing of kind this with associated From the medium’s inception, of course, cinema’s unique power was often that contains the permanent potential unpredictability,” for unexpectedly comic moments. and representation between alliance “unprecedented an as describes events,she whatof unfolding the indeterminacyfor of gin duration—built into the technology of the medium itself—creates a mar- profoundly often fiactualityearlywhy is surely This strictly notthough lms, independentimagesandis ing (b) indeedanteriorof, logically comedy. to, mov- and still between distinction media the in precisely resides (a) that of any number ofmirth-producing actions. unfolding durational the in object consequenceto in whichsubject binds itself, apparatus the to immanent is temporality fia suchcontrast, by lm, fragilitythe photography’sstill of mirth-inducing of case the In capacities. the viewer to generate the tograph and who, as such, “creates” humor’s temporality in the process of rather on the side of the subject (the viewer) who encounters the still pho- photo)but(the object the of muchside fromso the not generated be will all such instances, however, the successive temporality required for humor encounter. dents or happenstance whose meaning comically refuses to be constrained profiwitnessing acci- for lmic opportunity ample spectator the give larly fiearly footage: actuality to purview fiourction limit we shouldsimi- lms moreover, Nor, other. the on hilarity, unmediated and hand, one the on everyday, the with fascination aestheticizing of kind a between oscillated thus that viewing for possibilities real—revealed the of capture indexical its of plenitude moment” “any leveling, world—that the of accounting discussed above are simply the humorous side of this same coin? Film’s new Surely,camera. the of lens the though, inadvertentlythe momentscomic togénie name to Frenchficame that 1920s motion the of of poetry lmmakers keep his hat straight while playing an unconsciousan whileplaying straight hat in his woman keep to concernoverzealous actor’s an side; wrong the from horse his mount of actors bandit the hierarchiesto meaning. narrative of Theequestrian inexperience oneof of It follows, then, that there is a kind of actuality-based humor in cinema , as a kind of expressive singularity unexpectedly revealed beneath revealed unexpectedly singularity expressive of kind a as , compared 1896, in who,writing writer English the of or (1895); 20 Which is to say that the single photograph relies stronglyonphotograph relies single the that say to is Which comic incapable of selection incapableof The Great Train RobberyGreatTrain The . As Mary Ann Doane has shown, the basic fact of fact basic the shown, has Doane Ann Mary As . timing that comicality implies—hence, arguably, comes that straw every at grasp they ; 22 to attempts who 1903), (Edison, One thinks also of that chance that of also thinks One comedies FromLeadville so are , Rough pho- 21

7/28/2015 6:35:43 AM actuality humor in early cinema and web 2.0 301 7/28/2015 6:35:43 AM no no longer needed for extrapolating for contingency to contingency nar- bound to the contin- But it differs in the case of 24 subordinate medium of reproduction of medium only in the medium’s role as a vehicle vehicle a as role medium’s the in only time-based machine not But it does not detract from the reality of that struggle struggle that of reality the from detract not does it But 23 (American Mutoscope & Biograph, 1906)—readers will surely have have surely will 1906)—readers Biograph, & Mutoscope (American . The media-archeological exercise, then, will be to track this epis- It follows, though, that our initial hypothesis cannot be quite right; that right; quite be cannot hypothesis initial our that though, follows, It Two Two historical ed processes rst in can con- this be respect. speciﬁ The ﬁ humor, humor, where the effort was not simply to as Ernst puts it—but, the unexpected,” rative meanings—less to “exclude It It is perhaps not the least of our that consequences the question of class finds itself displaced. The historiography of early screen humor has been approached by many scholars (myself included) in terms of between class-based models a of “low” slapstick comedy struggle vs. “sophisticated” comedy. situation looked looked dialectic for the historiography of screen ferentiates humor, one between that a dif- conventionalized system of a techno-indexical realm comedy of comic I contingency. genres want, then, to and turn to the question of historiographic implications in order this to dichotomy unpack might what mean for a What, humor. for example, are the processes that belong to this dialectic? historical understanding of screen from from the ontology of cinema as a of unfolding events. gency comedification/de-comedification Media archeology thus ultimately leads to what has been an over- for other comedic traditions. Rather, there are two trajectories of cinematic of trajectories two are there Rather, traditions. comedic other for humor to be explored, each on dependent a distinct reading of the apparatus, as medium or machine: one of these trajectories—predicated a as on cinema on intermediality—insists on other—predicated the comedy; of traditions and genres pre-established emerging humor reality-based of style new a on archeology—insists media to Aspen to to add to this list. examples favored their own resides cinema early of humor the arship that has explored the formal methods and production of narrative cinema as devices for managing contingency. teme as it has haunted and shaped the forms of screen humor. humor. screen of forms the shaped and haunted has it as teme cerns the way in which the medium’s photographic receptivity to comic an to relation in regulated practically and discursively be to came accident develop- apparatus’s the favoring thus genres, comedy of system emergent as ment a medium. to Attention this process with intersects schol- recent to the dialectic that I am here identifying. The terms slapstick and situation situation and slapstick terms The identifying. here am I that dialectic the to exist only on one side of our dialectic, on the side of genre; whereas what the moving image more uniquely represents for the history of is interpreted, media-archeologically humor, a new episteme for laughter that no longer required generic models—that, in a sense, profound comedy to observe that this process was logically and, indeed, historically posterior posterior historically indeed, and, logically was process this that observe to 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 301 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 302

