Mark Reuchlin

Assuming The Presidents Speech to be representative of the niche, examine whether satirical lm trailers
can be categorised as examples of Superiority Theory-based humour.

The Presidents Speech is a clip from an American late night talkshow*. It is comprised of a straight-faced
introduction, a trailer of a purported Hollywood remake of The Kings Speech (a low-budget, Academy
Award-winning global box ofce success that charts King George VI of Great Britains struggle to overcome
a speech impediment to rally his nation on the eve of World War 2), and the hosts response to the trailer.
These aspects can be seen to represent both a single joke and separate jokes and will be examined
accordingly.

Superiority Theory (ST) can be broadly characterised as the idea that humans generally nd something
humorous when it elicits a feeling or belief of superiority in oneself. Plato described it as a mixture of pain
& pleasure that lies in the malice of amusement. It tackles the question of why we nd something funny
(humour response as opposed to humour creation) but is also a narrow, if functional, explanation for the
purpose of humour in life. Aristotle declared jokes to be a kind of abuse and it is in that schadenfreude-like
spirit that ST contends the root(s) of humour to be found.

The introduction to the clip is almost purely linguistic in nature, making it an interesting foil for the later mix
of visual slapstick and verbal gags. The focal point of ST-based humour in this section of the clip is the
mocking of the Hollywood mainstream lm industrys values. Jimmy Kimmel (the host) states that the
original (UK made) Kings Speech made a return of 2500% on its original cost, mostly abroad (outside the
USA). Consequently he elucidates that a tailored remake for a US audience is on the cards, a trailer of which
is to be released for the Oscars and is already being considered a frontrunner for next year. While at this point
in the clip the hosts demeanour is sombre, later it is made clear that he is in on the joke but at this point his
sarcasm/straight face plays to the audiences sense of superiority over him and/or to their shared superiority
over Oscar judges/perceived aesthetic authority. For argumentative purposes it can be contended that the
implication here in the broader sense is one of a clear lack of creativity in Hollywood (remaking a foreign
movie rather than developing an original script), that Hollywood plays it safe with the choice of creative
material it nances (perceives its audience as stupid), and that Hollywood is primarily protoriented to the
general detriment of the quality of its lms (and shamelessly seeking to cash in on the hype surrounding the
Kings Speech at the Oscars). All of these concepts used in a humorous context are indicative of ST because
they are expressions of derisive humour.

At this point the host introduces the trailer of said remake. The primary supercial joke here is based
around the concept of the gaffe, which can be dened as a public verbal blunder resulting in some degree of
expressed anger and/or shame. It is also one of the few instances in humour where context is not necessarily
necessary to trigger a humoured response. Provine , R. (1993) in his commentary on laughter in social
settings (even though it implied a relief theory of humour causality), observed the elusive appeal of had to be
there moments, which gaffes represent and this clip feeds on. Verbal blunders need no clarication and gaffes
in a sense cannot be misrepresented. In this trailer the fundamental premise is no longer mans triumph over
adversity and circumstance (as in the original). Rather, President George W. Bush (in the George VI role) is
portrayed as being incapable, former heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson (in the role of the speech therapist
pulled out of retirement) is patently absurd and a comedy of errors must ensue. Explicitly and implicitly we
are compelled to laugh at them, which can be interpreted as an assertion of superiority.

More specically, the implication from the trailer is for the audience to associate this imagined narrative with
President Bushs very real impediment (his continual public speaking gaffes) and see it in the context of a
calamitous presidency (e.g. reference to Abu Ghraib etc.). Every time President Bush trips over his tongue the
audience experiences what Hobbes, T. (1651) referred to as the sudden glory (read: vainglory) of the
realisation ones supremacy over others. Alexander Bain expanded on Hobbes in dening degradation-based
humour in 2 ways: 1) we dont need to be directly aware of our own SUP: we may laugh sympathetically; 2)
we may deride anything that makes a claim to dignity or respect e.g. an idea, institution, not just a person. As
such the audience is laughing not only at President Bush personally but also at the ofce of the President,
perhaps at Government generally and possibly even at the idea of an absolute moral authority. The trailers
narrative supercially shows success at the end (in the form of a standing ovation from Congress) but is
actually reinforcing the demeaning conception of President Bush as stupid or incapable (his triumphant line
that led to the applause being I know that human beings and sh can coexist peacefully).

The trailer uses Del Closes Rule of 3 by using a running gag (Bush gaffe) 3 times at the offset and also
applies Comedy Torture Theory by using the gag 7 times in total (the point at which it is suggested a
repeating joke becomes humorous again). Within ST, this technique is explained by the underlying notion
that anothers ineptitude reveals our superiority over them. That being the case, there is no overkill within
ST and so the blooper reel could theoretically run forever and remain humorous.

