Initially, I thought that the passage from Umberto Eco’s book entitled ‘Carnival!’ contradicted the Mary Douglas reading from last week as Eco states that “the comic is only an instrument of social control and can never be a form of social criticism”. This does not align with Douglas’ idea of the “joker”, as much of her argument revolved around the joker’s job being to criticise social structures. However, as I read on, I realised this was not actually the case as Eco creates a clear distinction between “comic” and “humour”. To him, “‘comic’ is an umbrella term” and in the quote above he is referencing “ancient comedy”. He goes on to state that humour “undermines limits from inside”. From this description of humour, it becomes clear that the two authors do, in fact, agree.
When considering The Death of Stalin, I decided to use Eco’s definition of “humour”, as the film could not be considered anything but a comedy that “acts as a form of social criticism” as the entire premise of the film revolves around satirising the Stalinist Regime. In the clip below, we see the reaction of various high ranking officials in the Soviet Union as they discover that Stalin has died. They all react in the same superficial manner: theatrically crying out at the sight of his body. This reaction comes from their want to present themselves as loyal to Stalin and therefore good successors for him. The critiques the film makes of those who are vying to replace Stalin are applicable to power hungry politicians in general, showing how the film is satirising more than just the Stalinist regime.
The over the top reactions of these men is also founded on their immense fear of what could happen to them if they say something bad about Stalin, a fear that has been so deeply ingrained in them that even in death they do not want to cross him. This point is further emphasised when one of the men lifting Stalin says, “He’s heavier than I thought he’d be”. When someone questions him on this statement (“You think Stalin’s too heavy?”), he is quick to defend himself and ensure that his words are not taken as an insult (“No, no. It’s a complement! Gold is heavy!). This is “social criticism” on the fear created by Stalin’s regime. The comedy here clearly falls into Eco’s definition of “humour” then, as it does not obey the rules he outlines, on page 2, for the “comic”. It is also clearly a social critique on the fear created by Stalin’s regime (and therefore “humour”) .
I think that ‘The Death of Stalin’ is a perfect example of how humour is used to criticise social structures! Your post also makes me think about the way how horrific real-life situations and historical events can be made to seem funny in such films – while this can in some cases potentially bring about a sense of catharsis, do you think that this can go too far and trivialise situations that should actually be taken seriously?
I agree with you certainly that Ianucci’s ‘The Death of Stalin’ draws from social criticism in order to create humour within a context of historical re-enactment. I also found that the choice they made in regards to regional accents (different english-speaking accents to insinuate the vastness of Russian geography and subcultures) added an additional layer of humourist context and allowed for a better communication of the ‘inside jokes’ of Russian subculture to english-speaking audiences.