rob king 302 would tilt the delicate balance of the “What Happened” fidecisively Happened” lms “What the of balance delicate the tilt would effect. It is thus significant that the next stage in this “comedifying” process the medium’s techno-indexical novelty as the basis of a reproducible comic duction of movement through time, only here with an effort to regularize repro- the by exerted fascination basic that of sway the under still words, other in Weare, medium. mass emerging an as subsequentidentity its of duced only so long as cinema remained within the prehistory, so to speak, (Paley and Steiner, 1904). Steiner,and(Paley WhatMilkman the to Happened Janitor tive YorkCity New Twenty-thirdStreet, on pened to a Fresh Johnnie PictureWas TakenHot a few: a onlyprivy.To name becomes viewer the which to moment comic chance a “captured” having camera the of that cisely pre- is which of pretense the fiperiod, earlyHappened” “Whatthe of lms lg o sre humor. screen of ology arche- media a fifor the suggests what lm is mind, my to singular, more contingency;earlycinema’sfor predilectioninstanceof key a as Doane by into comedic pseudo-accident comedic into is, that comedy; of formulareproducible a penstanceas incorporatehap- non-systemic,to the systematize paradoxically,to more genre—whose pretenseisnot tobeagenre— scholarmedia Following this itself. call medium will the we of Mills, Brett ontology the is possibility conditionof whose laughter of production the stirrings of a truly vaudeville skit nor a comic-strip adaptation, but nothing less than the first the in fiwhich rupture fiin ficontextcomedy intermedial a decisive lm developed—not rst lmed a is here encountered is what case, that in But, moving image and its subsequent repackaging as a reproducible formula. the potentialreflof immanentcomic the of discovery the is staged exively the of speak fact, in ing something that simply happened, something “purely” comic. We may, witness- are we that play, in are codes representationalno that is conceit whose comedy a but laughter, for designed representationalform a being fithe comic: lm the and comedy embarrassment withanopenlaughand thecouple walkson. her defuses playfully she skirt; woman’s the lift to grate sidewalk a from crowd,the up blows towardair side-by-side of walking gust A camera. the woman (actors A.C. Abadie and Florence Georgie) eventually emerge from simple street scene in which passers-by walk hither and thither. A man and a apparentlyactuality, straight a as itself presents it rather,intent; comic What happened to the “What Happened” genre? Such fiSuch genre? pro-Happened” “Whatwere the lms to happened What fisucha how here Note confllm ourdistinctionforegoingates between (ah Fèe, 92, 1902), Frères, (Pathé cinematic (American Mutoscope & Biograph, 1900), (American Mutoscope & Biograph, 1898), 1898), Biograph, & Mutoscope (American comedifi cation . 25 27 26 I am thinking here foremost of the numerous the of foremost here thinking am I genre of comedy, of a new cultural paradigm for Te igeso fil cnan n mres of markers no fi contains single-shot lm The and1903), (Lubin,

What Happened on Twenty-thirdon StreetHappened What ht apnd n h Tunnel the in Happened What 1901), (Edison, o cmclt, s huh ht s being is what though as comicality, of is a comedy, in the zero-degree sense of sense zero-degree the in comedy, a WhatFiend Camera a to Happened comedy verité What Happened to the Inquisi- the to Happened What What Happened WhenHappened What to turn comic accident comic turn to . 29 (dsn 1903), (Edison,

cited been has What Happened What Hap- What 28 7/28/2015 6:35:43 AM actuality humor in early cinema and web 2.0 303 7/28/2015 6:35:43 AM mass (Bio- qua (1904) that media and tech- ) to the staging of staging the to ) (MGM, 1933). As Bobby’s Bobby’s Kodak its ) to comedies about the fi lm- fi the about comedies to ) (Comique, 1917), a notewor- a 1917), (Comique, Babies’ Quarrel Babies’ ). “Comedifi names cation” this ). “Comedifi Sons of the Desert But they also serve as memorial 31 The The Story the Told Biograph (1904), which, as often noted, imple- noted, often as which, (1904), (Edison, 1906) and Personal A Reckless Romeo Reckless A predictable variations in the pursuers’ traversals un Getting Evidence The Story the Biograph Told Story The the Biograph What Happened on Twenty-third Street Twenty-third on Happened What machine (with comic effects) was subsumed to cinema cinema to subsumed was effects) comic (with machine More telling still is the simultaneous appearance of a number of qua 30 But we will also need at this to of process corollary point add a second, The The path of media archeology thus reveals a history that leads from tions tions even nes as them it to confi an overall sameness—the way, that is, for a predictable system comedy provides of chase that the repetitive form regularizing comically of space (the way in which, e.g., one pursuer will leap over like an a obstacle fence, another will crawl under it, another will fall ing it). down climb- toward toward the standardized formulas lmmaking. of Coinciding with genre fi the “What Happened” cycle’s decline, for example, there now emerged Biograph’s like comedies chase ment a kind of “managed irregularity” that permits impromptu varia- now leave the confi nes of early cinema. the Inverting logic just described, now leave the confi cation names the ways in de-comedifi which the increasing dissemination subsequently have ease of moving use technologies image and of indexical kind a century, last the over contingency of re-entry cyclical the permitted nology nology were appropriated to generic categorizations, a thumbnail of how cinema medium (with comedy genres). cation” that in turn “de-comedifi merits analysis as to nological conditions, although tracking this logic will require that we the paradigms of situation comedy, and hence contained. contained. hence and comedy, the paradigms of situation ( contingency comic of moments “genuine” ( contingency ( ing of contingency process whereby comic possibilities inaugurated by moving image tech- to the immanent comicality of that technology, whose “feckless” capacity “feckless” whose comicality to of the that immanent technology, to capture zzed accident through the and impropriety early fi period as a within device plot a as consecrated here mirth—only of source prominent Charlie Keil rightly notes, such “refl exive scenarios point to the capacity of capacity the to point scenarios exive “refl such notes, rightly Keil Charlie medium’s the to testimony in time” of moments past replay to .] . [. cinema status as a technology of reproduction. nently nently in a number lms of peppered fi throughout the nickelodeon era, including titles like graph, 1908); enters into the stock-in-trade of domestic comedies in the Arbuckle’s Roscoe with 1910s, thy example; and even extends into the sound era, where it is central to the plot of the Laurel and Hardy feature refl exive fi lm comedies like Biograph’s exive fi refl incorporate the medium’s indexical availability to happenstance as a nar- shaming. and exposure spousal of comedies situation-style in device rative A lmed wayward husband committing is some inadvertently fi miscreant commonly is onscreen, then projected act—typically adulterous—which at a movie theater attended by his wife. The plot device features promi- 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 303 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 304