Mr Tyson is a former boxer hardly renowned for his oratorical skills and the explicit gag here is threefold: the
contrast he provides to universally acclaimed thespian Geoffrey Rush (the original actor); the degrading
image of him wearing a fedora while painting a unicorn (mocking his masculinity); and the indignity for
President Bush of having a man like this step in as an academic authority on speech. Implicitly there is the
context of Mr. Tysons recent attempts to push his movie career forward, in spite of near-universal ridicule
for his performances. It can also be perceived as a damning reection of the kind of acting opportunities
currently available to Mr. Tyson, adding to our disdain of him and a clear example of ST-based humour.
Finally, pointing out stereotypes or divisions in society makes things funnier according to some social identity
theories. Therefore it could be contended that in this case the use of a black athlete to correct a white
politicians spoken English may be being used to accentuate a white audiences feeling of superiority to
President Bush intellectually and consequently laugh harder.

It is important to note that the very use of a faux trailer that reveals the full narrative arch of the movie (an
allusion to legitimate movie trailers that often provide the same montage of key events) allows the audience
to feel intellectually superior to the lm industry (another instance of ST-based humour). The audiences
capacity to deduce the storyline and outcome of a movie from the very trailer being used to encourage
viewing/cold-sell the movie means that the trailer, having revealed its primary contents, no longer needs to
be watched, depriving Hollywood of the very nancial recognition it craves. This can be seen as a manifest
failure on the lm industrys part, hence, the audience laughs harder. Overarching everything in this sketch is
a very clear suggested path from ridiculing ourselves/Americans to nding humour in the contemptible aws
of others e.g. President Bush, Hollywood and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Tyson.

The nal facet is that the joke is on the audience and it is the makers who are laughing. By this, what is meant
is that in the audiences moment of sudden glory they fail to see that actually they are the victims of
distraction and subversive product placement. The show draws attention to the relative merits of The
Kings Speech and is owned by the same mother company (Disney) that owns the distribution rights to said
movie, representing a clear example of vertical integration and of the audiences powerlessness to prevent
Hollywood from simply redistributing existing movies. The faux trailer represents a comic palliative for any in
the audience who feel disillusioned with the viewing standards and scope of modern US mainstream cinema
and is a manifestation of Hollywoods superiority over the audience. Disney can pre-emptively indulge
ridicule from within knowing that in a sense all press is good press, leaving the audience a powerless party in
the consumer-supplier relationship, beholden to take what is offered. In this sense Disney doesnt just make
the rules, it owns the sport and thus laughs at the audience.

While theories of humour are generally considered inadequate on a large scale and in many instances
overlap with each other, the clip in question contains the fundamental elements of ST- based humour. Both
men have suffered falls from grace and in the context of ST, the audience should laugh at how bad things
have become. While there might be an argument that Relief Theory may be more applicable in this instance
(Bush is no longer in power, its over), it must be contended that his legacy lives on and in that context
derision and contempt are perhaps more understandable comic drivers. Also, relief theory can be
incorporated into ST, as expression of otherwise taboo wishes can represent an imposition of ones
superiority over e.g. fate. In a different interpretation, Bergson, et al. (1980) stated that we laugh at others
rigidity, or the mechanical encrusted on the living, and this Machine Theory can also be encompassed by
ST as it can be construed as a realisation of comparative eminence over others. Although it can be
contended that the use of these gures in the narrative represents an example of incongruity, Incongruity
Theory can exist within ST as laughing at absurdity requires the assertion of our projection of reality as the
comparative denition of normality. From this it can be suggested that upon our dismissal of the absurd as
non-threatening, we laugh because we re-assert our conception of normality and our dominance over the
absurd in our lives. The trailer is rich in both supercial and implicit ST-based humour and on this basis a
valid case for the categorisation of satirical lm trailers as ST-based can be made.

References
Bergson, H., Brereton, C., & Rothwell, F. (1911). Laughter: an essay on the meaning of the comic. New York:
Macmillan.
Hobbes, T., & Gaskin, J. C. (1994). The elements of law, natural and politic: part I, Human nature, part II,
De corpore politico ; with Three lives. London: Oxford University Press.
JimmyKimmelLive. (n.d.). The President's Speech - YouTube . YouTube - Broadcast
Yourself Retrieved September 22, 2011, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnxNnJYziMY
Joachim, H. H. (1998). Aristotle the Nicomachean ethics. London: Oxford University Press.
Jowett, B. (199). Philebus. Champaign Il: Project Gutenberg.
Monro, D. (1988). Theories of Humor. Collier's encyclopedia: with bibliography and index (pp. 349-55). New
York: Macmillan Educational Co. ;.
Provine, R. R. (2000). Laughter: a scientic investigation. New York: Viking.