Horror and Humour in Cinema – A Neuroscientific Understanding of Why Dark Humour Tickles

What makes dark humour so funny?

All My Friends Are Still Dead
by Avery Monsen and Jory John.

I’ve been thinking about writing this article since watching the thought-provoking horror, Us (2019).

Featuring doppelgängers, the film shows the horror of a reflection taking the place of our self.  Scary stuff.  But what I enjoyed most about this film was the humour.

The film juxtaposes normal behaviour set in a bizarre world where a copy of self is killing all the other selves.

Seeing a family fighting for their lives to compete to sit in the front seat of the car, the winner based on who has killed the most people/doppelgängers?  Hilarious.

There’s also the additional delight of husband Gabe with a tissue stuck up his bloody nostril stating things like, ‘Almost looks like some kind of fucked-up art instalment.’

Director, writer and producer Jordan Peele states, “Horror and comedy are both great ways of exposing how we feel about things […]  The comedy that emerges from a tense moment or scene in a horror film is necessary for cleaning the emotional palate, to release the tension.  It gives your audience an opportunity to emotionally catch up and get prepared for the next run of terror.”1

Us

Winston Duke really nailed the father character, Gabe; and I appreciated this layer of bizarre humour to lighten the strange – as Jorden states above, to, ‘clean the palate’.

But what does this ‘clean the palate’ actually mean?

And what is it about gallows humour that I find so funny?

An article published in Nature Reviews / Neuroscience, ‘The Neural Basis of Humour Processing’ (Pascal Vrticka, et al (2013)) concludes there are, ‘two core processes of humour appreciation: incongruity detection and resolution (the cognitive component); and a feeling of mirth or reward (the emotional component). Whereas the cognitive component seems to rely principally on activity in the [temporo-occipito-parietal junction] TOPJ, the emotional component appears to involve mesocorticolimbic dopaminergic pathways and the amygdala.’ 2

Neuroanatomy

Yu-Chen Chan, et al summarize and further research the comprehension-elaboration theory of humour in their article, ‘Segregating the comprehension and elaboration processing of verbal jokes: An fMRI study’ (2012)3.  Highlighting that ‘not all situations involving the detection and resolution of incongruities are humorous.’

They go on to quote Wyer and Collin’s comprehension-elaboration theory of humor (1992), where ‘The elaboration follows comprehension, involves the conscious generation of inferences of features not made explicit during comprehension as well as further thoughts stimulated by the newly understood situation, and elicits the unconscious or conscious feeling of amusement.  These elaborations effectively involve appraising the stimulus event for their humourous content.

The amount of humour elicited is a function of the amount of elaboration of the event and its implications that occur subsequent to its reinterpretation.

The affective feeling of humor results from, and may overlap with continued elaboration of the event.’

So, humour in the setting of a horror evokes further elaboration not just because of the incongruent, it’s the nature of the incongruent: normality in a setting of the horrific.

The elaboration, further cognition of the joke makes the humour darkly funny.

Comprehension_Elaboration

In the setting of a horror film, there’s also a layering to dark humour that sparks the cognitive on the foundation of a previously evoked response, like fear.

As stated in the article, ‘The role of the amygdala in human fear: automatic detection of threat’ (Ohman. A (2005))4, ‘Behavioral data suggest that fear stimuli automatically activate fear and capture attention. This effect is likely to be mediated by a subcortical brain network centered on the amygdala […] When the stimulus conditions allow conscious processing, the amygdala response to feared stimuli is enhanced and a cortical network that includes the anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula is activated. However, the initial amygdala response to a fear-relevant but non-feared stimulus (e.g. pictures of spiders for a snake phobic) disappears with conscious processing and the cortical network is not recruited. Instead there is activation of the dorsolateral and orbitofrontal cortices that appears to inhibit the amygdala response. The data suggest that activation of the amygdala is mediated by a subcortical pathway, which passes through the superior colliculi and the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus before accessing the amygdala, and which operates on low spatial frequency information.’

This is interesting with the view that further processing of a scene in a scary film, provoked by an incongruent behaviour, will break the activation of the amygdala and be, ‘mediated by a subcortical pathway, which passes through the superior colliculi and the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus’ and would give the effect of tension relief (‘cleansing the palate’) and therefore, humour.

The article goes on to describe the activation of the fear response, like increased heart-rate and respiration (as we’ve all experienced in particularly scary movies): ‘The amygdala consists of several separate cell groups (nuclei), which receive input from many different brain areas. Highly processed sensory information from various cortical areas reaches the amygdala through its lateral and basolateral nuclei. In turn, these nuclei project to the central nucleus of the amygdala, which then projects to hypothalamic and brainstem target areas that directly mediate specific signs of fear and anxiety.’

