Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

Bloody Funny:
An Analysis of Why Audiences Find Humour
in Violence and Gore on Screen.

By Lauren Jay Howard

Broadcast Media BA Honours
UCA
May 2013
First Language: English
Word count excluding bibliography:
9,892

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

Contents
The Introduction

Chapter 1:

Before the Laugh: Humour Theory

Chapter 2: A History of Humorous Violence on Screen

11

Chapter 3:

19

Quentin Tarantino: Constructing Humour in Violence

Conclusion

25

Bibliography

27

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

Introduction
Violence on screen has been investigated extensively, mainly its affect on an audience and
their behavior once they have left the theatre. However there can be no definitive answer
as to whether violence on screen creates violence on the streets, in fact, some may argue
it dampens the need to act violently in the real world. There is a gap in research on why
audiences enjoy violence and how it makes them feel, in particular why audiences may
view violence as amusing and humorous.
Humour is typically personal to each individual; what one person may find hysterically
funny another finds grossly insulting. To determine what is definite humour and what is not
would be impossible to argue due to the wide difference in opinion. As English Philosopher
Simon Critchley suggests; When it comes to what amuses us we are all authorities,
experts in the field (Critchley, 2002:2). It is probable that each and every person will have
a varied idea of what can make them laugh, depending on social, cultural and personal
experience. What this investigation hopes to explore is why violence, gore and death can
sometimes be perceived as humourous, and if humour is found, how is it created. This will
provide an interesting perspective on the relevance of violence on screen in a way that
previously has not been explored. It may be said that violence should not to be trivialised
or made humorous, for fear of how transmuting peoples perceptions of violence could
affect society, an opinion which this analysis hopes to change.
Research will focus on human behavior, in relation to the works of Sigmund Freud,
including viewer response theory with reference to humour in art and its effects.
Contextual analysis of relevant television programmes and films, dating from the early
Twentieth Century to the present, will also be relevant to this investigation.
Key terminology for this analysis includes, Slapstick which is the ability to create humour
through exaggerated and comedic violence. Gross Out is a sub genre that began in the
late 1970s in which filmmakers sought to include copious amounts of blood, gore and
sickening images, often in place of story and plot to create excitement, intrigue, repulsion
and humour. Ultra Violence is another term applied to films that have the most impact
and defined or redefined screen violence (Bouzereau, 1996:ix), with particular reference
to the works of Quentin Tarantino.
To investigate why people may laugh when confronted with the portrayal of violence in
films, a number of discussions will follow. Chapter One will discuss the prominent humour
3

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

theories and whether they can be applied to provide a sound reasoning for audience
laughter at violence. In Chapter Two a history of violence on screen will be explored, to
determine how violence as humour was introduced into cinema and the way in which it is
portrayed for modern audiences. Finally, Chapter Three there will be a close analysis of
key scenes from the films of Quentin Tarantino. Chosen for his ultra violent approach,
Tarantino often juxtaposes bizarrely humorous scenes with gratuitous violence and gore.
This chapter will investigate how violence is created by the auteur and the elements
needed for audiences to react with laughter.

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

Chapter 1
Before the Laugh: Humour Theory
It appears that many theorists of humour discuss the idea of relief and how it can affect
viewer response. At the turn of the Twentieth Century, the English philosopher, Herbert
Spencer suggested that Laughter is explained as a release of pent up nervous
energy (Critchley, 2002:3). The notion of release is a possibility, but it would be too
problematic to assume all audiences are nervous when witnessing the representation of
violence in films.
Later in 1905, Freud sought to explain the reasoning behind relief in his book Jokes and
Their Relation to the Unconscious. He suggested: Where the energy that is relived and
discharged in laughter provides pleasure because it allegedly economizes upon energy
that would ordinarily be used to contain of repress psychic activity (Critchley, 2002:3). In
agreement with this point, rather than that of Spencer, it seems that laughter can come
from the energy used to suppress thoughts felt to be dangerous in a civilised society. Such
thoughts require great energy to be kept from surfacing in ones mind, and when they are
relieved in the form of viewing entertainment, the reaction of laughter can be forceful.
In correlation with Freuds suggestion, Simon Critchley describes laughter as a
Convulsive phenomenon in the same sense as an orgasm and uncontrollable
sobbing (Critchley, 2002:9). The extreme nature of laughter described here supports
Freuds idea of a transfer of energy from suppressed thoughts such as sexual deviance
and violence. Critchley continues by saying that, laughter is a liberation or
elevation (Critchley, 2002:9), suggesting that the energy and suffering we must place on
ourselves to conform to a righteous society must be relieved, and humour is therefore the
humanity of the human (Critchley, 2002:9). It could be argued that by denying the mind
and body of these thoughts and experiences, that continuously try to come to the surface,
people will look for a way of safely relieving the stresses of constraining said thoughts. It is
probable that when viewing violence on screen, something audiences must resist in the
real world, they feel comforted and are allowed the relief of pent-up energy, which
manifests as laughter.

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

In Freud's prominent paper The Ego and The Id first published in 1923, the father of
psychoanalysis discusses the pressure one must contend with when the Id, Ego and
Superego are unbalanced. It could be said that primal instinct of violence and need for
hunting maybe present in the unconscious Id. The Ego must then look for a safe place
where the Id can receive gratification and the Superego must abide by societies norms,
values and rules, so as to not feel guilt and remorse. If the Egos purpose is to find or
create an image similar to what the Id needs then the role of violence on screen is useful
and because film is valued in society the Superego is also satisfied with feelings of
accomplishment. Thus the opposing dynamic energies are relieved of their oppression and
balance can be restored. Although not all laughter may be attributed to relief, it is probable
that certain types of humorous experiences can be explained by this theory.
Laughter as a reaction to shock is best described through Incongruity Theory. In the 1600s
when the French philosopher Blaise Pascal first introduced the concept, he suggested that
Nothing produces laughter more than a disproportion between that which one expects,
and that which ones sees (Klein, 2007:10). This raises the question of whether laughter is
a natural reaction to a shocking outcome, an unexpected truth. Simon Critchley outlines
the theory of Incongruity in his book On Humour; Humour is produced by the experiences
of a felt incongruity between what we know or expect to be the case, and what actually
takes place (Critchley, 2002:3). The noticeable point appears to be that viewers laugh
because the outcome they expect does not play out: Critchley argues that the pleasure
gained from being outsmarted or proved wrong, creates humour. It can be argued that
ultra violence, gore and death are unexpected in the moments that audiences laugh at
them. A clear example of Incongruity Theory in practice can be witnessed in a scene
towards the end of the Quentin Tarantino film Django Unchained (2013), a revenge fantasy
focussing on a slave seeking justice on the plantation owners of the Deep South.
Throughout the film, the sister of a plantation owner has kept herself away from the
controversy, and has therefore remained noticeably innocent. Yet when Django casts his
vengeance in the climax of the film and begins his killing spree, he first executes the sister
with a swift and shocking gun shot, and she is comically blown across the room. This
unexpected action arguably results in the largest laugh of the film because the audience
did not see it coming. It is not in keeping with the rest of Djangos actions and as such has
become incongruous.
In Sheri Kleins latest book Art and Laughter, the Professor of Art Education looks at why
art can be perceived as humorous and suggests that shock is The root cause of all
humour (Klein, 2007:10). This thesis proposes that an audience finds humour when the
6