rob king 304 videos online, towhich thispapernow turns. viral non-comedic of form the in resurgenceunprecedented historically real-worldanda happenstancehowrecentlywhyhumorof made has the merely beyondmerely confithe beyondalso butearly itself, cinema of cinema nes not move to have then, would, processsecond this of analysis full A ing. function- machinic apparatus’s recording the of pleasures happenstance the recurrentrestored of periodically de-semanticizinghas humor that of ever, with 130 millionever,130 views. with video online viewed most the was it later years two views; million a over had video the 2007, of end the By liked. they something foundevidently laugh. “Charlie bit me,” Harry adds, recovering into a smile. - Internet users k sadistic c a resembling i something into b breaks inadvertently Charlie infant f o e l c “Ouch!bitten. Ouch, Charlie! OWWWWW! Charlie, hurt!”reallythat The a is t again and mouth c Charlie’s in finger e his puts p again He exclaims. s Harry c the me!” bit i in“Charlie bites. m who finger Charlie, brother o one-year-old his his c of puttingmouth three) e (aged h Davies-Carr t Harry shows p video u d e r e Tube platform f simply to distribute the footage f to relatives, the one-minute o the You-used who s father,children’s the by Uploaded e cruelty.infant ting r è unwit- i of dimension comic m the to u testifies video L the Quarrel,” “Childish e h t r My Finger—Again!” began e to go viral at the t end of 2007. Like the Lumières’ f a Bit YouTubethe “Charlie when video online, time y this squabbles, sibling r u t n e c in children ering a r e v O web 2.0andtheforms ofonline humor com. contemporarysit- of style new a of basis the as “docusoap” television the US, 2005–2013) and like shows verité” “comedy of surfeit a inspired instance,burgeoningthe has televisiondecades reality two of last the over how,for cycle; Happened” “What earlier the of procedures operative the with keeping in formulas, reproducible to them appropriate would comedifithat of cation process continued a to subject been themselves have pleasures reality-based such how too, consider, to have would It ment. develop- linear humor’sa screen is that anyassumptionrecurrence belies whosefromcomedy escape technologicallykindenabled of a to testifying like programs to rise gave to consider how the dissemination of home video technologies in the 1980s ences with military surveillance technologies at the Army Signal Corps; or era enabled television shows like Allen Funt’s hidden camera series that conditionsspecifi media the instance,c for examine, to need would It history. image moving broader much a account into take to order in (1948–2004), the idea for which initially evolved out of Funt’s experi- Funt’s of out evolved initially which for idea the (1948–2004), 32 Above all, however, attention to these processes will need to address Babies’ QuarrelBabies’ Parks and Recreation America’s Funniest Home America’sVideosFunniest 33 viewedbeen has writing,it of time the of As at laugh chanceto another hadaudiences , (2009–2015) that mimic the format of The OffiThe ce (1989–present)—all 2001–2003; (UK, Candid Cam- 7/28/2015 6:35:43 AM actuality humor in early cinema and web 2.0 305 7/28/2015 6:35:44 AM

