Eisenstein on the comic (7)

-->

May 5, 1944

Alma-Ata

Beattie (18^th century) titled his excellent investigation On Laughter and Ludicrous Composition.

It is written in a very English manner—instrumentalized, with a view towards application. Of the type: “How is it done?” Until now, it has been precisely England that excels [English in the original] in the production of manuals, such as “how to draw animals?” “how to draw a human figure?” etc., etc. (see “Studio” editions)

We go further—we, essentially, pose the problem of the “ludicrous form” [English in the original], i.e. of the structure, the principles of the phenomenon of the ludicrous. The structure is not isolated: [we are interested] in the circumstances in which the structure is actualized (social ordering [zakaz]), in what are the preconditions and the basis of the structure’s effect (psychological analysis), and finally, we will think through the meaning of the facticity of the risible (philosophical analysis).

All three factors are, however, arranged with respect to the solution of the structural problem and in their respective domains and qualities, of course, echo the same principle as does the structure in its activity. Because (of course) it—the structure—is the material concretization of the figurative meanings woven into each of the three domains—isolatedly interrelated [English in the original]; and not only interrelated, but also mutually conditioned by each other.

To sharpen the thesis to the limit.

At stake is the specific aspect of the state of phenomena (the form of phenomena) when they justifiably provoke laughter (we say “justifiably” with reference to the relative nature of the actual effect, which depends on the situation, the perceiver, etc.—this is the subject of a separate chapter).

The comic tradition itself gave birth to the type of anecdote that confirms my thesis.

About the general who, telling the anecdote, distorts its structure.

This type of anecdote is nothing other than bringing to the limit, pushing towards the comic (also auch in diesem Falle—the comic as a specific aspect of reworking a statement that is not necessarily funny, but made funny [English in the original]!), by sharpening the thesis “to tell an anecdote in one’s own words,” which refers to the loss of the comic effect that can only be maintained in a certain ordering—form—of the tale’s structure. For instance:

Two Jews wanted to play a word game: “Where are you?—I am in the moss!” One of them says: “I will hide. You ask. I will answer.” He hides. The other asks: “Kanzellenbogen, where are you?!”—“I am … in the wood shavings!”

Or: when the general wanted to tell the joke about a man who had no topsoil [derna] and a woman who had no eggs [yaitsa]; and the woman yells to the man: “Let me pull your balls!” [Dai dernu za yaitsa! Literally, let’s exchange topsoil for eggs.] But in the aspect we are considering:

“The man had no straw and the peasant woman had no cabbage. They measured each other up. Here comes the peasant woman and yells to the man: ‘Let me pull your balls!’”

And so ad infinitum.

It is the same with the rhymed type, where everything hangs on the rhymes, but is told without them (Lieutenant Bobrov—ditch [rov], etc.)

It is the same with the puzzle-solution type.

There exists as much of a comic sharpening by way of another aspect [of the phenomenon]—the specific aspect of form—musical, rhythmic, related to stanzas, poetic, and so on, which once again places the comic form into other forms—“poetic form”, alliterating form, etc. (notwithstanding the scope [English in the original] and [the complexity]—the commensurability of the problem’s unreal reach).

All of this does not address the question of “Humor als Lebensgefühl,” as the Germans like to put it.

But it does set the limits and helps to orient us.

The path of analysis will enter through the door of predisposition and enter into this particular type of structure, whether by way of the inclination toward the physical (the domain: Spaßmacher, passively-risible or actively-comical object of laughter), or the interest in the behavior of the mind (the domain: the subject of laughter—[iponist] par excellence).

Hence, all the local possibilities arising from the structure, par example: if one is dealing with a pathetic [patetik]—ein Betrachter that exists in an inextricable communion; if [ipnotist]—ein Betrachter who necessarily and factually destroys the communion and any deliberate or supposed unity with it (par example, The Letters of Obscure Men by Erasmus [sic! Eisenstein makes a mistake here. Erasmus did not write this work. One of the authors of The Letters… was Ulrich von Hutten]).

From here all the inevitable characterological determinations and necessary prerequisites become possible (par example, in the analysis by Leacock). To make brief Scheinwerfer-Ausfluge to A. France (using the book The Ironic Temples Chevalier), Gogol, Twain (using the book The Ordeal of Mark Twain).

And all types of nuances flow from here as well. The path is correct—the structure’s formula is the unity abstracted from countless particular cases. And it is absolutely correct that any new particular cases and examples can be read across the structure and recognized in its modulations.

[From: Sergei Eisenstein, Metod, Vol. 2 (Moscow: Muzei kino, 2002), 383-4.]