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

unexpected occurs. It is typical in cinema for audiences to enjoy guessing and surmising
the plot before it happens; we take pleasure in filling in all the gaps. Furthermore Pascal
suggests that when the storyline we had anticipated does not occur, and instead
something else occurs which is equally or more satisfying, we are yet more delighted that
we have been surprised. As a result humour is found.
Hutchinson has also written about the idea that humour is found in the unexpected, in his
paper Reflections Upon Laughter. He suggests that Laughter results from the fact that we
get something that we are not expecting (Klein,2007:10). Klein sums up the incongruity
theory by explaining Humour arises via a process of acknowledging what seems to be out
of sorts, i.e. surprise, and in a way that undoubtedly gives us some pleasure (Klein,
2007:10). When looking at ultra violence, it could therefore be said that the audience is
shocked by the unexpected brutality and that their reaction could be that of laughter, which
one could compare with The Grotesque.
The Grotesque can be summarised as The Estranged World. Unlike a fairytale or fable
the grotesque occurs in the real world, but something has twisted and transformed it.
Wolfgang Kayser explains in his work An attempt to define the Nature of the Grotesque
that suddenness and surprise are essential elements of the grotesque (Kayser, 2013). It
appears that images found in the grotesque, although positioned in a natural world, are
unusual and incongruous with their surroundings. It is as though the audiences thoughts
that have been suppressed are now viewable, and as such the forceful laughter explained
by the relief theory, is a direct result of the images displayed by the grotesque.
Kayser continues by suggesting that the grotesque creates a situation that is filled with
ominous tension (Kayser, 2013). This is evident in the opening scenes in the Tarantino
film Pulp Fiction. There is extensive dialogue between Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield,
during which they discuss trivial topics such as the name of a Quarter Pounder
Cheeseburger in France (Royale with Cheese) and gossip over the possibility of a fellow
colleague fooling around with their boss spouse, establishing a seemingly normal
environment that reflects the audiences own world. However, whilst these conversations
develop, their ambiguous nature and purpose builds tension. When the characters collect
their guns from the boot of the car, the audience start to guess at the outcome; but
confusingly, due to their dialogue of daily non-violent affairs, the characters still appear to
be accessible and approachable. The shock created when it is revealed that they are in
fact contracted killers sent to kill young boys, who are coincidently eating cheeseburgers,
relieves the tension but causes the audience to face a world they would not be comfortable
7

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

in. Kayser agrees this can produce laughter as We are unable to orient ourselves in the
alienated world, because it is absurd (Kayser, 2013). This is the foundations of the
grotesque, to be subjected to a view of the audiences own world that they believe they
could not survive in, an idea that is so unfathomable and ridiculous, it is possible that it
may result in laughter.
The theory of the grotesque can also be used to look at why auteurs like Tarantino,
exaggerate the abuse of the body. It can be said that grotesque images are artistic and
can be admired as such: our wretchedness is our greatness. Melancholy animals that we
are, human beings are also the most cheerful (Critchley, 2002:11). It is therefore likely that
the grotesque and humour can go hand in hand. This raises the question of whether
audiences use sickening images as a way to test boundaries and to amuse each other by
examining their tolerance with the amount of gross out gore and death they can be
subjected to. The fun element within this can subsequently create humour.
The idea of the incongruous is also shown in the grotesque and the absurd, particularly
when human anatomy is ridiculed and how it can affect laughter. The French Philioshper
Henri Bergsons thesis Le Rire is on the theory of laughter and argues that we laugh at the
body when it is portrayed with the characteristics of the machine. He suggests that humour
can be found if the body is seen redundant, uncharacteristically human and is unable to
suffer pain and emotion. This raises the question, that the audiences reaction of laughter
to brutal violence could be because the victim has been portrayed as nothing more than an
object, What therefore incited laughter was a momentary transformation of a person into a
thing...We laugh every time a person gives us the impression of being a thing (Bergson
1900:19). In agreement with this point it seems that humour can be found when a
character is perhaps arbitrary, machine like, repetitive or stiff. This type of humour is
evident in early silent cinema and cartoons depicting violence, such as Tom and Jerry
where the cat and mouse chase never finishes, which will be discussed further in chapter
two.
Bergson also comments that the idea can be reversed; if an object or animal takes on the
characteristics of a human, humour can also be found. In the classic childrens cartoon
Wile.E. Coyote and The Road Runner, Coyote is not portrayed with the characteristics of
the animal or a coyotes natural hunting behavior, but rather he creates contraptions and
elaborate plans more consistent with a human hunter. The audience therefore experiences
humour at an animal behaving in the manner of a violent version of themselves. This has
continued into modern day adult humour with the release of films such as Ted (2012) by
8

