Slapstick and Comic Performance

Comedy and Pain

L. Peacock

• Editorial: Palgrave Macmillan
• Año: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137438973
• Categoría: Media & Performing Arts
• Categoría: Theatre History & Criticism

Slapstick comedy has a long and lively history from Greek Theatre to the present day. This book explores the ways in which comic pain and comic violence are performed within slapstick to make the audience laugh. It draws examples from theatre, television and film on both sides of the Atlantic.

Part I
Establishing a Critical Framework

1

What is Slapstick?

Examples of what might be defined as slapstick can be readily recognised from Greek theatre onwards but the notion finds its fullest early expression in commedia dell’arte. However, the question of exactly what slapstick is, has still not been addressed in existing literature. As the concept is central to this book, before we go any further it will be helpful to establish a working definition of what is meant by the term slapstick. This in itself is no mean feat. As slapstick has rarely been considered in any detail by academia such definitions as do exist must either be drawn from dictionaries or from more anecdotal or biographical texts. This lack of consideration and analysis would seem to be the outcome of a broadly held opinion that slapstick is lightweight and un-intellectual. As with many popular forms of performance, slapstick has been enjoyed by many but explored and analysed by relatively few. Equally such academic writing as exists does so across a range of media and the definition thus far offered of slapstick on film is necessarily different from (and much more extensive than) the way in which slapstick might be defined on the stage. What is needed here is a definition of slapstick that can be understood in relation to all the modes of performance considered in this book.

So, where to begin? The term slapstick is often thought to derive from the English translation of ‘batacchio’, the Italian word used to describe the wooden stick carried by Arlecchino in the commedia dell’arte. This was ‘derived from the Bergamese peasant stick used for driving cattle. Two thin pieces of wood are kept apart at the handle and slap against each other when a blow is stopped on the moment of impact’ (Rudlin, 1994, p. 77). In this way when Arlecchino struck a person with it or was struck by it, it made a satisfyingly loud sound without inflicting any real pain. Here then is a clue to the first element of slapstick performance: it offers the sound (although, as witnessed in the silent film era, it works equally with silence) and appearance of the infliction and suffering of pain without the actual anguish.

In its earliest incarnations slapstick is to be found in live theatre performance and its development can be traced through a range of predominantly popular theatre forms from commedia dell’arte, to Punch and Judy, to circus clowns, to pantomime and to farce. I do not mean to suggest that there is a direct, chronological lineage from each of these forms to the next but what is clear is that the slapstick that was wielded by Arlecchino is a close relative of the one used to such good effect by Mr Punch. The comic sound effects of commedia dell’arte find an echo in the percussive beatings Mr Punch inflicts; in the shouts and screams of the circus clowns as they trip and are tripped. The comic violence present in Pantalone’s beatings of Arlecchino reverberates through to the comic fights and brawls found in a wide range of farces. The stereotypical pairings of ‘goodies’ and ‘baddies’ of commedia reappear in pantomime as the villains endeavour to wreck the plot only to be thwarted by goodness and true love. It is possible, therefore, to establish a very general sense of slapstick – closely related to its name and derivation – through which we can understand that slapstick will include comic violence and comic sound effects. This is, evidently, only a starting point. We need to look elsewhere to extend this definition.

Dictionary definitions offer common conceptions of slapstick. The Oxford English Dictionary online offers the following definition, ‘Knockabout comedy or humour, farce, horseplay’ (OED, 2011) which while rather unhelpful in its brevity does identify some key elements that might be expected in slapstick performance. The online Encyclopedia Britannica offers:

a type of physical comedy characterised by broad humour, absurd situations and vigorous, usually violent action. The slapstick comic, more than a mere funny man or buffoon, must often be an acrobat, a stunt performer, and something of a magician – a master of uninhibited action and perfect timing. Outrageous make-believe violence has always been a key attraction of slapstick comedy...

