Jack Vale is an American comedian who undertakes pranks in public places, using hidden cameras to capture the reactions of the public. Some of the time he performs on his own and on other occasions he performs with other actors. Some of his funniest pranks have been done using a fart sounding device called a ‘Pooter’, with over 100 clips taken in different locations and audiences. The ‘Elevator Farts 1’ video clip is based in an elevator in Hollywood and features Jack and his mates Greg Benson, Ed Bassmaster and Albert. The main purpose of the video is to capture the reactions from the audience in the elevator, providing entertainment to viewers that choose to watch. The video clip goes for approximately four (4) minutes of edited footage, but for the purpose of this project, the segment being focused on is the 36 second period from 3:08 minute, where footage is unedited.
There are a couple of features in the clip that caught my attention, and will shape the dialogue in the essay. The first being the setting or positioning of the pranksters in the elevator throughout the section of the clip. The second being the reaction of the man closest to the camera wearing glasses and thirdly at the end of the segment, the rest of the audience in the elevator and their reaction of laughter when the fart noise was let loose just prior to the end of the clip. The final feature, is the lack of reaction from the girl standing at the back (middle person) of the elevator upon the fart noise being released.
When I was researching online for the etiquette or code of conduct for farting in public, I was unable to locate any concrete codes. Then I questioned, what are the rules surrounding farting in public? Are there any rules at all? Why is it that when something embarrassing, such as farting in public, generally results in the performers and audience laughing? Which person, in a situation like this is the one that is more embarrassed? Although Norbeck (1974), stated in his Anthropological Study of Human Play that all societies have rules, only somewhat variable, concerning such behaviour as sneezing, belching, flatulence, scratching the body, excretion, sleeping, eating, and sexual relations. Some of these standards are considered etiquette and are specific; others are unspoken and are only learnt and understood by being immersed into the environment, such as the ‘Convict Code’ (Wieder, 1974). Violation of the codes can result in negative consequences such as being outcast or punished. For others, breaching the rules is such an impolite and unthinkable offence, that few formal penalties are given or exist, when they are breached. As Goffman describes in his article ‘The Nature of Deference and Demeanour’ (1967), rules of conduct are imposed upon individuals in two general ways, thus being directly, as an obligation in how one should morally conduct themself; and indirectly, how you are morally bound and expected to act with regards to others expectations. An example of this would be the difference in how I interact and behave in the workplace, to when I am at home being a mum and again when I am simply just hanging out with my friends.
In circumstances, when there are no concrete rules to guide ones behaviour, pragmatically, everyone tries to portray themselves as a better person in the public eye. This is also known as ‘face’. When an individual tries to avoid exclusion or committing an action seen as taboo, we refrain from performing certain acts that will have these results. As I referred to Norbeck (1974) earlier, it was mentioned that there may not be any written rules around certain behaviours, such as farting, belching and scratching oneself but, when it comes to farting, there is a level of expectation that one would go to the bathroom to relieve themselves, walking away from a crowd or letting people in your company know you’re about to let rip. Then there are those that will do it without warning or consideration. Whilst some people may find farting absolutely hilarious, there are those that find it offensive, to say the least.
In the Hausman et al article, Interaction Ritual Theory and Structural Symbolic Interactionism (2011) it indicates that the following elements must be present to pull off a successful interaction ritual: two or more actors physically present; a mutual awareness between actors; a common focus of attention; and a shared emotional mood. These ingredients set the stage for rhythmic entrainment, wherein participants synchronize their actions. When interactions aren’t synchronised, it is possible that individuals may have greater obligation to make efforts to avoid threatening the face of the other person, particularly when they are personally close to them.
The front stage approach that is taken by Jack, Ed, Albert and Greg is to get a reaction from the civilians that are travelling in the elevator at the time of farting. Each are taking on a role in this particular part of the clip with the four actors (Jack, Ed, Albert and Greg) performing their part in this situation. In this instance, as Goffman (1967) states, during face-to-face encounters individuals may participate in more than one capacity. Looking at the initial positioning of the performers in the elevator, Ed and Jack at the back corners of the elevator, Albert and Greg Benson positioned at the front corners of the elevator. The guys have taken up positions where strangers would generally stand upon entering an elevator. Between Ed and Jack at the back of the elevator is a dark haired lady wearing her sunglasses, and between Greg and Albert is the gentleman (Glasses guy or GG) that interacts with Greg following the first fart outburst. Up until this time, each of the parties riding the elevator continue facing toward the elevator doors, not paying much attention to each other, choosing to avoid conversation or contact.
In the 3:12 minute mark at Greg’s action of bending over while the fart is let off, the gentleman in the clip looks completely dumbfounded at just witnessing Greg farting in the elevator. As and is looking around the elevator for a reaction. He asks Greg “Are you alright? Right now?”, while Greg utters in response “yeah, I just needed to uh...”. GG looks around at the rest of the people in the elevator, open mouthed, with a lack of response from the others. The only exchange on the first occasion is Ed shaking his head, with everybody else avoiding eye contact. GG’s facial expression of what I would interpret as ‘Yeah I heard it too’, but no discussion arises. In this case Greg has ‘lost face’ but not to the extent of a face threatening act, that could occur if one of the other travellers were offended by his actions. The other players in the elevator bring “Politeness Theory” into play by not making a big deal out of Greg farting, in an effort for Greg to save face. Locher and Watts (2005) describe Brown & Levinson’s description of politeness theory as not being a theory of politeness but being an over-extension of what participants themselves feel to be polite behaviour.