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

director and writer Seth MacFarlane. The film features a boy who grows into adulthood
with a bear who was granted life through a magical wish. Ted, a stuffed cuddly toy can be
seen participating in job interviews, drinking bear, having sex and smoking weed. The
humour climaxes in a scene where Ted forcefully and violently attacks his human friend in
a hotel toilet, throwing lamps, books and punches. The absurd situation creates great
humour, as ordinary human actions that audiences can relate to are being carried out by a
being that would not exist in the real world. Combining an unreal being with realistic,
human behaviour becomes both shocking and humorous.
Grotesque and absurd images can sometimes serve a different purpose. Filmmakers may
use them to raise taboo issues and questions over authority and society, to challenge the
audiences perception of the world around them. Mikhail Bakhtin is a Russian philosopher
who analysed the works of the French Renaissance writer in Rabelais and His World.
Bakhtin suggests the act of laughter, especially the result of the grotesque can be a
therapeutic and liberating force; The grotesque; it exaggerates and caricatures the
negative (Bakhtin, 1984:306), thus enabling difficult subject matter to be covered in a
pleasing and accessible way. During Bakhtins work he also discusses the idea of
carnival alongside grotesque, which is the process of hierarchical reversal, the creation of
fools that become wise and Kings that become peasants. Carnivalesque narratives and
images that are portrayed in film, seek to liberate the oppression of a dominant power
through humour. In the film Django Unchained (2013), Tarantino uses the idea of the
carnival and grotesque, by mocking and killing the King and Clergy to change a social
system. The character Django at first a slave and at the bottom of the social hierarchy,
during the course of the film mimics the power of the plantation owners by riding in on a
horse and making monetary deals. He then goes on to ridicule the white supremacists and
free himself through grotesque, comedic violence and carnivalesque chaos. Tarantino has
therefore presented the taboo of slavery to an audience inexperienced with its discussion,
and reversed the hierarchical situation which has been achieved through humour.
The final key element to aid in this discussion is the idea of amusement in revenge.
Superiority theory is key here and has been widely explored, firstly by the Greek
Philosophers, Aristotle and then Plato, the Roman rhetorician Quintillian and furthermore
by the English Philosopher Hobbes in the seventeenth century. Their research shows
humour in gaining the upper hand over others and feeling of superiority, Hobbes suggests
Suddaine Glory arising from suddaine Conception of some Eminency in our selves, by
Comparison with the Infirmities of others, or with our owne formerly (Chafe,2007: 141).
Alternatively not only the feeling of superiority over any character, but superiority over
9

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

those who have committed an injustice or have wronged someone they have a vested
interest in. It is probable that an audience would find humour in the downfall of a villain that
has wronged the hero, a character which the audience has warmed to and supported over
the course of the film or television programme. Laughter could be found as the result of
audiences relishing in the justice being served, an almost wanting in being the one to act
out the violence. This type of amusement and humour found when viewing violence, again
relates back to the theory of relief. For the situations where one has been a victim of
abuse, violence, discrimination and greed, to see a likened character on screen avenging
their own abuser, the audience can take pleasure from comparing it to their own situations,
to finally see good overcome evil. A good example is found in the film Kill Bill (2003),
where The Bride character has been sexually abused and raped whilst in a coma. When
she awakens the Bride takes extremely violent revenge, first ripping the lip from the
attacker, then slicing the achilles heel and smashing the skull of the one who has arranged
the rape and abused her himself. When extreme ultra violence is used against the villian,
the pleasure is heightened and the energy used to suppress feelings of revenge is
suddenly transformed explosively into laughter. Justice is restored.
In summary, it would appear that four elements; relief, shock, the grotesque and
superiority under the guise of revenge, can be used to explain the reaction of laughter to
violence, and as such one could argue that at least one of these elements must be present
for humour to occur. Further study into this idea is needed, the following chapter will
examine when and how violence may have been interpreted as humorous on screen.

10

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

Chapter 2
A History of Humorous Violence on Screen
The history of audiences finding amusement in gore and death can be dated back to the
demise of monsters in Greek Mythology, the roar of laughter heard from the amphitheaters
of Rome and the smiles witnessed at Medieval English Jousting competitions. Violence is
key in the make up of human history, and a theme that has repeated itself is the idea of
finding humour in violence, especially for entertainment purposes. It is interesting to see
how film and television makers have taken reality violence seen on the news or in history
text books, which is often harrowing and terrifying, and transformed it into art and
entertainment that sparks laughter and adoration.
The Silent Movie Era in the early twentieth century that ended at the beginning of
Hollywoods Golden Age, focused around the exaggerated movement of the body.
Audiences were pleased with comical routines and miming acts, an extension of which
came comedic violence. Expression of physical pain featured in most silent movies. In
their article Cruel and Unusual Comedy: Social Commentary in the American Slapstick
Film Steve Massa and Ben Model agree that; Gratuitous violence is a part of practically
every slapstick comedy (Massa and Model, 2009). It is therefore possible that violence
was the foundation of humour found in cinema during this time.
Laurel and Hardy were masters of the slapstick, depicting catastrophic and deadly
happenings as humorous encounters delighting the mass audience. The famous film
Liberty (1929) shows the pair as escaped convicts who find themselves trapped at the top
of a skyscraper. As the scene unfolds, various seemingly lethal components fall and land
on the policeman below, including a ladder and a bag of cement. The climax of the
situation sees Laurel and Hardy fall from an unnerving height in a broken lift, directly onto
the said policeman violently smashing him into the ground. The cop is then seen later
transformed into a midget as the result of the accident. If the audiences were to witness
such a violent accident in reality there would be screams and chaos, and yet on screen
they are compelled to laugh, hysterically. The author of The Logic of The Absurd, Jerry
Palmer, explains the audience laughter created here is through shock; The surprise that
the narrative constructs for us is the survival of the policeman, albeit in a changed form,
when common sense tells us that the result of a squashing in a lift shaft is not reduction in
size, but death (Palmer, 1987:40). Supporting Incongruity Theory and the art of surprise in
11

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

its relation to humour, which is created when the audience is faced with an outcome they
did not expect or foretell.
As audiences began to become aware of the cliches of slapstick and the element of
surprise was slowly stripped away, pioneers Laurel and Hardy and Charlie Chaplin began
to fade from screens and silent films with greater violence began to take their place. It is
becoming more and more difficult to satisfy the public for cinematographic comedy.
Yesterdays slapstick no longer satisfies the spectators needs (Palmer, 1987:98),
resulting in filmmakers forever searching for new and shocking material. Films such as
Their First Execution, staring Ford Sterling of Keystone Kops fame, became popular. This
short black and white film depicted a prisoner being executed in an electric chair,
something which would be tremendously difficult to witness in real life. Although unheard
of, The idea of death in the electric chair as a source of humor was something we'd not
seen in slapstick comedies (Massa and Model, 2009), the audience did not shy away,
instead Sterling had audiences falling about in fits of laughter. It is probable that humour
was found from the relief of the audience not having to witness tremendous pain and
suffering, but rather the prisoner fooling around. The relief theory suggests audiences who
feel suppressed by tensions, morality and taboos will find humour when the subject is
portrayed as entertainment. It is interesting in 1913, the year Their First Execution was
released, the majority of the states in America finally switched from the traditional method
of hanging to the electric chair, and so there were fresh debates centering around the
morality of electrocution and concerns with the physical effects of such a death. By
watching this type of comedy they are relieved, a modern debate causing concern has
been addressed and their worries are subdued. The taboo has been broken and the
amusement of electric chair, in terms of Freuds theory, can be explained by the relief of
the Ego no longer concerned and the Superego able to feel secure in its moral obligations,
even go as far as to laugh at what the Ego may have been conflicted with. Furthermore it
allows audiences to laugh at a prisoner receiving justice, in relation to the superiority
theory, something which again must be suppressed due to the norms of a real execution
chamber.
These films were also released around the time of the introduction of the Hays Code, a
form of Superego, where crudeness and disturbing acts of violence were being outlawed
from cinemas to preserve morality. Yet if audiences are encouraged to laugh, it could be
said that the brutality is dampened down and could pass through the Superego and be
allowed under the code. When comparing violence that is harrowing to that which is funny,
one would assume the later has more of a negative effect on society. However it could be
12

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

said they serve to release pent up desires of the Id to act out violently, in a safe
environment found by the Ego, and thus should arguably be encouraged.

