I found it incredibly interesting to read the conflict in Bergson’s interpretation of comedy. He begins by pointing out the necessary connection of comedy and the human, then places the site of the comic as the appearance of the mechanical– its tension and elasticity– where the human should be. While on first reading this appeared to be contradictory, how could comedy both be “always because of some resemblance to man” and “something mechanical encrusted on the living” (Bergson 4; 37), it is actually this conflict, this incongruity, that is comedy (with laughter being the social means of addressing this conflict).
Dan Hentschel is one of the people of all time. His very clear comic character(s) I find supremely refreshing after so much time spent with the faux-personal/confessional/observational style of comic.
In relation to Bergson, Hentschel’s characters are a raw distillation of inflexibility. His appearance varies wildly between videos. His shaved head, shaved eyebrows, plane clothes, and parked car backdrop simultaneously strip him of distinguishing features, turn him into a blank, stock person, while also demanding attention and leaving him able to fill this empty appearance with something completely distinguishing.
<– (look at this barren man)
If there is a single thing I laugh at though, it is the sheer depths of unconsciousness that his characters achieve. They reference all the self-filmed breakdowns that litter the internet, intimate moments immediately flattened, thoroughly duped by the internet’s promise of connection. His gesticulations, his flailing and blubbering all rip us out of whatever it is he cries out about: at times these are profound indictments of social media and at times its worst impulses, but we laugh at either. In “I hate all of you”, he stumbles in the middle of this breakdown/rant, lamenting how “I can’t even say half of the stuff I want to say because I signed up for the YouTube monetization, and they’ll take my monetization if I say anything wrong”. In “There’s no good in this world”, his snot drivels down and shakes from his gasping breaths, all atop his indictment of humanity. These are, as Bergson wrote, “the body taking precedence of the soul” (Bergson 53).
Hentschel’s ability to provoke the conflict between spirit and matter positions him precisely at the source of Bergson’s conception of the comic. Because after all the screaming and crying, he still has to grab his phone and end the recording like the rest of us.
I’m glad I’m not the only one familiar with Dan Hentschel and his many characters. I like how you related his staged outbursts to online personalities. Whether they be influencers, streamers or any other type of content creator, the visual nature of such jobs requires them to perform in some way, making them seem uncanny and artificial. The main appeal of Hentschel and his brand of comedy is his ability to convey the real yet ugly nature of the human spirit that other public figures would rather mask.
I think this is really interesting because it clearly shows the necessity of an audience. If he were doing this alone in his car it would be verging on psychotic, but it’s almost the fact that we are watching it in itself that makes it funny. I suppose that’s partly (as you point out) because of the self awareness in terms of setting up the camera etc. but also the general idea of watching somebody else let loose and have a cathartic outburst that so many viewers crave. It seems like an odd phenomenon but when you unpack it there is so much to think about.