Bergson's Theory of Comedy Applied to Ace Ventura
This paper applies Henri Bergson's philosophical theory of comedy — as outlined in his Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic — to the 1994 Jim Carrey film Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. The paper examines Bergson's core claims that laughter is strictly human, requires emotional indifference, and serves a social function, then uses these principles to analyze the film's blend of low and high comedy. Topics covered include Carrey's genre-spoofing, the social dynamics of adolescent humor, the role of stereotype-based jokes, and the mechanics of disguise as a source of laughter. The paper also engages with Roger Ebert's negative review and considers how cultural shifts have altered the film's reception.
- Bergson and What It Means to Laugh: Bergson's theory of laughter, indifference, and social comedy
- Ace Ventura: High Comedy or Low Comedy?: Classifying the film's blend of comic modes
- Ace as Social Outsider: Ace's rejection of social convention as comedy
- Stereotypes and Shifting Cultural Norms: Homosexual and transsexual stereotypes in the film
- Disguise, Indifference, and the Human Spirit: Disguise scenes and Bergson's theory in practice
- Conclusion: Ace Ventura fulfills Bergson's criteria for comedy
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds pop-culture film analysis in a rigorous philosophical framework, using Bergson's Laughter as a consistent analytical lens throughout rather than dropping theory after the introduction.
- It moves fluidly between abstract claims (e.g., the incompatibility of emotion and laughter) and concrete textual evidence from the film, such as specific scenes and character dynamics.
- It acknowledges counterarguments — including Ebert's negative review and the film's dated treatment of homosexuality — rather than presenting a one-sided case, which strengthens its credibility.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates sustained theoretical application: it introduces a complete theoretical framework early, identifies its key components (humanity, indifference, social function, mechanical repetition, disguise), and then systematically tests each component against evidence from the film. This structure — theory first, application second — is a standard and effective approach in humanities analysis.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a detailed exposition of Bergson's theory of comedy, covering its major paradoxes (laughter is human yet requires indifference; it is individual yet social). It then transitions into a reading of Ace Ventura, distinguishing between high and low comic modes, analyzing Carrey's persona as social outsider, addressing the film's stereotype humor and its cultural shelf life, and closing with a synthesis that ties each of Bergson's criteria back to the film's protagonist.
Bergson and What It Means to Laugh
Henri Bergson dissects the reasons why comedy works and what it means to be funny in his "classic statement of the principles of humor" (Kelly, Young). Bergson's view of humor comes from his understanding of life, which he saw as a "vital impulse, not to be understood by reason alone" (Kelly, Young). In his work entitled Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic, Bergson stresses the important point that laughter and comedy are what separate man from the animals. Animals do not have the ability to laugh at themselves or at others. Humans do. Therefore, comedy is something that is "strictly human" (Bergson 3). Laughter, Bergson states, is always at root human, even if one is laughing at a hat. What is funny is the fact that someone has given that particular shape to that particular hat. That is what is funny.
So, laughter and comedy are human. Yet, strangely, comedy requires that its audience maintain an "absence of feeling" (Bergson 4). How can one be human yet have no feelings? This is a strange and curious contradiction. But what Bergson means is that laughter and "emotion" are incompatible. For example, one might feel great pity for someone who falls down, or one might laugh at the person because falling down is funny. One cannot do both. If one feels pity, one will sympathize and rush to the person's aid. If one finds the incident humorous, one will laugh, then perhaps regain composure and tend to the person who has fallen. Laughter and emotion — empathy, pity, sympathy, fear, sorrow — are mutually exclusive. Laughter is the product of an "unruffled" soul (Bergson 4). A soul affected by pity at the sight of someone falling is not an "unruffled" soul. Laughter requires a degree of "indifference" in the audience.
Yet stranger still is Bergson's contention that laughter is social: "To understand laughter, we must put it back into its natural environment, which is society, and above all must we determine the utility of its function, which is a social one" (Bergson 8–9). This idea fits well with the claim that comedy is human — what is human should bind us to our fellow man. But what of the indifference? If one is indifferent to another's pain and would sooner laugh at it than feel pity, does comedy necessarily serve a social function? It does when one thinks of it as Bergson does. He uses the example of the runner who falls. His fall is involuntary. It disrupts the automatism of the runner's movements — his legs moving up and down, keeping balance. The involuntary nature of the fall is what produces laughter, not the man's pain. Our response may be two-fold: first we laugh, and then we offer assistance. Our laughter is due to the fact that the man has lost control of himself; he is not so self-possessed as he seemed. The fall reminds us a little of how fragile we are. It is a pleasant reminder to those who appreciate a certain perspective: man is not so high and mighty; he is capable of great things, yes, but in the big picture he is still a vulnerable creature.
The runner who falls may also produce in us some pity, which comes perhaps upon reflection. We have had our laugh and now we remember that our fellow man has just realized what we all know — that while he may be capable of great balance, he is not immune to error. If our better instincts prevail, we help him up. He has inadvertently reminded us of our "fallen" human nature — something once identified by the medieval world, less so by the modern world, which tends to follow the naturalistic philosophy of thinkers like Rousseau, who see human nature as pure rather than fallen. But if it is so pure, why do we fall? Comedy may be a direct assault on naturalism.
This notion applies not only to physical humor but to all kinds of comedy. At root, comedy is about blundering, making mistakes, being blind, or "slipping up" when it should be painfully obvious that what is needed to get through life is caution, prudence, and care. Deborah Griggs writes that Bergson's notion of comedy applies not only to slapstick or physical humor, but to intellectual or emotional rigidity or momentum as well: a character who is so fixed on a goal that he is blind to oncoming disaster, or merely unable to stop his momentum in time to avoid the crash; or a character so preoccupied with an idea that she does not see what is obvious to everyone else (Griggs).
One's laughter at another's misfortune does not mean one is passing judgment on that person, but rather that one is recognizing certain defects — as a caricaturist will highlight certain features of a person's face, actions, or manner of thinking. Bergson notes that humor is reinforced by repetition — mechanical repetition, that is. Something considered and thought out is not funny; something spontaneous, ingrained, and automatic — something that cannot be stopped — is funny. A man acting like a runaway train is humorous whether he does so physically or intellectually: "In low comedy, we may see a merely physical inelasticity, while in high comedy, we may see a rigidity of intellect, as well as one of body" (Griggs).
Works Cited
Bergson, Henri. Laughter. NY: Macmillan & Co., Limited, 1914. Print.
Ebert, Roger. "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective." 1994. Rogerebert.com. 14 May 2013. Web.
Griggs, Deborah. "Coming to Terms with Comedy." 14 May 2013. Web.
Kelly, Richard, and Lindsay Young. "Through Bergson's Looking-Glass." Victorianweb.org. 14 May 2013. Web.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.