This is in

relation to Freuds theory of relief and the metaphoric pressure valve to avoid an explosion
as the result of suppression of violent and unlawful thoughts by the Superego.
Historically childrens cartoons are also filled with comedic violence, similar to slapstick
comedies of the silent movie era, and as such audiences are taught to laugh at violence
from a young age. Tom and Jerry is arguably the original violent cartoon, featuring a literal
cat and mouse chase that never ends. There is stabbing, squishing, strangling, smashing
of skulls by hammers and copious amounts of blood, It was ultra violent, morally
questionable and aimed at children (Jeffries, 2000), writes Stuart Jeffries in his article
Animal Magic. Yet infants and parents find these cartoons highly amusing and they form
the staple of Saturday morning television entertainment. Jeffries makes an interesting
observation, that The New Tom And Jerry Show that first aired on the ABC network in
1975, showing Tom and Jerry as the best of friends. They never had a cross word, still
less an insanely violent brawl (Jeffries, 2000), was subsequently pulled after season two
because No one wanted Tom and Jerry to become like Yogi Bear and Booboo (Jeffries,
2000), suggesting it was the violence that audiences tuned in for.
The original television series created by MGM ran from 1940 to 1957, although the
violence was extreme, it appears to have had a moral value. The mouse Jerry, always
triumphed over Tom the cat because he kept calm, whilst his enemy lost his temper.
Jeffries argues that this educated children to the reasoning Rage rendered one impotent
in a conflict (Jeffries, 2002). It could be said therefore that Tom and Jerrys humour was
created through the notion of superiority, viewers were pleased with the justice that was
ultimately served, and found themselves laughing when the wrong doer Tom, was
inevitably put in his place. In agreement with this point, the 1947 episode Dr Jekyll and Mr
Mouse, angered viewers. Jerry, the mouse, stumbled upon Tom who was creating a potion
that would exaggerate his strength and make himself the ultimate evil. Jerry decides to
steal the potion and mutates into a muscly super-mouse as a result he attacks Tom with
vengeance in an unprovoked and thoroughly disturbing violent manner. Jeffries explains
this is still one episode I cannot bear to watch (Jeffries, 2002), the superiority factor is
taken away, Jerry is no longer justified and so his brutal attack cannot not be perceived as
humorous.
Cartoons produced for adults were also explored on finding humour in violence. It would
appear that older audiences enjoy the detachment from real violence even more so when
the characters are animated, it could be said this frees viewers of any guilt related to
13

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

watching violence because they are simply not real. Famously, the hit American animated
show The Simpsons has long commented on the idea of cartoon violence by regularly
including a parody of Tom and Jerry, The Itchy and Scratchy show. This cartoon, within a
cartoon also centers around a cat and mouse, but the violence has been ramped up and
amplified. In one particular gruesome episode Nine and a Half Leaks (2009), Itchy the
mouse force feeds Scratchy the cat with food embedded by a whole box of nails. Itchy
then turns on an electric powered magnet and places it above Scratchys stomach, when
the switch goes on the nails are forced through the cats insides, piecing his skin and fur.
The sound is atrocious, the cat wails, audiences can hear the tissue tear and the fountain
of blood spill, yet the mouse sadistically laughs and the cat wakes up, cue the happy jingle
and The End title. Its not a question of should viewers be laughing at this, but why. The
mouse is not superior to the cat, there is no relief of moral issues as audiences tend not to
suppress ideas of mutilating furry animals, it must therefore be the shock of watching such
horrendous violence and the fascination of the Grotesque. However, the audience is
placed in a superior position to the characters of Bart and Lisa, we are distanced from
Itchy and Scratchy as it exists in the world of The Simpsons. The result is comical irony,
because the audience can mock the characters Bart and Lisa for watching such violence
but they are actually a humorous representation of themselves. Consequently Itchy and
Scratchy is hilarious because it is grotesque and allows the audience to feel as though
they are in a position of superiority.
In Bergsons thesis, he argues that humour is found when grotesque violence is acted on a
being that has human qualities but is clearly not human. This can be seen in the adult
cartoon Family Guy. Created by Seth MacFarlane for the Fox Network, Family Guy is an
American animated series, that pushes the boundaries first set by The Simpsons. The
later show, although dealing with adult themes can be enjoyed in a family environment,
Family Guy however was purely created for adults and older teens. The programme
focuses on the dysfunctional Griffin family, and is noted for its cutaway gags and obscene
plot lines frequently featuring incest and bestiality. The violent and grotesque animation
has also been criticised but is enjoyed by its 11.85 million viewers (Arthur, 2005:3). In
Patriot Games, Episode 20 of Season four, there is a segment where the toddler Stewie
asks the talking dog Brian if he has the money he lent to him. The dog explains he cannot
pay him back, and the seemingly innocent toddler replies oh, well, alright then (he drinks
the remainder what is left in his beaker) ... mmmmm thats good OJ, and immediately
afterward with lighting speed and anger smashes the glass into the dogs eyes blinding
him. As the scene develops the toddler Stewie continues to brutally attack Brian, punching
him, kicking him, drowning him in the toilet and finally hitting him multiple times with a steel
14