As the film continues, two more people enter the elevator and GG is now moved to the middle of the cabin. He is still wearing the same facial expression, when Greg farts again. The same guy (GG) looks around at everyone in the elevator, still dumbfounded at the actions. Ed looks at Albert and says “Are you serious?”, diverting the focus away from Greg. When another two ladies enter the elevator engaged in conversation (closes to the camera), there is a child (not visible on the video) trying to intervene in that conversation, when the fart is released again. It is at this point that the players in this scenario, thus being Albert, Jack, Greg and Ed burst into laughter. One of the ladies closest to the camera and the child/children break into laughter as well, yet GG continues to look unamused, in shock that the farting and probably more so that the audience is so amused.
So, in situations like this, when farting in public would normally be seen as an embarrassing situation, why is it we laugh? Cupach and Metts (1992) discuss laughter and joke-work being considered helpful forms of humour. They also go on to say that, such conditions can create smooth social interaction and can suggest appropriate methods for coping with awkward social predicaments. Insight into remedial processes can help individuals to mitigate the negative repercussions of embarrassing predicaments, such as disrupted interaction, offensiveness to others, and feelings of anxiety, deficiency, and abashment. Laughter appears on the scene when a person expects something to happen but is surprised to discover the expectation was in error. In this case, it is not normal behaviour for a person to let rip in an elevator, in public or enclosed spaces, without there being consequences of some sort, thus the perpetrator being embarrassed.
On a final note, one thing that came to my attention during the segment was the lack of interaction and reaction from the lady at the back of the elevator (wearing sunglasses). When Greg farts, she quickly glances at Jack then returns her focus to the front of the elevator. She maintains her composure and poise, only slightly smirking after the final noise was projected. This indicates to me that she chooses this composure to try and save not only Greg’s face, but also her own.
Research on embarrassment shows that friends are more likely to embarrass one another than individuals in any other relationship types. As indicated by Coates (2007), research exploring gender variation in humour has established a clear pattern of difference among speakers, with men preferring more formulaic joking (farting, pranking etc) and women sharing funny stories to create solidarity (eg, mothers sharing funny stories in relation to things husbands or children have said). Humour often lies in the gap between what is said and what is meant. When a play frame is invoked, we have the choice of joining in the play and responding to what is said, or of reverting to the serious mode. In this case, Jack, Ed, Albert and Greg have joined together in the fart prank.
In a ‘Short Rounds’ article published in the Illawarra Mercury (1998), Allen starts by asking “Is farting some kind of secret male bonding process that women aren’t privy to?” and goes on to say that “....while women tend to employ self-control for the comfort of others, men seem to live by the motto of ‘Loud is Proud’....”. From experiences that I have witnessed, farting has created a number of reactions from audiences.
Dependent upon the location, setting, the audience and the players, when someone performs an action that results in embarrassment, we can laugh with or at someone. Laughter can be seen as an uncontrolled action or spontaneous reaction to unexpected or uncomfortable situation. All these terms imply that laughter accomplishes complex interactional goals in a variety of circumstances.
References
Allen, J 1998, ‘I tell you, it’s such a gas to be a guy; Come on baby light my....’, Illawarra Mercury, 20 November, p9, accessed 30/10/2012, ProQuest database
Coates, J 2007, ‘Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy’, Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 39, pp.29-49
Cupach, W R and Metts, S 1992, ‘The Effects of Type of Predicament and Embarrassability on Remedial Responses to Embarrassing Situations’, Communication Quarterly, vol.40, no. 2, pp 149-161
Goffman, E 1971, ‘Performances’, in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth, Penguin, pp 28-82
Goffman, E 1967, ‘The nature of deference and demeanour’, in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, pp 47-95
Gross, E and Stone, G P (1964), ‘Embarrassment and the Analysis of Role Requirements’, The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 70, no. 1, pp 1-15
Hausman, C, Jonason, A and Summers-Effler, E 2011, ‘Interaction Ritual Theory and Structural Symbolic Interactionism’, Symbolic Interaction, vol. 34, no. 3, pp 319-329
Locher, M A and Watts, R J 2005, ‘Politeness Theory and Relational Work 1’, Journal of Politeness Research, pp 9-33
Norbeck, E and Buettner-Janusch, J 1974, The anthropological study of human play. William Marsh Rice University, pp 1-8
Robbins, B D and Vandree, K 2009, ‘The Self-Regulation of Humor Expression: A Mixed Method, Phenomenological Investigation of Suppressed Laughter’, The Humanistic Psychologist, vol. 37, no. 1, pp 49-78
Roberts, B 2006, ‘Symbolic Interactionism 2 Developments’, in Micro Social Theory, Palgrave Macmillan, Basinstoke, pp 46-61
Suryawanshi, D and Ronge, P 2012, ‘Looking into Face: A Pragmatic Appraisal of Public Self Image’, Language in India, vol. 12, no. 6, pp
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/W2JI0k9HuZk?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
No comments:
Post a Comment