34 magazine Time summarizes the dynamics of humor’s Splitsider designed for on-the-go enjoyment than comedy, and a Between the rise of Twitter, Tumblr, podcasts, and web vid- web and podcasts, Tumblr, Twitter, of rise the Between secret no eos, that it’s mobile becoming comedy is quickly TV of relevance and accuracy the While thing. big next the retweets, to view online dwindle, counts, ratings continue and comedian/fan interconnection have ourished fl and changed the way we discover and share our favorite per- formers, and in turn how they choose to release and pro- mote their work. Few forms of entertainment are better How can we understand the popularity of such viral actualities? Any It might seem strange to offer “Charlie Bit My Finger—Again!” as an into the into of process retweeting; sketch comedy is adapted to sites like Fun- nyorDie.com, which now allows viewers to vote (“funny” or “die”); and form in the meme and images take electronic one-liners and catchphrases gifs that online users circulate as shorthand comic ripostes. A writer for the comedy news website circulation: online by Gaudreault for early fi lm: digital by media Gaudreault have for indeed early developed fi in part in a “state of complementarity” vis-à-vis pre-existing comedic practice. Internet humor can thus be viewed, at least to some degree, as a kind of hodge-podge of traditional modes, only now dressed up with the special sauce of online culture: jokecraft has been Twitter feeds, relocated where the onto traditional practice comedians’ of sharing jokes is absorbed answer rst must acknowledge fi the very broad array of comedic material that today circulates online. The situation of the internet, in terms of is content, humorous in this respect somewhat parallel to that argued howls), and “Miss Teen South Carolina” (in which a contestant at the 2007 the at contestant a which (in Carolina” South Teen “Miss and howls), question). to a pageant a garbled response offers USA contest Teen Miss made an unprecedented resurgence to claim center stage in the form of videos non-comedic that viral acquire status online. When clips the of third a fully 2010, in Videos” Best 50 “YouTube’s of list its posted fell within this category, including such now-classic instances as “David after Dentist” (depicting a seven-year-old boy’s reaction to anesthesia), “Grape Lady Falls!” (wherein a woman stomping grapes falls over and would would argue for more than a circumstantial similarity, a chance linkage between subjects. media infant infant For and purposes, our the however, similarity can clarify the linkage binding digital platforms to the re-entry of a kind of actuality-based humor in our contemporary moment. Mar- ginalized by the of standardization comedic genres during the mid-1900s, the humor of real-world contingency and accident has in recent years over 800 million times and remains the most viewed YouTube video that is that video YouTube viewed most the remains and times million 800 over video. music professional a not immediate with comparison the surely, Lumières’ family movies; nobody, 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 305 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 306

rob king 306 discernment. Actuality-based humor thus achieves a symbolic centrality symbolic a achieves thus humor Actuality-based discernment. comic claimssimilar their to staking users other for gambit agea becomes foot- the shared, reading; own its of incorrigibility the imposes laughter user’s the Unbidden, comic. the of production and discovery the own in role her declares user sensibility—a the which in of capital cultural declaration of assertion forceful potent particularly a becomes them to Because these texts are prominentway.uniquely a in sensibilities those engages footage actuality it validates the shared sensibilities upon which online communities thrive. contemporary convergence of culture: not only does aspects it demand to be shared but, networkingin being so, and participatory enabling—the in catalyst prime fia for—arguably,good t a been has kind whatever of who those against joke don’t,such,humorAs thosewho againstat. those who laugh givenlaughed are a “get” who those together binding tor, opera- discursive in-group an as stronglyfunctions it which in in sense the social inevitably also is Humor noted). Freud joke, no audience, (no audience-dependent, requiring an act of transmission for its very existenceuniquely is it which in sense the in situated socially is kind, whatever of earlier, noted As material. comic of kinds other ity alone cannot support a distinction between actuality-based humor and dispersed socialnetworks. through rapidly percolate that contexts online new into videos of ration the embedding of video files—all of these allow for a continual reincorpo- gies enabled by greater network bandwidth, HTML documents that permit confiare that technolo-outputvideo both andstreaming for input, gured interfaces digital respect: this in pertinent are infrastructure media rary and,remix, ultimately, numberA it. share propertiesof ourof contempo- to, link annotate, to ability the is it material kindof ourthis experience of to added notably have technologies digital that thing one is there if For issue. pertinent the is that sociality their than media new less of mobility is the it argue, would I Here, now? return this why arises: question the tingency remains equally available for digital as well as analog visual media, intensively attached to non-comedic/actuality material. Granted that con- Mobility certainly is key here, as the e h t s a , e r e h y e k s i facilitated theproduction ofbrief,one-shot comicfilms). y l n i a priable for circulation t and consumption online r (just as, a century earlier, e it c appro- eminently it makes humorousexpression much y of basis bite-sized t i l i b o M Still, what such a perspective fails to explain is why virality has most has virality why is explain to fails perspective a such what Still, But there is a question of degree here, and the case can be made that made be can case the and here, degree of question a is there But social- point,to onhowever,sincethis appeal needed is, the care Some nectivity toredefine comedyasweknow it. con- mobile constant of age the of advantage taken have comedians and companies, production websites, of bevy comic without being Splitsider comedy implies. writerThe modular, , any attribution of humor all 35 discourse, humorous

7/28/2015 6:35:44 AM actuality humor in early cinema and web 2.0 307 7/28/2015 6:35:44 AM