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

towel holder producing pints of blood and bruising, all the while yelling; ooooo that hurt?
Yeah? Yeah? doesnt feel so good does it? Yeah? The violence continues for a further two
minutes; Wheres my money man? Wheres the money? Youve got till five oclock! Brian
mummers You friggin psychopath (Family Guy Season Four, 2006) as the toddler
pleased with himself finally exits the bathroom. The violence is brutal and unashamedly so,
yet audiences find this hysterical because of the surprise of watching such an unreal
situation unfold. In reality a two year old boy would not hospitalize his pet dog for owing
him money, its obscure shocking and ridiculous causing the audience to laugh. The
qualities Brian posses is also the source of great humour throughout the series, although a
dog, he seems to be the only character with morals, a conscience and educated
intelligence, creating irony and incongruous humour.
Similar to the Tom and Jerry backlash concerning the Dr Jekyll episode, recently Family
Guy has also suffered complaints from its fans that are normally accepting and amused by
the violent humour. The episode Screams of Silence: The Story of Brenda Q (2011) deals
with domestic violence situation. Audiences could not laugh at the episode because the
situation was very real, the violence was being carried out on the weak and innocent, there
was no relief of pressured universal desires and the perpetrator was far from superior. The
grotesque element could not be found as this violence although awful, does occur in the
audiences world as they know it, and so humour could not be created. A.J. Hammer an
anchor for Showbiz Tonight and avid fan of Family Guy, felt compelled to comment on the
episode the following evening; The episode dealt with Quagmires sister, Brenda, coming
to town and being constantly abused by her boyfriend, Jeff. Like so many other people, I
was just shocked by what I saw on Family Guy last night, the explicit beatings
administered by Jeff, and the sad reaction of Brenda. It was really just a depressing half
hour of television (Di Fino, 2011). This episode and the audience clear distaste would
suggest that one of the four factors discussed in chapter one must be present for
audiences to find humour in violence.
Other alternatives however are worth considering. Firstly that laughter could be created
due to sheer admiration of the writers for having the nerve and cheek to create such
gruesome violence. Secondly whether laughing is a defense mechanism for example the
violence makes audiences feel uneasy and as such a smirk or laughing outburst helps
them to deal with the uncomfortableness and finally whether it is simply a knock on a effect
of a shared experience. This is explained by an investigation carried out in the book
Indentifying Hollywood Audiences, in which interviews were carried out with viewers and
their thoughts on laughter at violence were discussed. The consensus seemed to be that
15

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

laughter is either the result of relief, influence by the rest of the audience or shock. One
interviewee admitted; If I see something which is shocking then Ill yell and laugh. Its the
shock that makes me laugh, it allows me to cope with what Im seeing I guess (Stokes
and Maltby, 1999:184). It may also serve to allow audiences to mock one another for being
constrained by what society demands of them as Palmer explains Laughter derives from
mans natural spitefulness, but it has a beneficial social function: it is to shame those
people who are unwilling or unable to fit in with the demands of a flexible social
order (Palmer, 1987:19). This could explain the sense of needing to fit in and why one
may laugh if viewing violence on screen is a shared experience. In Stokes and Maltbys
investigation, an audience member explains the experience he had whilst watching the film
Braveheart (1995), A guy falls to his death and everybody laughed at that and I felt maybe
I should laugh with them, and I did. I cant understand why I did that. I suppose you try to
fit in with everybody else so youre not left out (Stokes and Maltby, 1999:184). Although
this can explain some audience laughter as a ripple effect, it fails to explain why laughter
begins.

The horror genre is known for its grotesque style and is often a source of humour. Todays
audience is greatly educated in the world of cinema, and unfortunately as such, films that
were once shocking now generate considerable laughter. Arguably this could be the result
of films such as Wes Cravens Scream (1996), a slasher film that was self aware, and
attempted to discuss the clich's of the genre. It introduced the idea that horror films were
laughable and seemingly always followed rules. However, filmmakers of the original
slasher films; Psycho (1960), Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Halloween (1978) and
Friday the 13th (1980), intended for audiences to find humour and excitement in their films
from the beginning, Psycho is a film made with quite a sense of amusement on my part.
To me its a fun picture. Alfred Hitchcock (Paul, 1994:406). This view however, is heavily
critiqued by governing bodies of cinema, who believe these films demonstrated the mindnumbing decadence of American culture, as an infinitely renewable sign that the end was
near (Paul, 1994:4). Again it would seem that critics and the governing bodies of cinema
and television are in disagreement with what audiences find entertaining. Suggesting that
although society outwardly denies violence is humorous, it is something that occurs in the
medium of film and television and is actively encouraged by their creators.
It is worth noting that the first wave of Gross-Out cinema were made directly after the
demise of the Hays Code and tight censorship regulations. These films displayed extreme
anti-repressiveness and allowed over sexed and over violent characters loose on screen
16

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

for the first time. Audiences, although initially shocked, found relief from the pressures of a
suppressed society. Teenage viewers were witnessing everything they had been
demanded to suppress unfold before their eyes. In his book Laughing and Screaming,
William Paul discusses the need and benefits of Gross-Out cinema, as films that are
quite happy to present themselves to the public as spectacles in the worst possible
taste (Paul, 1994:4). Paul also suggests that Gross - Out films are a mode moving in
two directions at once, the horror films may invoke comedy, while the comedies may take
on suddenly nightmarish imagery (Paul, 1994:415). This idea is likely, because of the
theory of the grotesque, that if something absurd and outwardly hideous is thrown into the
real world, the audience can not comprehend living along side such an atrocity and so the
imagery becomes ridiculous provoking laughter. A clear example is a scene from the film
The Exorcist (1973) where the young Regan, who is possessed by a demon controlling her
body from within, spins her head three hundred and sixty degrees. This grotesque imagery
is unfathomable in the real world, and as such will be categorised as humorous and
absurd by a proportion of audiences, who may find themselves laughing as a result. Jerry
Palmer in the Logic of The Absurd explains further the reaction of laughter in these
circumstances and, how humour can be constructed through two factors;
1) A peripeteia, a shock or surprise that the narrative constructs us.
2) A pair of syllogisms, leading to contradictory conclusions:
a) That the process is implausible
b) That the process nonetheless has a certain measure of plausibility, but that
this is less than the implausibility (Palmer, 1987:43).
This can also be applied to Peter Jacksons Gross-Out horror film BrainDead aka Dead
Alive (1992). A section of the film takes place around a family dinner table whilst the
mother is transforming into a zombie. Infamously known as The custard scene two
characters oblivious to what is happening consequently eat a bowl of custard containing
bloody puss and an ear is later also unwittingly consumed. Laughter is created in this
scene according to Palmers theory; the peripeteia or shock is the mother turning into a
zombie and bloody puss squirting into the custard bowl. The implausible is that a human
ear in the natural world would not detach itself from the head and fall into someones
dinner. The measure of plausibility is the setting of a dinner party with guests, which
creates the boundaries of a normal interaction. Combined these three elements create
humour.
Palmer goes on to affirm that ultra violence, horror and Gross-Out can all be found as
humorous if The Peripeteia and The Syllogisms are applied. Gross - out, whether comedy
or horror, is based on ambivalence because gross out explicitly acknowledges the
17

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

attractive in the repellent, the beautiful in the ugly (Palmer, 1987:419). Although this is
likely in the horror genre in particular, it fails to address the idea of context, dialogue and
micro elements, which are also key in the creation of humour, this will be discussed in
Chapter Three.

