John Cleese is, or at least was, a big admirer of a philosopher named Henri Bergson ( www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bergson.htm ) who said that comedy was a social response against inflexible thought and behavior. Now, Bergson was arguably a racist prick, to judge from his approval of minstrel shows, but I think he was onto something with his basic idea.

Desmond Morris was probably a lot closer to the mark when he placed the origin of laughter with a mother playing peekaboo with her baby. Mommy puts her hands over her face. Where's mommy gone? Baby thinks "Mommy's gone, and that's scary...but she's not REALLY gone, so it's okay...and I don't know WHAT to think!" The mental conflict can't be resolved, and baby laughs. Apparently, this is true in every culture and society.

Marty Feldman (I think) said that four gorillas acting like gorillas weren't funny, but four gorillas sitting in a cafe calmly sipping tea was funny. Funnier still would be three gorillas sipping tea in a cafe, with a regular businessman also sitting there and trying desperately not to notice that he's surrounded by gorillas. The tension between the obvious reality and his need not to acknowledge it is where comedy comes from.

If the guy leaped up and shouted "Oh God, wild gorillas!" that wouldn't be funny. But him staying put and hesitantly asking "Um...er...can you...pass the sugar?" and cringing in terror for fear that he's upset a gorilla...that's funny.

If there's a universal principle of comedy, I think it must lie in the above: some kind of tension, some kind of conflict between something that's "wrong" and someone responding to it in an inappropriate way. If our minds can't resolve the conflict any other way, we laugh just like the baby with the magically disappearing mother.

>Can comedy be universal then
...
>Allusion, innuendo and vitriol need a standard (cultural?)

I think it is very much Cultural. There are some Universal targets that one could leverage (Creationism, belief in Dieties, Love, Progeny) that may reach most cultures, but as you've witnessed with British Comedy on American Audiences, there are cultural influences at work in determining what is funny.

To wit, Rape is a subject that will rarely find an analog in western Comedy. Hell, it will probably not find it's way into Comedy in most cultures, but there could be an audience out there where women are truly nothing more than chattel, and a bumbling would-be rapist may be the epitome of an Arlequino styled character. It would be the Yardstick of "the norm" by which the character is measured.


>or is it something to which the absurd must have a polar opposite application?

As for John Cleese's famous line, I think it's double, or even triple entendre at work. John Cleese is the straight man. The more absurd the message, the funnier it gets with deadpan delivery, as the greater dichotomy exists.

Additionally his role is defined by your interpetation of his message. This is a way to reach across those different cultural identities, as everyone will find something different about it to laugh at:

"...and now for something completely different..."

1. He is stating the truth, as in "This skit is over, and now here's something else." i.e. The News Anchor

2. He is stating the truth in a different way, as in "Here's yet another situation which you are unlikely to ever see, but is wholly plausible." i.e. The Narrator

3. He is telling the truth, and is trying to get you to understand him personally, as in "Here's something inane to balance out what you just saw, because I'm truly serious about the bit I just did." i.e. The Naive, Arrogant Actor

4. He is lying, and using sarcasm, as in "Like anything you ever see in this show is normal. This next bit is no different from the rest." i.e. The Writer

#1, 2 or 3 is why *he* can say it straight. Everyone is going to identify with either the Truth or Lie within the juxtaposition, and laugh at the polar opposite, or interpret #4 and laugh at the clever writer.

For John Cleese personally, he very much considered himself a consummate serious actor, and actually grew to detest the routines, which made his "straightness" even stronger, as there was a little piece of him trying to really reach through it all. He came to terms with it, and grew to love it more, but it's what gave him strength.

Similarly, Leslie Nielsen's strengths as the straight man were due to his extensive experience in serious drama. He pursued all of his comedies with an attitude of "I'm going to do this role as if I am completley unaware there is comedy afoot", and that is why he pulls off the role so well. The audience begins to feel that he is a buffoon, because he just doesn't see what's going on around him.

>Is going outside this standard to the appropriate degree comedy?

Hard to say. If you stray outside for too long, you lose your audience, or at least cater to a smaller one. If you step over the line, stick out your tongue and blow a Rasberry at the line, you'll probably still keep of few of the Conservatives entertained.

If you run across the line, don't look back, and start exploring the sound of the color Green, your audience gets kind of lost, as you've wandered into the land of Actor-bation.