(Britannica, 2011)

This definition is potentially interesting in that, as well as categorising some ingredients of slapstick, it also emphasises the importance of the make-believe nature of the violence. The use of the word ‘outrageous’ also nods towards what will be discussed later in the chapter in relation to the role of excess in slapstick. Also of importance is that this definition ventures towards identifying particular skills that are needed by the performer. It is vital, therefore, not only to consider the content of the slapstick sketch as it is performed but also to consider the demands placed on the performer. Thus, in defining slapstick, notions of mastery and timing should be considered in addition to the list of ingredients above.

Writing more generally about Comedy, Stott claims that

‘Slapstick’ is generally understood as physical humour of a robust and hyperbolized nature where stunts, acrobatics, pain and violence are standard features.

Broad comedy of this type has been around since Aristophanes, but the form known as slapstick came into being as practically the sole condition of comedy in early American Cinema.

(Stott, 2005, p. 87)

Whilst it is true that early American cinema did not appear to be able to conceive of a comedy that was not slapstick (largely because it communicated so readily to the audience without sound), it is necessary to take issue with Stott’s dismissal of the tradition of slapstick which flourished between Aristophanes and, say, Chaplin, Keaton and Mack Sennett and without which slapstick may not have been a vital enough tradition to make the transition to celluloid. It is, of course, the contention of this book that a lively slapstick tradition can be traced from Arlecchino’s batacchio, through Punch and Judy, through pantomime and through stage plays right to the present and that this more or less unbroken tradition made the transition onto screen in the early years of the twentieth century. If the tradition has flourished on stage it has positively exploded (sometimes literally) on screen and it is possible to find a wide range of examples from Sennett, Chaplin and Keaton through to more contemporary examples such as The Hangover (in all three of its incarnations). Before we become too involved in the range of opportunities offered by film, however, let us move further into a consideration of how theatrical slapstick is defined.

Slapstick on stage

Slapstick has been considered in a limited way by academics working in theatre and performance studies. However, critical texts in the area of theatre performance are not very helpful in defining slapstick. Kenneth Pickering’s Key Concepts in Theatre and Performance (2010) does not include a definition of slapstick – presumably he did not consider it to be that key a concept, despite the fact that it has existed for centuries. As John Wright acknowledges ‘most of our rhythmic physical comedy and our knockabout slapstick routines ... [have their] origins in Commedia dell’Arte’ (2006, p. 182). In his book Slapstick! The Illustrated Story of Knockabout Comedy Tony Staveacre identifies the way in which violence is performed as key in identifying slapstick. ‘Violence – or the parody of violence. There’s a delicate distinction. The “injury laugh” must always be carefully calculated: if a blow seems to cause real pain, there will, usually, be no laughter’ (1987, p. 41). Beyond this, the closest Staveacre comes to identifying what slapstick is is presented through his chapter headings, some of which read as a list of potential ingredients: tumbling, physical encounters, props, traps, tricks and flaps, sparring partners, inspired lunacy, visual vulgarity and victimisation.

The definitions offered above are helpful but are not particularly comprehensive nor do they directly address all the forms of live performance in which slapstick can be seen. In order, therefore, to extend these definitions I will explore a range of modes of theatrical performance which involve slapstick. This will help to create a definition that is based on what actually occurs in forms such as commedia dell’arte, Punch and Judy, circus clowning, pantomime and farce, each of which contains elements of slapstick.

