Mary Douglas’ assertion that “the joke form rarely lies in the utterance alone, but that it can be identified in the total social situation” made me think about the structure of James Acaster’s stand-up shows, and particularly about his Repertoire (Dan Lucchesi, United Kingdom, 2018) on Netflix.[1] As Douglas identifies, jokes are often grounded in context and their humour depends on the audience having some kind of background knowledge. Extended stand-up comedy routines like those of James Acaster take this to an extreme level.
By the end of Acaster’s 50-minute episode ‘Represent’, many of the jokes refer back to earlier anecdotes and stories. Indeed, the final ten minutes of the show are perhaps the funniest because of the satisfaction the audience gains from Acaster’s deft tying up of all the loose ends and the pay-off from the comedic foundations he carefully lays earlier in the show. However, someone who has not seen the show’s earlier part would not find the references to the Chilean miners, the bandana, or the log flume funny, and would be baffled by exclamations such as “Shout your own name and I’ll turn around – I’m not turning around for my name!”
More than just illustrating how verbal comedy is all in the context, this raises interesting questions about the kind of relationship created between stand-up comedians and their audiences. The situational humour and multiple layers of context that are incomprehensible to an outsider make the jokes feel almost like “inside” jokes. Though the jokes are of course not spontaneous and are not even individualised, as Acaster makes the same jokes for many different audiences, there is still the sense of a private, exclusive joke, in turn creating a personal relationship between audience and comedian. This is exacerbated by Acaster’s direct address to his audience and the fact that the jokes are often anecdotal. This private relationship is perhaps what distinguishes stand-up comedy, and why having a live audience is so necessary to its function.
[1] Mary Douglas, ‘Jokes’ in Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), 93.
[note: I can’t find any online clips of this episode of the show but I highly recommend it!]
Interesting point about audience relationships! I don’t know if you’ve seen any Matt Rife or Hannah Berner clips on TikTok, but their popularity makes me wonder how the power of going viral has changed these relationships and even stand-up’s structure. Crowd-work seems to circulate on TikTok more than intricately prepared material, so not only are comedians seemingly doing more of it but audiences also heckle more (or at least more visibly). Douglas’ description of jokes challenging hierarchy is perhaps in conversation here as the social structure specific to stand-up may be increasingly contentious and amorphous as both comedian and audience vie for not only laughs but attention more broadly.