Horror-Comedy: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Horror and comedy are genres that are so diametrically opposed that they should not even bear any similarities with each other yet time after time audiences are treated to films that seamlessly blend the two. Horror, which aims to provide a sense of dread in the viewer, is in stark contrast to comedy, which aims to provide a sense of relief in the viewer [1]. Although they produce differing responses, theories that are applied to one genre also gives insight for the other [2]. Since the concepts introduced [3] share a lot of similarities, it makes it easier for a filmmaker to mix the two genres and have them work off each other rather than against each other. This is exemplified in the film Evil Dead II by Sam Raimi as it bounces back and forth between nail-biting horror and slapstick humor with ease. As Raimi applies the concept of the abject, he is able to evoke terror within the audience but through stylistic choices [4], he is also able to adapt it to the incongruity theory of humor and Bergson’s theory of laughter as a social corrective.

Evil Dead II is a film about a group of people stranded in a cabin in the woods as they try to survive against evil demons called Deadites. The latter half of this description, "try to survive against evil demons", is of key importance as one of the distinguishing features in a horror film is the monster. Carroll discusses this in his text as he talks about how the monster is indicative of the genre just as a cowboy does with a western (147) and further elaborates how these monsters are categorically interstitial or contradictory (152). Monsters such as werewolves straddle the line between man and animal similar to that of the abject. Because they operate in the border that Kristeva described as "immoral, sinister, scheming, and shady" (4), they are effective at terrifying audiences. The most egregious of these monsters are zombies as they are personifications of the corpse, "the most sickening of wastes" (3). Deadites are a variant of this living dead concept as they were originally human subjects twisted into demented objects. They start off as conscious beings that are then expelled as evil spirits kill and possess them. As the "try to survive" part of the description implies, this is a recurring theme throughout the movie, recalling the subject’s ongoing fight with the abject (8). The utilization of monsters is already enough to scare the audience but Evil Dead II takes it a step further by adding the equally terrifying idea of one failing to preserve their own self. The sheer terror this concept can produce is illustrated in the scene where the protagonist, Ash Williams, gets his hand unwittingly possessed. Ash is mortified by this event as the evil force that has been tormenting him has successfully encroached upon the border that determines his subjectivity. He loses control of a part of his body causing him to scream and sob, reactions that are commonplace in horror. Through the lens of abjection, the concept of monsters and losing control of one’s self is able to be used effectively in horror but these concepts are also recalled in theories of humor.

The incongruity theory of humor is based on the idea that laughter is caused by bringing together images "which have contrary additional ideas, as well as some resemblance to the principal idea" (Hutcheson). An example of this is given in Carroll’s text as he talks about comic teams that are often composed of a tall, thin character contrasted by a short, fat one (153). As audiences have witnessed in the horror genre though, monsters are also built upon this theory [5]. Monsters by their very nature are contradictory, bringing together contrasting ideas such as man and animal and the living and the dead yet they terrify the audience rather than make them laugh. It demonstrates how easily incongruity can be applied to produce different reactions and there are ways to prime the audience to achieve the intended result. A technique commonly used in film as outlined by Carroll is introducing a surrogate for the audience that suggests as to how they should feel at any given scene (149). This allows seemingly monstrous creatures in other films to be viewed as non malicious since the characters within the film treat them as such. This is the ideal way to telegraph the audience’s emotions but it can also be achieved through stylistic means which is what Sam Raimi opts for in Evil Dead II. A key example of this is in the scene where Ash witnesses his partner, Linda, rise back from the dead. Here, Ash is confronted with the incongruous and the abject as Linda has been transformed into a deadite that contradicts and shatters the boundary between the living and the dead. The audience sees that Ash is horrified by this event as shot/reverse shot is employed to show him peering from the cabin. Even though his reactions imply that the scene should be taken in as a terrifying scenario, the tone of the scene seems to suggest a different emotion entirely. As the scene starts, the film switches from a foreboding soundtrack to one that resembles that of the waltz. Despite being perceived as monstrous, Linda’s actions accompany this change in music as she playfully dances along with it. It demonstrates an application of the incongruity theory of humor as it portrays an imposing threat in a lighthearted manner. The audience is then left at a crossroads as the film provides an equal amount of emotional triggers on the horror side of incongruity as well as the humor side. The scene mixes the two and any given viewer can view it as horrifying or humorous depending on what aspect of the scene stuck out to them the most [6].