Commedia dell’arte

Elsewhere I have suggested that Pantalone and Arlecchino can be regarded as a slapstick double act (Peacock, 2013), situated at the heart of commedia dell’arte. As such they provide the main (though not sole) opportunity for the performance of comic violence and pain within commedia. The fact that both characters are masked and move in physically stylised ways helps to distance them from the actuality of pain. The entertainment value is also increased for the audience by the status differential between them. They are master and servant and this oppositional relationship explains why Pantalone is usually trying to control Arlecchino and why he will resort to blows to keep Arlecchino’s natural exuberance in check. The importance of Arlecchino’s slapstick cannot be ignored and it is frequently involved in the portrayal of comic violence in commedia. Commonly Pantalone takes the slapstick from Arlecchino and uses it to give him a beating. It is often the case that the beating is a punishment for either Arlecchino’s rudeness in speaking to his master or for his incompetence in carrying out some task that has been assigned to him. The highly stylised performance style of commedia, combined with the masks worn by many characters discourages the audience from engaging in a naturalistic empathic relationship with any of the characters. It is often the case that Arlecchino can be understood to be deserving of a beating. For example in Goldoni’s A Servant to Two Masters the Arlecchino character, Truffaldino, is hired by two individuals, each of whom believes that Truffaldino is serving only them. Coincidentally the two masters (one of whom is actually a woman in disguise) stay in the same inn. This lures Truffaldino into believing that he can sustain his dual role. However he is beaten by both masters as a punishment for his various failings. In act 2, scene 16 of the Lee Hall version (1999) the stage directions indicate that ‘Beatrice gives him a good thrashing’ (p. 68). Whilst the stage direction does not give much clue as to how Beatrice thrashes Truffaldino the thrashing goes on long enough to be observed by Florindo (Truffaldino’s other master). At the opening of the next scene Truffaldino describes it as ‘grievous bodily harm’ (p. 68). The opportunity for Beatrice to take pleasure in the beating and for Truffaldino to play his reactions out to the audience is evident. In the next scene he is beaten by Florindo for allowing himself to be beaten by Beatrice. There is the possibility, therefore, for comedy to be derived either through repetition or variation.

Punch and Judy

Whilst many of those who write about Punch and Judy (for example, Leach, 1985; Speaight, 1970; and Stead, 1950) acknowledge the presence of Mr Punch’s stick and whilst they take great pleasure in counting up the number of blows Mr Punch rains down on his victims, none of them actually describes what is taking place as slapstick. Here lies a significant difficulty in discussing theatrical versions of slapstick, the word comes into common usage only when critics begin to analyse the comic films made as the film industry established itself at the turn of the twentieth century, and in the theatrical context it has to be applied retrospectively. Later in the chapter I will explore the definitions of slapstick offered by film academics. Meanwhile, the fact that none of the academics writing about Punch and Judy – even in the second half of the twentieth century – chose to apply the word slapstick to what they were seeing and analysing, does not mean that it does not fit within the definition of slapstick that we are delineating here. In trying to establish Punch and Judy as worthy of academic consideration, it better suited their purposes to focus on the potential moral and social function of Mr Punch’s violence than to identify it as a specific comedic technique with a primary purpose of laughter provocation. This is certainly the case, for example, in Robert Leach’s Punch and Judy: History, Tradition and Meaning (1985) in which he suggests that Punch is a working-class hero rebelling against a range of social constraints including marriage, the police, the judiciary and the church. However true this might be, it remains the case that much of what Mr Punch does fits within the areas identified by Staveacre. Punch engages in physical encounters (a whole stream of them in fact, most commonly involving Judy, the baby, the policeman, the Beadle, the distinguished foreigner, Toby the Dog, the hangman and the devil). He uses props (primarily his stick but this is often joined by sausages and sometimes by a frying pan); Mr Punch’s chases across the puppet booth stage and his appearance though the curtains below the stage ledge provide an alternative to traps and flaps. There is inspired lunacy and most definitely victimisation. Importantly Mr Punch, in his very incarnation as a wooden puppet, ensures that however fierce the violence nobody is really hurt. Beyond the list suggested by Staveacre, Punch and Judy performances also contain examples of mastery and timing which are central to successful slapstick performance.

