In this scene, we see what Douglas describes as “the triumph of intimacy over formality, of unofficial values over official ones” (p.98); Jake’s formality around his official duties concerning the case and conducting the lineup are beaten by his joy at conducting the men to sing. The formal situation and structure of police procedure are thrown out as Jake gets caught up the moment, but come crashing down once more as Jake is jolted back to reality when the victim recognises ‘number 5’ as the murderer.
Furthermore, Jake represents the role of the ‘joker’, as Douglas describes, throughout much of the show, but specifically in this scene, in that “he lightens for everyone the oppressiveness of social reality, demonstrates its arbitrariness by making light of formality in general, and expresses the creative possibilities of the situation” (p.107). In this case, he “lightens” the somber situation of a lineup by highlighting the “creative possibilities of the situation” in the form of an impromptu singalong. As a viewer, the humour of the scene comes from Jake’s undercutting of a formal and serious situation with the out-of-place excitement around a singing band of criminals.
While there are many moments throughout the series where Jake brings informality into the grave situations he faces in his line of work, I think the fact that this scene in particular has become so popular arises from the way it parallels but subverts Douglas’s description of the joker at the funeral. Although not a funeral, the situation of the scene above is sombre and tied to a recent loss in a way which parallels common conceptions of funerals. Douglas describes the ways in which the joker at the funeral is “more possible and more required the more the community is confident that it will turn the mourner’s desolation into a temporary phase” (p.108). However, in this instance Jake has no prior knowledge of or connection to the mourner, and in fact the ‘joking’ comes at their expense – however the scene is still funny. As such, arguably his role as the joker in this funerial situation goes beyond Douglas’s conception, and comedy arises from his brief disconnection to the gravity of the situation. However, as viewers, our allegiance is with Jake as we are familiar with him and his caring character despite his frequent role as the joker – would a sequence such as this would be as comedic if we were connected to the mourner and her story rather than Jake?
Bibliography:
Mary Douglas, “Jokes,” Implicit Meanings (New York: Routledge, 1975), 146-164.
So cool to think about Jake’s character through the lens of Douglas’s “joker at the funeral”! In a lot of cases Jake is the cause for the formality being depicted (arresting people, conducting investigations, and so on) — in a way he’s kind of the joker at his own funeral, or the funeral that he planned. (Though perhaps this is extending the metaphor a little too far.)