39 qua The The Jimmy

37 of comic contin- capturing technology of distribution) has distribution) of technology qua Circulated on the heels of the controversy 38 across the current media landscape. media landscape. the current across spreadability o n 3 S e p t e m b e r . A week later, a however, sudden altered twist the profoundly terms of cultural capital and comic perception in action in action perception and comic capital cultural and capital cultural of intertwining this of instance revealing particularly A Fail EVER” Twerk was comic by apprehension provided “Worst the recent video that went viral in the late summer of 2013, generating nine million views within on YouTube a week, following its appearance on Kimmel Show the networked exercise of taste. If the indexicality of the moving image ( image moving the of indexicality the If taste. of exercise networked the rst permitted the technology of reproduction) fi ( internet the of sociality the then gency, its augmented text, as constituting a kind of comicality, “found-footage” in the sense in which online communities reappropriate, relabel, and recirculate material originally generated for reasons. non-humorous There is then, once again, a is de-comedifying which now of freely humor, discovered outside such which in way a also is there but conventions; generic of borders the of videos actuality-based now provide surplus value as “social activators” for in social terms that comedy proper cannot so readily achieve; for what is at stake in such is instances not simply “funniness,” but more pertinently of the the user declares agency her who ability to repurpose texts as a ges- speak One ture of videos, indeed of may such in sensibility. an con- online funny,” “holy shit I almost died laughing,” etc.), a large number of sexual- number shit etc.), “holy I a almost large died laughing,” funny,” the on riffing puns of number larger even an HOT!”), so is (“She puns izing of complaints a number and Fire,” on “Girl 2012 song title of Alicia Keyes’s acci- dangerous apparently an in humor the see to refused who those from really funny”). fire is guys, people getting set on know (“Cause you dent generated by Miley Cyrus’s now infamous performance at that year’s MTV MTV year’s that at performance infamous now Cyrus’s Miley by generated clip of consisted home video footage of YouTube the Music Video Awards, a woman young attempting to on while her twerk standing head, only to fall crashing down a onto coffee table, in the process setting her pants leg many included comments YouTube Initial a candle. tumbling fire from on that simply endorsed the validity of a comic reading (“lol that shit was reconfi gured—not between reconfi those who found it funny and those knew it to be fake vs. Johnnies-come-lately who between those but didn’t, who unwittingly lm treating as the genuine. A fi typical exchange would now involve one of the latter claiming their right to a comic reading (“Am the clip’s reception: on 9 September, Kimmel revealed that he had staged the stunt with the help of a professional Kimmel Avalon. gloatingly stuntwoman showed a of TV montage named hosts whom he had Daphne successfully suckered, and then said to Avalon: “Thank you for helping us deceive the world and hopefully put an end to twerking forever.” In the wake commenters were of this revelation, the battle lines YouTube of 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 307 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 308

rob king 308 constituted nothing lessthan: argued, Engber fakery, Kimmel’s Kimmel.” Jimmy at Mad Be ShouldWe than “trolling” and greeted with hostility by many users, none more extensively as characterized was stunt Kimmel’swhy is this ﬁdoubt the No place. rst in events those of “reality” the misperceived has one that revelation the by ruined is events real in humor perceive to claim One’s depend. they embarrasses such assertions by negating the faith in contingency on which Kimmel’s like hoax a yet discernment; comic their assert to seeking users online for site privileged a become has footage actuality suggested, have I internet,the anonymousandof dispersed culture the In alone. sensibility comedy not is it that is, intent—that comedic with staged been not has footage the namely,that actuality-basedvideos; online in practiced is crimination the newsbut thiswasfake”). disabused by throngs of others mocking their lack of savvy (“Sorry to break immediately be to only lmaoooooooo”) . . . hard? so laughing wrongfor I a byn cntans f rpit. ht h vros oi frs dis- are forms here cussed comic various the That propriety. of constraints beyond far laughter steered has Certainly,ithumor? for possibilities alternative inely genu- facilitates that way a in play into come videos viral contemporary or humor’sconventionalfrom deviation necessary any with comedy conventionalthe to anteriority this identify readily too not do we that sure be to have we Still prank—undermined. Kimmel’s of case the even—in contested,or shared, widely be perceptionscan thosewhich on tural traditions have accumulated as comedy; new media add the platform anteriority of space a enter to comicality of perceptions The media-historical two-step is clear: indexical moving images enable our laughter inanungoverned sphere “we fellforit.Shiet.” pithily: more summarized TheKevinDanielYouTube commenter as Or, effects Kimmel’s trick here was to game the presumption on which comic dis- Slate —such that the perception of comicality is a function of the user’s the of function a is comicality of perception the that —such . Has the media character of comic forms like early actualities or actualitiesearly like forms comic of character media the Has . mist thelandscape with distrust. sublime. When liars spread their hoggish propaganda, they geek the onwindow a gives andweirdness, its all in world .]. YouTube. [. bits the to shows it smashes hoaxer the ity, human- of baubles freakish of full curiosities, of cabinet a provides Web the If wonder. of sense our corrodes that acid ironic as rendered .] . [. act self-promoting hostile, a contributor Daniel Engber in a 10 September piece titled “Why titled piece September 10 a in Engber contributorDaniel not comedies (in the case of actuality-based footage) or at or footage) actuality-based of case the (in comedies 42

vis-à-vis what cul- functions forms of

7/28/2015 6:35:44 AM actuality humor in early cinema and web 2.0 309 7/28/2015 6:35:44 AM The The 44 What 46

