Hazyeyefreakmonstr

11mo

I cant believe i watched this expecting something profound

Three Meows Mór

11mo

I see Dave Blunts subscribes to Kant’s theory of incongruity. That is, he believes comedy arises from the clash between what we expect and what we get. Brian is constructed as a person: he speaks fluent English, drinks martinis, dates women, has existential crises. But when he suddenly does dog behaviour (chasing a ball, barking at the door, licking himself), there’s a jarring incongruity between his cultural identity (urbane intellectual) and his species identity (a household pet). The incongruity provokes laughter because it violates our expectation. This is what Dave is explaining

Although Dave also touches on a similar theory which I subscribe to: Hobbes’ superiority theory. Brian positions himself as more rational and cultured than the Griffins (e.g. mocking Peter’s stupidity). When Brian suddenly acts like an ordinary dog, we experience a collapse of that superiority: he isn’t above them after all. His regression to instinct allows the viewer to laugh from a position of superiority: we’re reminded that beneath his pretension, he’s “just a dog.”

RASIE

11mo

Where the f*** he find velour tracksuits that big?