The Role of the Amygdala in the Process of Humour Appreciation

You can imagine sitting in the cinema, immersed in a scary scene that has evoked the fear response: the rapid heart-beat, sitting on the edge-of-your-seat.  That automatic response has kicked in.

So, those jumps you get in a horror are from that ingrained automatic response – like a reflex.

With conscious processing the fear is either enhanced through a clever script that gives layers to the idea of the horror (mediated through the amygdala), or is consciously processed as being, just a film (activation of the dorsolateral and orbitofrontal cortices that appears to inhibit the amygdala response): this isn’t real.

So either the data is further processed, where, ‘a cortical network that includes the anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula is activated.’

Or isn’t: ‘the initial amygdala response to a fear-relevant but non-feared stimulus (e.g. pictures of spiders for a snake phobic) disappears with conscious processing and the cortical network is not recruited.’

I think dark humour occurs somewhere in this cognition.  In the further elaboration.

The fear response is already activated, through something that automatically evokes the fear-response, doppelgängers for example; then the data is further analysed when the setting is incongruent to the behaviour of the character, leading to a release of tension on the background of an already evoked fear response.  With further cognition and elaboration the incongruent is resolved by processing through memories, past experiences, so the data is personally related in the context of a horror making the humour: darkly funny.

So, humour instead of a fear response including that extra processing leads to tension release and to a layered emotional response giving a fear response, mirth, therefore creating dark humour that tickles because of its complexity, its, elaboration.

But dark humour isn’t just humour in horror.

Dark humour can be satire.  Dark humour can be about a cop trying to perform a dance in memory of his lost mother… At her funeral.

I recently reviewed the film, Thunder Road (2019), finding the performance and script from writer/director/lead, Jim Cummings genius.  I’m still giggling about this cop falling apart because the character is so sincere and so tragic, it’s funny.

Jim was interviewed on a Podcast by Giles Alderson, and he talks about his intention to straddle both the tragic and humour of this cop having a breakdown, stating the audience will reward you when more than one lobe of the brain is engaged.5

The writing and performance of this film is brilliant because of the empathy evoked by seeing this guy grieving against the incongruity of his abnormal behaviour.

It’s the processing involved while seeing this super-nice guy, doing his absolute best in the worst of circumstances, then just lose his grip that tickles: standing, about to throw a child’s school desk, the teacher subtly pocketing the school safety-scissors included.

His mother is dead, his siblings don’t show at the funeral, his wife has left him, his daughter can’t stand him and is acting out, making statements like, ‘I hope I get mum’s boobs.’  And his job as a cop is emotionally draining and stressful.

His life is eating him alive.

But Jim continues to try to do the right thing only to end up with ripped pants.

Don’t get me wrong, the humour here is subtle and complex – like the way Jim is described, ‘Everyone grieves differently.  Everyone’s unique.’

You can just see it – how the nice people describe someone losing the plot at a funeral.

I’m still giggling because the film shows how difficult life can be and how ridiculous.

So based on the same principle of processing the incongruent on the foundation of a fear response, here the emotional centre is engaged, in empathy for this guy at his mother’s funeral.

The humour is based on the incongruent because this guy is not functioning as a normal human being.

Then the nature of his behaviour is elaborated, because of the sadness and tragedy and empathy for this guy doing his absolute best.

The sadness and tragedy is modified by the incongruent behaviour, leading to further cognition, coming back as humour on a foundation of sadness that leads to elaboration creating that dark humour.

It. Just. TICKLES.

Taking the idea further: if there’s not enough tension for humour to release through incongruity, or if the difference isn’t enough; and if there’s no attachment to the character (leading to further elaboration), the attempt at humour will miss the mark.

The response will be flat: it’s just more data that flows through, marking time.

And if the humour doesn’t require further processing, and really misses that tension relief, it becomes simple.  Like slapstick.  And that’s if there’s a good performance from the actor.

If not, the end result will turn the audience against the storyline because the film will be a boring experience or the laughter will be directed at the film, not with it.

Watching a film that gets dark humour just right, for me, is a genuine pleasure – who can forget the gloriously funny, bad luck of, O. B Jackson (James Parks) in The Hateful Eight (2016)?!ames Parks as O. B Jackson

Tarantino is definitely one of those writers and directors who knows how mix up the violent, the unexpected warmth and intellect with the incongruent.

