dwinn

I think that it is valuable to understand the derivation of a term, but I think that is far from definitive. For example, 'sarcasm,' originally means tearing of flesh, but even metaphorically that definition does not suffice today. In the same way, to attribute slapstick's definition to something that makes noise (the slap stick) is an ironic association for a visual, and often silent art form. And instead of list commonalities popularly associated with what we know as slapstick, which gives more of a loose guideline than a functional definition, I propose through observation we find a definition that succinctly articulates the fundamental quality of slapstick as it necessarily is. To discourage people from the definition presented in the first part of this course, I will point out that the original sprinkled sprinkler movie has no exaggeration, and that the beginning stunt of The Other Guys shows two protagonists fall to their death, (or many moments in Life is Beautiful) - far from benign - this is off the top of my head, and the ease with which I can produce counter examples further strengthens my assurance that a list definition is structurally unrealistic. I theorize that comedy must present two conflicting ideas, and their isolated seeming of reality, in addition to their ultimate dissonance, defines the extent that anything is funny. Slapstick, I assert, is simply the visual and physical manifestation of this premise. Usually, one character will have one notion of the physical reality, while another character will impose another. The discovery, in which the conflict bares its fruit, is when the two realities collide showing one to be faulty. I'd better stop writing now or this will feel like an essay instead of a forum post. cin cin, Daniel