18

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

Chapter 3
Quentin Tarantino: Constructing Humour in Violence
In the study Viewer response to violent movies by Annette Hill, the author discusses the
idea of Hollywood vs New Brutalism. Under this heading, Hill explains that movies such
as Tarantinos Reservoir Dogs (1992), True Romance (1993), Pulp Fiction (1994) and
Natural Born Killers (1994), are a new breed of ultra violent films. Thy can be described
here as New Brutalism and are categorised by their Characterisation, sharp, incisive and
intelligent dialogue (Hill, 1997:24), as opposed to Hollywoods violent action films Die
Hard and The Terminator. In a lot of Hollywood action films thirty people fall over and
thats it, it means nothing: its violence without consequence (Hill, 1997:24). In her
discussion it is clear that New Brutalism has a deeper intelligence, the film makers are
self aware but allow the audience to share this knowledge, they develop an understanding
between themselves that produces a sophisticated entertainment experience, with
appreciation humour and becomes part of a cultural zeitgeist (Hill, 1997:25).
Quentin Tarantino, is arguably the greatest controversial filmmaker of his generation.
Growing up in Tennessee, the now infamous director began his working career in a video
rental store, whilst training to become an actor. As a profound movie fanatic, Tarantino
began writing scripts and eventually directed his own, the independent Reservoir Dogs
(1992). With a catalogue spanning twenty years, the director is known for manipulating
existing genres to create mash-ups and reinventing The B Movie. His key themes include
revenge and incorporate hyper violence, non linear narratives, long prose dialogue and
scene defining music.
Critics and fans of his work have commented on Tarantinos knowledge of cinema, in
particular from movie goers point of view, for explaining how he pieces together his patch
work films that include all the elements audiences find exciting and pursue the theatre
experience for. Samuel L Jackson, Tarantinos male muse recently said in an interview;
He writes the movie he wants to see, he creates an experience the fans want, and
ensures they get their moneys worth (Django Unchained Press Conference New York,
2012). As a result Tarantino has repeatedly come under fire for the ultra violence he uses
in his movies, violence that he calls Good Cinema (Django Unchained Press Conference
New York, 2012).
19

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

Since the start of his career Tarantino has been questioned on violence in his films and his
thoughts on real acts of violence in correlation to its representation in cinema. He has
strongly avoided the provocations, famously becoming angry and agitated in a recent
interview for Channel Four news. During the interview Tarantino admitted that he relished
making violent films but insisted It's a movie, it's a fantasy. It's not real life (Quentin
Tarantino interview, 2013). When pushed further by the news anchor Krishnan GuruMurthy about the recent gun massacre in Connecticut, Tarantino became furious shouting
"I think it's disrespectful to the memory of the people who died to talk about movies," he
said, "obviously the issue is gun control and mental health" (Brooks, 2013). This is an
interesting point, seemingly suggesting that Tarantino refuses to acknowledge any
controversy around violence on screen, that it should not be questioned. Tarantino clarifies
the danger of linking reality to cinema for filmmakers; The minute you put handcuffs on
artists because of stuff like that, its not an art form anymore (Bouzereau, 1996:74). Thus
suggesting violence portrayed on screen is an art and constructing humour in violence is a
technique.
The ultra violence used by Tarantino is key to the argument of why humour can be found in
violence, how it is created and what purpose it can serve as a narrative technique.
Critchley, the author of On Humour suggests that humour constructed well, in particularly
an unusual setting, will always have a greater impact than the reaction of laughter alone. It
can be used to create a deeper level of meaning and serves to comment on society and
seeks change, as explained by Trevor Griffiths in The Comedians; A joke releases the
tension, says the unsayable, any joke pretty well. But a true joke, has to do more than
release tension, it has to liberate the will and the desire, it has to change the
situation (Critchley, 2002:9). It could therefore be suggested that filmmakers like Tarantino
may create humour in violence not only for the audiences pleasure but for a deeper
purpose.
The works of Quentin Tarantino, it could be argued, create humour to pull focus on greater
issues, and to liberate audiences from exclusion and suppression of sensitive subject
matter, which will be the focus of this chapter. In particular the idea that by laughing at the
violence and ideas portrayed on screen it allows audiences the opportunity to tackle
frightening issues and taboos, as well as bringing sensitive subjects to the forefront of
discussion by fans and critics a like. Critchley agrees; The feeling that often accompanies
laughter is not simply pleasure, but rather uncanniness. We often laugh because we are
troubled by what we laugh at, because it somehow frightens us into seeing an unknown

20

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

truth. (Critchley, 2002:9). As such, because laughter is a social experience, audiences can
begin to discuss and rationalise these issues, forcing them to be exposed.
Furthermore, in the book Ultra Violent Movies, Laurent Bouzereau discusses why the
majority of audiences who watch movies by Tarantino enjoy cathartic brutality.

He

suggests that violence, especially ultra violence provides the greatest entertainment over
other cinematic genres or experiences. Bouzereau has explored the idea that
entertainment violence allows audiences to see themselves as the perpetrator and when
these acts are carried out on characters who are portrayed as evil, pleasure is greatly
increased. He claims, We enjoy and therefore somehow identify with the violent
characters (Bouzereau, 1996:74). Revenge is a key theme in the Tarantino films Kill Bill
volume 1 (2003) and 2 (2004), Inglorious Basterds (2009) and Django Unchained (2013).
It should be discussed to whom the violence is being inflicted on in this collection of films,
which seems to have shown a change of direction since the gross out and slasher film
era. No longer are innocent people killed in tremendous ways, in films like Django and
Inglorious Basterds, the spectacular blood thirsty executions, are all for the evil and
wicked. If justice is being served, all be it in an ultra violent way, the viewer can find
pleasure explains Greg Nicotero Tarantinos special effects supervisor; In Pulp fiction,
none of these are good, they are all arseholes. Today the villains get killed, and in a way,
the violence thats done to them is justified (Bouzereau, 1996:83). In agreement with this
point it seems that there is a sense of satisfaction in seeing violence afflicted on the villain,
the audience can feel superior as good triumphs over evil and as a result they are free to
laugh because there are no repercussions, they were not the executioner.
To develop these two ideas further, it would be important to now analyse how keys scenes
within Quentin Tarantinos body of work are constructed, in particular what causes
audiences to react with laughter. It is likely that micro elements of mise-en-scene, music,
framing and dialogue form the feelings of superiority, shock, relief and grotesque that our
found to be key in the creation of humour as discussed in Chapter One.
Inglorious Basterds, released in 2009, is Tarantinos retelling of Nazi history in World War
Two. The story focuses on a group of American soldiers, aka The Basterds, whose sole
mission is to kill as many Nazis as possible. The method of killing varies from mass
shooting, to the executions by The Bear Jews baseball bat. As a trophy and to calculate
how many Nazis they have killed, the soldiers are ordered to remove the skin and hair
from the skull of every one they slay. After capturing a number of German soldiers, a
21