Think about the relentless violence in John Wick 3 (2019) that saturates to the extent it’s funny.

It’s the unexpected bloody action happening to a well-liked character that absorbs with the incongruent of a deadly killer who loves his dog making John Wick a memorable and likable character adding those touches of joyful dark humour.

I acknowledge that not everyone enjoys this style of (sometimes bloody) humour – and there’s further research about the different theories of humour; think of humour used as aggression (and why people will feel superior and laugh at a movie, perhaps) and humour used in sexual selection (I found that funny too!  Maybe we should go out…).

As a side note, the sexual selection theory is a concept well illustrated in the Coen Brothers’ film, Burn After Reading (2008), with the character Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) taking online matches to the movies to see if they laugh at the same joke.

A nice illustration and frankly, not a bad filtering method to find the right partner.

Whether you like dark humour or not, I’m sure all would agree that those added complicated interactions of cognition and emotion make watching a film a more rewarding experience, and one that certainly keeps me coming back for more.

Burn After Reading

1.      Universal Pictures (2019) ‘Production Notes’ Us.

2.      Vrticka P, Black J. M. and Reiss A. L. 2013 ‘The Neural Basis of Humour Processing’ Nature Reviews / Neuroscience, Science and Society PERSPECTIVES 14 860 – 868.

3.      Chan Y, Chou T, Chen, H and Liang Kl 2012 ‘Segregating the comprehension and elaboration processing of verbal jokes: An fMRI study’ NeuroImage Dec, 61:  899-906.

4.     Ohman. A, 2005 ‘The role of the amygdala in human fear: automatic detection of threat’ Psychoneuroendocrinology, 10: 953-958.

5.      Giles Alderson (2019) ‘Jim Cummings On Writing, Directing and Starring in Thunder Road’, The Filmakers Podcast May 29, available at: apple.co/2EydVIz

Thunder Road

Rated: MThunder Road

Directed and Created by: Jim Cummings

Based on the Short Film: ‘Thunder Road’ (2016)

Produced by: Natalie Metzger, Zack Parker, Benjamin Wiessner

Starring: Jim Cummings, Kendal Farr, Nican Robinson, Macon Blair, Jocelyn DeBoer, Chelsea Edmunson Ammie Leonards and Bill Wise.

Thunder Road, named after the Bruce Springsteen song, is a character-driven film about a dishevelled cop (with mustache) falling apart.

Officer Jim Arnaud is an awkward guy, especially around normal people, like sitting around the dinner table with the family of his partner, Officer Nate Lewis (Nican Robinson), telling embarrassing stories without realising he shouldn’t be telling his partner’s family about his miscalculations; he doesn’t act any more normal at his mother’s funeral, or at parent-teacher meetings about his daughter, Crystal (Kendal Farr).

It’s in these awkward moments we get to know Jim, as he gives a eulogy at his mother’s funeral, about how she donated money so the nasty Down Syndrome girl at his school could play safely, like the other kids.  The nasty girl was a biter, you see.  And may not have had Down Syndrome.

Thunder Road isn’t a flashy film – there’s nothing clever about the camera shots or setting.  This is all about the script and delivery from director, writer and star Jim Cummings.

The facial expressions of this guy are hilarious.  Seeing those waves of emotion take over his face, then to see him pull it together only to lose it again.  It’s seeing this super-nice guy, doing his absolute best in the worst of circumstances, then just lose his grip that tickles: standing, about to throw a child’s school desk, the teacher subtly pocketing the school safety-scissors included.

His mother is dead, his siblings don’t show at the funeral, his wife has left him, his daughter can’t stand him and is acting out, making statements like, ‘I hope I get mum’s boobs.’  And his job as a cop is emotionally draining and stressful.

His life is eating him alive.

But Jim continues to try to do the right thing only to end up with ripped pants.

Don’t get me wrong, the humour here is subtle – like the way Jim is described, ‘Everyone grieves differently.  Everyone’s unique.’

You can just see it – how the nice people describe someone losing the plot at a funeral.

I’m still giggling.

Yet there’s a real sweet, heart-warmer here as well.  A dad doing his absolute best for his kid.  And seeing a friend helping out a buddy who just can’t get it right warms the cockles.

A refreshing take on how life just is sometimes with an extraordinary script serving up the heart of a character with perfect delivery: pure gold.

Subscribe to GoMovieReviews
Enter your email address for notification of new reviews - it's free!

 

Subscribe!