47 of the past as opposed to cold medium

45 or a Logitech webcam, visual evidence of this That That is, we know it’s wrong to laugh—at grape 43 . ” cinématographe jouissance Here, however, it is well to remember our opening premise—that the historiography”; it is an indexical trace, not a discourse. a discourse. trace, not it is an indexical historiography”; ing, has “happened” to Whether generated events. register inadvertent by the Lumières’ sort is thus what Ernst describes as a “ hot indexical indexical media rst record of is all fi the “noise” of the world that comes before any effort to shoehorn that noise into a system of semantic codi- cations. It is, fi moreover, precisely an awareness ed” of this “de-subjectifi In strikes. contingency whenever returned is viewer the which to gaze cold func- mechanical viewing is restored to that base-level our instances, such record- of act the in simply that, witness neutral a as camera the of tioning Casper Hoedemaekers has termed a “ ‘forbidden’ dimension that elicits the the elicits that dimension ‘forbidden’ “ a termed has Hoedemaekers Casper thrill of illicit laughter laughter that operates outside of considerations of decorum; that allows laughter to be directed at real-world situations in self-conscious repudia- tion of what would ordinarily be an appropriate response. This point is especially pertinent to an understanding of streaming viral videos that, frameworks coded socially of outside consumed are they because precisely of theatrical all or promise exhibition, the television more to deliver what least least do not present themselves as such (in the various forms of comedy verité) is in fact the crucial point, since it is this that provides them with the sheen of lying outside the symbolic forms that ordinarily govern rep- and resentation response. What is in all is instances encouraged a form of controlling and controlling repressive gaze of the Other has been suspended so as to produce online the space for a laughter that knowingly seeks pleasure in disregard of taboos (hence the alignment of much viral footage with an idea of “political incorrectness”). to refer to property of enabled that technologically vision that grounding logically and ontologically precedes the “human” or “scenic” uses that any camera may be made to serve. “With the of emergence photography, the idea of the theatrical gaze literally the staging past [as in prior imaging techniques like, e.g., painting] is displaced by the cold mechanical eye, a technologically neutral code rather than a subjective discourse.” specifi c specifi media-technological constellations—and to consider whether indexical imaging technologies themselves play a role in loosening our relation to taboos. Put simply, does indexicality itself have consequences for the kinds of things we feel ourselves entitled to laugh at? Such is perhaps the implication of Wolfgang Ernst, who describes indexical imaging technologies in terms of the “cool mechanical eye,” or the “cold gaze,” forms and possibilities of moving image humor have as their preconditions preconditions their as have humor image moving of possibilities and forms lady’s howls of lady’s pain, genuine at catching fire, a apparently pants woman’s at “Afro Ninja” falling flat on his face—but we feel ourselves within an “ungoverned sphere” in which we can and do laugh at these things any- becomes the of indiscretion which source a way, forbidden pleasure. 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 309 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 310

rob king 310 reality itself. social to relating of principle a to raised been has form, viral temporary con-characterin and“animal-like” that, an of disgrace the in revels that laughter hostile remove—that and superiority of gesture Hobbesian a as operates that laughter zero-degree that toward back channeled instead merely is new, something securing from far so humor, actuality-based that is danger the and irony The videos). viral many of qualities phobic homo- and classist, ﬂsexist, the racist, witness agrantly (again, excluded already “other,” already are who those at impulses derisory its direct to of is exclusiona in process, the power what understanding; is freed risked, or empathy to any claim has no longer whoseobject laughter separatist a is mediation, a such in permitted, is What niceties. social to unbeholden utterly seeing of way machinic a enables media indexical of gaze” “cold The things. and people to relation our shape that proscriptions ordinary the from us frees that rupture a separation, social a implies that perception of mode a initiates also it then perspective, human a outside ping step- of way a becomes gaze cold the which to extent Tomediation.the its of properties technological the by outset the from problematized are ute an ultra-compressed, pranks and skits to millions of followers. What followers. of millions to skits and pranks ultra-compressed, an ute six-secondthe distrib- like to Vineapps humor,using professionalizeviral ris- ing generationa of brand-sponsored onlineor personalities who havedepicted; begun to acts the for context explanatory an provide to videos embarrassing from people inviting contingencyby subordinate segments compendium orches- trated prank; or the operations carefully of a showa like Comedy in Central’s viral “mark” video the becomes now who viewer, the at humor redirect to authenticity of presumption the abscondKimmel’s, like that, YouTubeof hoaxesrise the instance, for present: the in humor actuality online circumscribe to begun already - have that d pressures of n array broad a - o the of w cognizant be should Equally, t one media. image moving of history e m the in o moment previous s any at than displaced thoroughly o more now t is t s a r as t dispatchedmodes for the enjoyment of laughter, n although arguably been their dominance o somehow c have comedy of n genres I conventional the . s t h g u fruitionof obviously needsqualification: o sense nobody, surely, Thiswould argue online.that h fruition of t kind a to brought g been recently n more which has and i genres, d existing of u order l symbolic the c to n than the o rather to “real,” belonging c humor of kind e new m radically a o of arrival s the century, r e f f o nineteenththe announced,of mediaclose image the moving atof nology o t e tech- the comedy, theatrical m or written basically i of years thousand a-half t s i t I beyond comedy/beyond massculture But if that is the case, then the social dynamics of actuality humor actuality of dynamics social the then case, the is that if But 48