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

remaining Nazi officer they hope to retrieve information from is informed of their infantry of
killers, Stiglitz and The Bear Jew. With the text HUGO STIGLITZ flashed on screen
accompanied by a loud electric guitar, the story of how he became one of the Basterds is
told. Samuel L Jackson begins with a poetic voice over, As a German enlisted man, he
killed thirteen Gestapo officers (Inglorious Basterds, 2009). The murders are shown in
quick secession, with sharp editing to the amplified guitar track. One murder is
administered with a humorous smile from Stiglitz, as he forcefully shoves his whole fist into
a Nazis mouth, causing asphyxiation. After his capture the basterds break him out, with
cartoonish killing. The cutting of throats produce copious amounts of blood and the sound
of prolonged loud gargling increases the humour. The character Lt. Aldo Raine caricature
red neck soldier with a lust for blood, played by Brad Pitt, also has an important role to
play in creation of humour for this scene. Portrayed as an anti hero, with a Great Escape
snare drum style soundtrack now playing, he announces to Stiglitz, before killing one last
moaning nazis without even looking at the target, We want to let you know, that we have
appreciated your work and admire your skills. In killing Nazis that is (Inglorious Basterds,
2009) bang as the shot is fired. Tarantino then cuts back to the exterior shot of the Nazi
officer awaiting the Bear Jews emergence from the cave, quivering with fear. There is a
distant rattling sound carried forth in a prolonged moment before the Bear Jew arrives,
tension builds. When he finally appears, the Nazi is horrified by the sight of the now
infamous baseball bat the American is swinging. Quickly and brutality the Bear Jew
smashes into the skull of the Nazi repeatedly and triumphantly whilst his comrades shout
and jeer, as though they are instead watching a player score at a baseball game, the
audience is shocked, but entertained by the grotesque revenge to the point of laughter.
This entire scene demonstrates the importance of superiority in the creation of humour.
The music used for the retelling of Stiglitzs story highlights him as a hero of rock star
proportions, the method of killing with his bare hands and the cartoonish forceful ability to
thrust his whole fist into another mans mouth reaffirms he is the superior force. The Nazis
are already placed in the wrong doers position due to the audiences previous knowledge
of the atrocities they carried out in World War Two. One can not hear the word Nazis
repeated countlessly, as done so by Lt Aldo Raine, without conjuring images of
concentration camps and their Jewish hatred. The audience longs for a cruel justice to be
served, they feel superior to the Nazis.
Framing is also key. The Nazis soldiers are captured on film from a high tilting shot, the
audience is viewing them from a superior angle. They are physically forced into a
submissive position as the Bear Jew approaches them, kneeling before the executioner.
22

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

The Bear Jew is framed from a low angle, his whole body fills the screen, and the viewer is
forced to look up to him. His name Bear provokes imagery of strength, fearlessness but
also an unspoken softness, his people have suffered at the hands of these men and he is
hurt by the wickedness they have delivered to the Jews. Therefore the gruesome death
he delivers creates humour through the theory of superiority and the use of filmic
techniques employed by the director. An article in the New York Times by Janet Meuslin,
concludes; When he offsets violent events with expected laughter, the contrast of moods
becomes quite liberating, calling alteration to the real choices the characters make. Far
from amoral or cavalier, these tactic force the viewer to abandon all preconceptions while
under the films spells (Bouzereau, 1996:83). This also raises the point that juxtaposition
of violence with laughter is a key story telling technique and can jolt an audiences mood
and thinking into seeing a wider issue, in the same way satirical drama articulates.
Although Tarantinos latest two films Inglorious Basterds (2009) and Django Unchained
(2013) deal with revenge, they also sparked debate and discussion again surrounding the
subject matter of anti semitism and slavery. Talking on the later Quentin Tarantino explains,
I wanted to do a movie on the horrific past of America and Slavery, but instead of
doing a straight history movie, with a capital H, I thought it would be better if it was
wrapped up in genre, with humour. People will listen to that, thats how you get them
to talk (Django Unchained Press Conference New York, 2012).
In agreement with the directors reasoning, the film sparked conversations about slavery
that perhaps had not been heard since its abolishment, forcing people to confront the
atrocities in Americas history and not allowing them to forget their mistakes in the same
way society should not forget The Holocaust. It is probable that such a discussion would
not have arisen had the film not been able to create controversial comment on its humour
and violence.
Django Unchained (2013) is controversial for many reasons. A critic famously described
the film by saying There is something for everyone to hate in this, something to make
everyone mad (Django Unchained Press Conference New York, 2012). The film, at its
nucleus is a love story, but is wrapped in a revenge western. The violence is mostly
cathartic, an eye for an eye, which is where most of the humour can be found. Some of the
violence is brutal, it is facing Americas dark past head on, with images of Mandingo
fighting, and a particularly harrowing scene where Djangos wife is savagely beaten and
whipped. These scenes are not humorous, they make the viewer extremely uncomfortable.
They are highlighted however, by the humorous violence. The cathartic violence is what
23

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

attracts the viewers, audiences know this is what they will receive for their money when
buying a ticket to see a Tarantino film. The violence they want to see gets them there, it
has a role to play, it is important. When laughable violence is juxtaposed with extreme
brutality it makes the later even stronger. The audience has become open and accepting
of the film because of the humour, allowing the director to hit them hard with uncomfortable
scenes and make them listen to the real issues.
Tarantino will always be critiqued for violence in his films. Not only because they are ultra
violent, but because he does not always play it straight, there is humour, and he writes in a
comedic form.

With mass violence and war as part of everyday life, particularly in

America, society as a whole does not want to admit that violence can be funny, and will
strongly affirm that it should not be treated in a light heartened manner. Yet because
societys, if secretive, love of violence can safely be satisfied in a dark theater, and if it is
juxtaposed with serious issues such as Tarantinos new film Django Unchained (2013),
which consequently got the American public to talk about and face slavery for the first time
in decades, it has an important role to play in cinema, and should continue to be there.