Circus clowning

Circus clown entrées, which were most common from the mid-nineteenth century onwards across the UK, Europe and America, demonstrate an enthusiasm for primarily physical gags which revolve around one clown, usually the Auguste, being tripped, beaten or in some other way hurt either by the whiteface clown or the ring master or as a result of his own incompetence. As with the wooden puppet that is Mr Punch, the outlandish costumes and elaborate face make-up go some way towards establishing an otherness about the performers that mitigates the appearance of pain. When this is combined with the fact that the clowns always rebound at the end of the act, the defining aspect of the parody or show of violence rather than actual violence is established and creates a comic frame within which the audience can laugh as the clown receives a pie in the face or is tripped by an over-enthusiastic colleague as the clowns rush to put out a fire or chase each other round the circus ring trying to jump onto a car. Often such sequences are supported by live music, loud sound effects and flashing lights, all of which serve to emphasise the performance frame. One example of how such entrées work can be drawn from the Ringling Bros and Barnum and Bailey Circus 2011 141st Edition ‘Fully Charged’ (Ringling, 2011). In this scene the focus is on how many clowns it takes to change a light bulb. In order to change the light bulb the clowns bring on an array of stepladders and straight ladders and each of these affords the opportunity for some kind of trip or fall. The scene lasts just over four minutes and involves at least eight incidents of slapstick. The accumulation of minor bumps and falls escalates towards the climax of the scene, building a sense of anticipation and of recognition in the audience. The first example of slapstick pain is one that most audience members would be able to recognise and identify with. One clown carries in a step ladder and puts it down on the foot of a second clown. The second clown hops around for a few seconds ensuring that the audience notices what has happened. No great skill level is needed to perform this and the pain potential is not serious. The audience is free to respond with a laugh of recognition. This gentle opening establishes the clowns’ inability to tackle the task they have been set. It is clear that their incompetence is likely to result in further examples of accidental pain. These examples escalate both in terms of the skill needed to perform the stunt and the level of pain supposedly inflicted. In this way the pain provides a structure for the entrée, leading to the climax in which one of the clowns is caught up in the final explosion of the light bulb. Before that climax the audience witnesses a series of other painful acts. A clown slides down the ladder and tumbles backwards over a clown kneeling at the bottom. Next a box is dropped over the head of a clown who runs around and crashes into the step ladder, knocking another to the floor. The next example includes an internal repetition as two clowns pass a single ladder between them and it hits one of them in the face. They get the ladder upright and celebrate, only to have it slip and hit him again. This causes him to stumble and he bangs his face into the ladder for the third time. There is an interesting level of variation here as, although only one of the clowns is being struck, the first two bumps are caused by the other clown while the third injury is self-inflicted. All the examples up to this point have involved two clowns working together. These are drawn from the ensemble of nine clowns who perform this entrée. In each partnership one appears marginally more capable than the other but the double acts are not developed enough to be worthy of further analysis. An ensemble performance involving eight of the clowns offers the next example of accidental pain. This routine is much more overtly choreographed and, as a result, the audience is unlikely to imagine themselves in a similar situation. Two clowns hold a ladder up whilst a further six clowns form a semi-circle around it. The duo turn the ladder over twice holding it parallel to the floor. One of them then takes the ladder and walks away with it. In doing so she hits each of the clowns forming the semi-circle in turn without even noticing the damage she is doing. Each clown is hit and falls in their own fashion so although there is repetition in the six clowns being hit, there is also enjoyment to be derived from the variety of the falls. The rapid succession of falls constitutes an escalation and increases the rhythm and speed of the entrée, pushing it further from reality. The next example relies on the threat of pain. A taller ladder is brought in and one clown climbs to the top of it and sways about. The audience anticipates another fall which does not come. This promise of a fall which is denied is another way in which the suggestion of pain can be used to punctuate and vary a slapstick scene. Finally, the clowns bring in a taller step ladder and one clown hurries up it only to bump his head on the light bulb at the top. The other clowns throw the over-sized replacement light bulb around. He tries to catch it, the ladder falls and he is left dangling from the original light bulb. The much larger-than-life bulbs also serve to emphasise the unrealistic nature of the task. As he dangles the lights flicker and there is the sound of an explosion. The spotlight on the dangling clown goes out and another spotlight comes on at the other side of the circus ring where a clown double is dangling in billows of smoke, flailing around as if in pain. The audience may well experience what Morreall defines as a pleasant psychological shift at this t...