The incongruity theory is not the only theory of humor that bears resemblance to horror. Although treated as different theories, Bergson’s shares some similarities with incongruity and the abject as they all deal with the idea of bringing contrasting ideas together. Whereas incongruity is concerned with more general juxtapositions, Bergson has narrowed it down to the juxtaposition between man and the mechanical just as Kristeva did with the subject and the object [7]. He sets forth the idea that laughter is a corrective used by a spectator when they witness a man’s mechanical rigidity (20). This can be tied back to abjection since a man that loses their "wide awake adaptability and the living pliableness of a human being" (Bergson, 14) is akin to that of a subject losing their sense and control of self. It is as if for a brief moment, man becomes a corpse of sorts as he is expelled and becomes an object that can not adapt himself to his surroundings. This theory of humor is usually applied to slapstick, an example of which is given by Bergson. He talks about a man running along a street who stumbles and falls which then causes the onlookers to burst out laughing (9). Although a painful experience for the man, due to the absence of feeling, the spectators are able to laugh at him rather than feel concern for him. Bergson argues how a disinterested spectator can view a drama as if it were a comedy (10) and it is this duality that makes his theory ripe for application in horror-comedy. Slapstick, which typically involves the performer getting hurt, recalls one of the laws the director Sam Raimi proposes applies to all horror pictures, "the innocent must suffer". "The poor sap who walks into the house has to be tormented", as Raimi elaborates, is not so dissimilar from the man’s situation; it is just that his choice of words carry a much more negative connotation than Bergson’s. Raimi brings in the presence of feeling and so, what seemed like a harmless accident turns into one that could have grave consequences. From how Bergson described it, it seemed like the man walked away from the incident relatively scot-free but if the man had sustained lasting injuries then laughter might not have been the most appropriate reaction. This relationship between horror and comedy is explored further by Miller and Van Riper as they talk about how stories from both "take their characters’ initially stable reality and steadily, relentlessly unravel it around them ... (xv)." This is the scenario Evil Dead II finds itself in as even though the protagonists find themselves at the mercy of evil forces, Raimi’s presentation of the events take it in the realm of slapstick.

A notable example of Bergson’s theory occurs soon after the previously discussed scene involving Ash and Linda. What was previously an ambiguous scene is now played completely straight as horror. The film dispenses the waltz theme in favor of an eerily quiet soundscape and a brief optical point of view shot allows the viewer to put themselves in Ash’s shoes. The shot is framed as if they were looking into the unknown and so when the film jarringly cuts to Linda startling Ash, the viewer is left in a state of shock. As Ash lets out a scream so might the viewer, recalling the previously discussed audience surrogate idea. When he gets attacked by Linda rather than laughing at him they feel scared along with him due to the cinematography. Through close-ups, the viewer is positioned in close proximity to Ash making it easier to build sympathy for him as his reactions are given focus. This makes the absence of feeling Bergson talks about impossible to achieve but as the scene plays out this torment of the innocent is tipped towards humor. Linda’s disembodied head falls into Ash’s lap and bites him, forcing him to run outside the cabin towards a work shed in an attempt to detach Linda from his hand. On his way out though he comes across an oil drum and finds himself in a similar situation to the man in Bergson’s example. Ash, “running along the street, stumbles and falls; the passers-by burst out laughing” (13). Instead of a flexible subject, Ash becomes a mechanical object oblivious to its environment and so, laughter is evoked as a social corrective. The framing of this particular scene also lends itself well to the absence of feeling. Unlike the claustrophobic shots which situate the viewer inside the cabin, Ash’s fall takes place outside and coupled with Raimi’s long shot, has more breathing room. The audience does not feel as closed in to Ash and rather than focusing on his facial expressions, his over the top physicality is instead prioritized. Since the scene is given more space to breathe and there are fewer emotional triggers, the audience is able to detach themselves from Ash and turn the horror into a comedy.

The idea of mixing horror and comedy seem counterintuitive as they seek to produce entirely different reactions. This is further complicated by the fact that theories borne out of one genre aim to give insight on things that are completely different from the other. As the film Evil Dead II demonstrates though, these schools of thought are not so dissimilar from each other as they deal with similar concepts. Abjection, a theory commonly applied to horror, is a form of incongruity as it brings the contrasting ideas of the subject and the object together. Bergson’s theory of humor can be seen as a form of abjection as the subject becomes absentminded and turns into a mechanical object. The theories outlined invoke different feelings but these feelings can be thought of as two sides of the same coin. The coin can fall into either horror or comedy, it is up to the filmmaker’s stylistic choices on which side it will fall into.

Bibliography:
Evil Dead II. Directed by Sam Raimi, Rosebud Releasing Corporation, 1987.
Carroll, Noël. "Horror and Humor." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 57, no.
2, 1999, pp. 145–160. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/432309. Accessed 28 Oct. 2020.
Kristeva, Julia. The Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, translated by Leon S.
Roudiez, Columbia University Press, 1982, pp. 1-13.
Hutcheson, Francis. "Reflections upon Laughter." Selected Philosophical Writings, edited by
John McHugh, E-book, Andrews UK Limited, 2014.
Bergson, Henri. Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic, translated by Cloudesly
Brereton and Fred Rothwell, Dover, pp. 8-21.
Raimi, Sam. "Sam Raimi Rules Of Horror." YouTube, uploaded by rotgutshogun, 20 May
2011, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrj5oQtodCc.
Miller, Cynthia J. and Van Riper, A. Bowdoin. "Introduction." The Laughing Dead: The
Horror-Comedy Film from Bride of Frankenstein to Zombieland, Rowman &
Littlefield, 2016, pp. xiii-xxiii.