24

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

Conclusion
Humour in violence is evident among audiences of television and cinema, but it depends
on the context in which violence occurs, as understood by Annette Hill Laughter is a
common response participants notice and question. Certain movies generate acceptable
laughter, such as Pulp Fiction, whilst others, such as Schindlers List do not (Hill,
1997:29). It seems that humour in violence is directed by the filmmakers, as seen in the
previous chapter through dialogue and micro elements. Also, laughter is a shared
experience that can effect an audience with knock on effect. It would seem that laughter as
a reaction in some cases may be caused by the experience an audience may share with
others. However it is evident that laughter at violence does occur organically, and as such
this investigation has set out to find and determine how humour is created and why
makers of television and film feel it is necessary to create such a reaction among their
audiences.
Humour is created through violence because of a number of factors. The context
surrounding the film and programme as well as the viewers own feelings and personal
experience cannot be ignored. This however is too large of a subject to discuss and
conclude from. The investigation approached in this piece of work has sought to identify
and fill a gap in existing research as to how and why violence is portrayed as humorous,
through the use of techniques employed by directors and writers of film and television, and
the universal requirements that need to be met in order for a viewer to react with laughter.
A satisfactory conclusion has been achieved. On contextual analysis one could conclude
that at least one of four elements need to be created in order for an audience to accept
and react to violence as humorous. First, the relief from tension and suppression built by
societys norms and values found by the depiction of acts which would suffer
consequences if carried out in reality. Second, the audience need to be shocked, the
outcome must not be what they had first imagined, which could include, but is not limited
to the use of a taboo subject matter. Third, the idea of the grotesque can be used to create
something ridiculous in the every day world, forcing the viewer incapable of
comprehending living and surviving in a version of their own world presented to them.
Therefore resulting in the ridiculous and laughter. Finally, humour can be created when the
audience is positioned as superior to the person, animal or being that the violence is being
afflicted upon. The theory of superiority is closely linked to the idea of revenge and
consequently humour is frowned upon or not found at all when the recipient is deemed
25

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

innocent and justice does not need to be restored. Only one of these elements need to be
present in order for violence to become humorous, but it is noticeable that comedic
violence is heightened when one or more are present. In particularly when the grotesque
and superiority are used in conjunction, which is seen profusely in the works of Quentin
Tarantino.
The notion of whether humorous violence can be used for a greater purpose other than
pure entertainment is questionable, and as such inconclusive. It would appear however,
that humour aids audiences in the discussion of topics deemed sensitive, as covered in
the case of Django Unchained (2013). Critchley agrees; Humour defeats our expectations
and actuality, by changing the situation in which we find ourselves (Crichtley, 2002:1). It is
probable therefore that humour through violence can serve to change the viewers
perception of the world around them, though not all comical violence solely serves this
purpose.
Finally, the reaction of laughter to violence is an obscure thought, as everything taught to
audiences through socialisation would conclude that brutality, death and gore should be
anything but humorous. However its existence and reasoning can be summarised by the
story from Groucho Marx. It tells of a man who was condemned to be hanged. The priest
says to him, Have you any last words before we spring the trap? And the condemned
man says, Yes I dont think this damn thing is safe! (Critchley, 2002:57). In conclusion
this explains that even in the face of adversity, damnation and death, one must stay
human by finding humour in everything, including violence.

26

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

Bibliography
Arthur, Kate (2005). "A Sweeping Weekend". In: The New York Times (Online) At: http://
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507EED71F31F930A35756C0A9639C8B63
(Accessed on 02.03.2013)
Bakhtin, Mikahail. (1984) Rabelais and His World, Translated by Helene Iswolsky. Indiana.
Indiana University Press
Bergson, Henri. (1900) Le Rire (Online) At:http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/
readfile?fk_files=1455542&pageno=19 (Accessed 27.03.2013)
Bouzereau, Laurent. (1996) From Sam Peckinpah to Quentin Tarantino Ultraviolent
Movies. Toronto. Carol Publishing Group.
Brooks, Xan (2013) Tarantino clashes with Krishnan Guru-Murthy over Django
Unchained. In: The Guardian (Online) At:http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/jan/11/
tarantino-krishnan-guru-murthy\ (Accessed on 21.03.2013)
Chafe, Wallace. (2007) The Importance of Not Being Earnest: The feeling behind laughter
and humour.
Critchley, Simon. (2002) On Humour. London. Routledge. Amsterdam. John Benjamins
Publishing Co.
Di Fino, Nando (2011). "Funny Or Die? Family Guy's Domestic Abuse Episode Raises
Questions Of Taste And Appropriateness". In: Mediaite At: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/
funny-or-die-family-guys-domestic-abuse-plot-line-raises-questions-of-taste-andappropriateness/ (Accessed on 12.03.2013)
Django Unchained (2013). Directed by Quentin Tarantino (Film) California: Sony Pictures
Home Entertainment
Family Guy Season Four (2006) Patriot Games Episode 20. Directed by Seth Macfarlane
(DVD) California.20th Century Fox Home Ent.
Feuds, Movie. (2012) Django Unchained Press Conference New York. (Online Video). At:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKCPeTk1yMw (Accessed on 01.04.13)
27

Lauren Jay Howard, Broadcast Media, UCA 2013

Freud, Sigmund (2010). The Ego and the ID. San Francisco.CreateSpace Independent
Publishing Platform
Guro-Murthy, Krishnan. (2012) Quentin Tarantino Interview (Online ``Video). At: http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsJDy8VjZk (Accessed 12.04.13)
Hill, Annette. (1997), Shocking Entertainment Viewer Response to Violent Movies. Luton.
John Libbey Media.
Inglorious Basterds. (2009) Directed by Quentin Tarantino (DVD) California: Universal
Studios.
Jeffries, Stuart (2000) Animal Magic In: The Guardian (Online) At: http://
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2000/nov/28/tvandradio.television3 (Accessed 15.03.2013)
Kayser, Wolfgang. (2009) An Attempt to Define the Nature of the Grotesque (Online
Blog) At: http://www.davidlavery.net/Grotesque/Pages/Theory/Kayser.html (Accessed on
12.03.2013)
Kill Bill. (2003) Directed by Quentin Tarantino (DVD)California: Walt Disney Studios Home
Ent.
Klein, Sheri (2007) The Art of Laughter. London. I.B Tauris and Co Ltd.
Massa, Steve and Model, Ben (2009) "Gratuitous Violence (Online Blog) In: Cruel and
Unusual Comedy

At: http://www.cruelandunusualcomedy.com/2009/05/may-27-at-7pm-

gratuitous-violence.html (Accessed on 12.03.2013)

Palmer, Jerry. (1987) The Logic of The Absurd. London. British Film Institute.
Paul, William. (1994) Laughing Screaming. New York. Columbia University Press.
Stokes and Maltby. (1999) Identifying Hollywood Audiences. London. British Film Institute.

28