Tosh.0 (09peet, hs rglr Wb Redemption” “Web regular whose (2009–present), 7/28/2015 6:35:44 AM actuality humor in early cinema and web 2.0 311 7/28/2015 6:35:44 AM Post- alternative The The Immigrant (New Da York: Capo The The Silent Clowns , this was primarily the result of a kind (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957), 36–37, Babies’ Quarrel The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the in Directions New Systems: Technological of Construction Social The , because when the Lumières offered audiences the Film as Art Prehistory , because the contemporary digital paradigm in which streaming also true that that fl exibility will typically be closed down as each medium each as down closed be typically will exibility fl that that true also and Pinch J. Trevor instance, for See, identity. consensus a toward develops Wiebe E. “The Social Bijke’s of Construction Facts and Artifacts: Or, How the Sociology of Science and the t Sociology of Might Technology Benefi in Other,” Each (1917) in Exploring the “Keaton: Gap chapters Between Life Kerr’s as well as Walter and Lens” and “Keaton as Film” in Press, 1975), 135–142, 225–235. is it but stages; formative their in possibilities of range a to themselves lend Whatcan bedescribed asthe techno-epistemological paradigm ofthis 1. See, for example, Rudolph Arnheim on Charlie Chaplin’s 2. For example, it may well be the case that representational technologies acknowledgment acknowledgment finger. my bite to used you when it wrote I Sully. and Sam for one’s This notes stand the history of moving image comedy without also acknowledging a counterforce, zigzagging through that history that uncoversnot in the humorconventions of “comedy” per se but as a property of recorded reality. Unfortunately, it has so farcult provento diffi place much faith in that alternative. culture (which is characterized by the grassroots content circulation within of and media among a diversity of user because groups). And such humor has permitted the the intention shiftof the producer of in favor accentof the sensibility that of the displacesuser who outs symbolic now formsfl and ndingstructures humor inby materialfi generated with no comedic intent. It thus proves impossible to under- of research phase into cinematic possibilities, the discovery of potentials that were not for accounted by preexisting forms. representational script videos thrive is one for which the architecture of mass is massculture produced and distributed(which for the broadest audience possible) has been challenged by the networked infrastructure of today’s convergence tained contingency-based humor far beyond its earlier media incarnations. incarnations. media earlier its beyond far humor contingency-based tained nallyemerges notonlyas prehistory kindofpostscripthumor and thus fi butalso as an ambiguous fraughtand alternative to mass cultural screen comedy. comic pleasures of nonetheless nonetheless remains quite singular in our contemporary media moment is the resilience of found-footage comicality against such predations: the networking properties of the internet and social media in general, which that affirms allow shared users sensibilities, sus- to have distribute content 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 311 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 312

rob king 312 See my 4. Wolfgang Ernst, 3. 19. What I have in mind are photos where widely accepted conventions of conventions accepted widely where photos are mind in have I What 19. VilémFlusser, 18. Jr., Adams, B. Reginald and Dennett, C. Daniel Hurley, M. Matthew See 17. Indeed, Gaudreault is 16. quite explicit on this point, claiming that “Lumière’s Musser, Charles in quoted is description comedy” little “laughable The 15. The routine involved14. a large box-like device, into which puppies would be See Crafton, 13. Popular a on Notes Boy: “Bad Krämer, ﬁ Peter boy” see “bad lm, the On 12. Crafton, Donald 11. 10. Gaudreault, André 9. Alone!” “LeaveBritney 8. Freud, Sigmund See 7. Speech Pauses Rubio “Marco viral: went course of video online The 6. Krutnik, Frank and Neale Steve from derives distinction This 5. University ofMinnesotaPress,2013),25. Trevor J.Pinch (Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1987),17–50. Sociology and History of Technology htgahc ersnain r tesle voae, s n h cs of case the other viral trends like in awkward family photos, awkward as prom photos, etc. violated, themselves are representation photographic nesota Press,2011),xvi. Vilém to introduction Poster’s Mark Flusser, in discussed and quoted 127; 23, Press, 2011),121. Mind the Reverse-Engineer to Humor Using Jokes: Inside Attraction kinematography was a continuation of photography.” Gaudreault, California Press,1990),141. 1907 to Screen American The Cinema: of Emergence The scope &Biograph, 1897),and mécanique Charcuterie include examples Earlier end. other the out come sausages and dropped Henry Jenkins(London: Routledge, 1994),87–105. Comedy,” in ForkingGardenof Paths: Film MischiefAmerican Gags andof Origins the the in Machines “Crazy TomGunning, and 117–130; 1998), Press, Libbey Cinema of Centenary The 1895: ing in 1895–1905,”Society, and Culture Cinema, American in Figure also http://www.topfferiana. fr/2010/10/arroseurs-arroses See . Accessed26June 37. 2014. 1982), Press, Chicago of University Ibid Timothy Barnard (Urbana: UniversityofIllinois Press,2011),67. www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSNhk5ICTI . Accessed 27 November 2013. 1-8-10” Rainbow Double Mountain bear “Yosemite- 2013; November 27 com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc Accessed . is from Act V, Scene2oftheShakespeareplay. Strachey(New York:W.W. Norton and 177. 1963), Co., Thequoted passage watch?v=19ZxJVnM5Gs . Accessed17September2013. Break,” Water for and Television Comedy (Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2009). . The Fun Factory: The Keystone Film Company and the Emergence of Mass Culture Into the Universe of TechnicalImages of Universe the Into , 87. Before Mickey Classical Hollywood Comedy Writings Digital Memory and the Archive (London: Routledge, 1990),15–16. (Lumière, 1896), 1896), (Lumière, eoe iky Te nmtd im 1898–1928 Film, Animated The Mickey: Before YouTube im n Atato: rm ieaorpy o Cinema to Kinematography From Attraction: and Film oe adTer eain o h Unconscious the to Relation Their and Jokes 2002), Press, Minnesota of University (Minneapolis: YouTube , 37–44. (2 eray 03: 2013): http://www.youtube.com/ February (12 , eds. Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Fun inaButcher Shop 2007): September (10 http://www.youtube. , d Jh Fletn Eslih U: John UK: (Eastleigh, Fullerton John ed. , The Sausage Machine Sausage The , eds. Kristine Brunovska Karnick and (Minneapolis: University of Min- of University (Minneapolis: YouTube , ed. Jussi Parikka (Minneapolis: (Edison, 1901). (Berkeley: University of University (Berkeley: (8 January 2010): 2010): January http:// (8 (abig, A MIT MA: (Cambridge, Muto- (American , rn. James trans. , (Chicago: Popular Film Popular Celebrat- trans. , Film and 7/28/2015 6:35:44 AM actuality humor in early cinema and web 2.0 313 7/28/2015 6:35:45 AM

, (10 Tele- , 192. , Extras (2005, (2007), No. 68 Splitsider Slate Sight and Sound Stand-up Comedy in The Comeback The (2000–present), Velvet Velvet Light Trap , 96–131. , 96–131. A Companion to Early Cinema Summer Heights High Vol. 25, No. 1–2 (2013): 74. Vol. (2013), and The Emergence of Cinematic Time Cinematic of Emergence The , as well as Steve Neale and Frank (2013), , 180–181. , 180–181. , esp. ch. 6; Rob King, “The Discourses Discourses “The King, Rob 6; ch. esp. , Derek (29 March http://content.time. 2010): Curb Your Curb Your Enthusiasm , 107. Time (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000). (Durham, NC: The The Fun Factory (2011), Ja’mie: Private School Ja’mie: Girl Private School The The Emergence of Cinematic Time: Modernity, Contingency, the Spreadable Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Popular Film and Television Comedy Television Film and Popular (1 November 2009): http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/ Film History: An International Journal Film History: An International Early Early American Cinema in Transition: Story, Style, and Filmmaking, Life’s Too Life’s Short (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2001), 85. of Wisconsin University (Madison: (2011), and The Emergence of Cinematic Time of Cinematic Emergence The The Emergence of Cinematic Time Cinematic of Emergence The Digital Memory and the Archive (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 180. University Harvard (Cambridge, MA: (New York: NYU Press, 2013). York: (New Vol. 45, No. 1 (2004): 63–78. Vol. (5 December 2008): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3564392/ . . Ibid Ibid http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/09/10/worst_ September 2013): mobile-comedy . Accessed 14 October 2013. mobile-comedy Comedy, Transmedial Mobility, and Viral Video,” (Fall 2011): 8–9. and Joshua Green, Culture The Sunday 2013. November Times 11 Accessed . ingear/tech_and_net/article189173.ece com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1974961_1974925_1974954,00. . Accessed 21 November 2013. html (18 October 2012): http://splitsider.com/2012/10/jokes-to-go-a-guide-to- (2005–2007), Boys Angry 2014). graph . Accessed 11 November Finger-biting-brothers-become-YouTube-hit.html Baby,” Biting for Taste Gets Web Davies-Carr: Charlie and “Harry And 2013. Screen lm as a genre that the “subsum[es] irregularity chase beneath individual fi Doane, regularity.” aggregate of rule the 1907–1913 Film History?” Abjection in America or, Theory, Krutnik’s infl uential chapter “Hollywood, Comedy, and the Case of Silent Silent of Case the and Comedy, “Hollywood, chapter uential infl Krutnik’s in their Slapstick,” of Art in Early Film or, Why Not Rancière?” in eds. André Gaudreault, Nicolas Dulac, and Santiago 2012), 141–162. MA: Wiley-Blackwell, Hidalgo (Malden, Archive 1982): 295. 51, No. 4 (Autumn Vol. 38. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CddMD3QqTFs . Accessed 18 October 2013. 2013. October 18 Accessed . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CddMD3QqTFs 38. 39. 40. 41. Daniel Engber, “Why We Should Be Mad at Jimmy Kimmel,” 36. On modularity and online humor, see David Gurney, “Recombinant 37. The notion of “spreadability” is derived from Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford, 34. “YouTube’s 34. 50 “YouTube’s Best Videos,” 35. Megh Wright, “Jokes to Go: A Guide to Mobile Comedy,” 33. See Matthew Moore, “Finger-biting Brothers Become YouTube Hit,” 30. My term “managed irregularity” is adapted from Doane’s description of 31. Charlie Keil, 32. Notable other examples include 25. Ernst, 26. I derive this list from Jane Gaines, “What Happened to the Philosophy of 27. Doane, 28. cation” is The taken term from “comedifi John Limon’s 29. See Brett Mills’s essay, “Comedy Verité: Contemporary Sitcom Form,” 23. See, for example, my own 24. Doane, 20. for this observation. Flaig to Paul indebted I am 21. Mary Ann Doane, 22. Quoted in Stephen Bottomore, “1896: Ain’t It Lifelike!” 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 313 8326-069-2pass-015-r02.indd 314

rob king 314 Casper Hoedemaekers, “Viral 43. Marketing and Imaginary Ethics, or the Joke 42. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CddMD3QqTFs . Accessed 18 October 2013. “Animal-like” is 48. from Umberto Eco, “The Frames of Comic ‘Freedom,’ ” in 47. Ernst, 46. Imaginary and Marketing “Viral See Hoedemaekers’. is here point The 45. a depicting meme Internet classic a is YouTube,Ninja” Predating “Afro 44. That Goes Too Far,” and_we_should.html . Accessed 21October2013. twerk_fail_ever_video_hoax_jimmy_kimmel_should_be_ashamed_ Carnival! Ibid Ethics, 174. 19 December 2013. Accessed http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/169 . mercial: com- Nike a for audition ﬂan back during a ip attempts who man stunt ., 47. Digital MemoryandtheArchive , ed. Thomas Sebeok (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1985),2. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society , 46. Vol. 16, No. 2 (2011): 176. 7/28/2015 6:35:45 AM