Roger Ebert sums comedy up into two types:"whats" and "whys". Some things are funny for what they are and other things are funny for why they happen. If so, that's a pretty good place to start at for writing comedy. Do you guys agree? Are there more than just two types of comedy?
Writing Comedy
- Thread starter TheRuleofThirds
- Start date
- Status
Optimus
Banned
First of all, I'll say that I agree somewhat with Ebert's definitions, but I find them rather constrictive. Comedy is much more layered and nuanced than what those two definitions describe.
I'll paste my response here which is a response I gave on another board when the question of whether or not people agreed with the statement that all comedy comes from tragedy.
It doesn't address, specifically, your question, but it gives my view on comedy in general and how it works:
"Whoever first said that comedy comes from tragedy didn't think that statement through very well. Of course it does, but there's much more to it than that. Besides, tragedy and "sad" are in the eye of the beholder.
Comedy comes from a violation of expectations (or a familiarity with those violations), not simply tragedy. Humorists take these violations and play with them, manipulate them, exaggerate them, etc., for laughs. Even humor based on negative stereotypes (rednecks, certain blacks, certain whites, etc.) is based on the fact that the stereotype itself is a violation of how we feel someone "should" be or act.
Take some of Jeff Foxworthy or Jerry Seinfeld's humor. Seinfeld built a career on making jokes about "everyday" situations. Even in his TV show (which, admittedly, had a lot of absurdist humor in it) he had those jokes. Such as his date who had "man hands" or when his girlfriend dumped him because (due to the angle) she thought she saw him picking his nose in the car. The episodes about not remembering his girlfriend's name and his other girlfriend who appeared horrid in one type of light but beautiful in another are other examples of this.
Jeff Foxworthy's "You Might Be a Redneck..." humor made him millions by parodying rednecks and Southerners. I always liked, "If you have to climb to the top of a water tower with a bucket of paint to defend your sister's honor, you might be a redneck."
Chris Rock has built a career out of satirizing everything from gender differences to racial stereotypes. And satire is basically humor pointing out the discrepancies of logic contained in what people do and/or say (violations). I can watch Chris Rock and laugh my a$$ off because the things he says are so funny, because they're so true and familiar (in many people's eyes, at least).
We've all encountered these things (to one degree or another) and can all identify with the familiarity of them (of course, when we first encounter these things in our lives, they are originally violations of our expectations. Only later do they become familiar).
Tragedy is a violation of expectations (albeit a sad, negative one), otherwise it wouldn't be "tragic." Farting in bed is another one. As is a horse trying to spontaneously mount a reporter (saw that one on a blooper show once).
Comedy isn't based on "tragedy," per se. It's based on violation of the status quo from which we derive our expectations.
Without these violations, there would be no comedy"
Basically, the comedy writer takes these violations to the extreme and (sometimes) exaggerates the heck out of them in order to get the laugh.
I think, in terms of what Ebert said, the "what" comedy isn't as enduring as the "why" comedy. For me, the "what" is simply a cheap gag; a throwaway attempt at shock or humor. Basically, you see some funny gag in a movie and it's forever deflated. The "shock" of the gag just doesn't seem to have the same effect with repeated viewings. This is true, for me, with the movie "Me, Myself, and Irene" (and, pretty much any Farrely Bros. movie). The rarely rely on character development of comedy and instead rely on cheap gags.
However, sometimes the "what" comedy is great. "Team America: World Police" has a lot of "what" comedy in it (the sex scene in the unrated version) that keeps me laughing (though, admittedly, not as loud as the first time I saw it).
I don't think that either type of comedy is more funny than the other initially but, over time, one type does seem to stick with me longer; the "why."
The "why" type of comedy, I think, comes more from character and the situations that the character (by his/her nature) winds up in. This is the type of comedy I find the most enduring because the story is crafted in such a way that we become involved in and empathise with the character, therefore, no matter how many times we see the movie, when a "why" situation comes up, it's still funny.
"Forrest Gump" is a good example of this. The humor in that movie is more "subtle" and "cute," but it is mostly based on character. So, everytime I watch that movie, I always laugh at the same spots (dialogue, usually).
Having said all that, though, I think the best comedies expertly weave both the "what" and the "why" types of comedy together. A great comedy isn't one or the other, it's both, and it's always based on character, not just thrown in there randomly.
I'll paste my response here which is a response I gave on another board when the question of whether or not people agreed with the statement that all comedy comes from tragedy.
It doesn't address, specifically, your question, but it gives my view on comedy in general and how it works:
"Whoever first said that comedy comes from tragedy didn't think that statement through very well. Of course it does, but there's much more to it than that. Besides, tragedy and "sad" are in the eye of the beholder.
Comedy comes from a violation of expectations (or a familiarity with those violations), not simply tragedy. Humorists take these violations and play with them, manipulate them, exaggerate them, etc., for laughs. Even humor based on negative stereotypes (rednecks, certain blacks, certain whites, etc.) is based on the fact that the stereotype itself is a violation of how we feel someone "should" be or act.
Take some of Jeff Foxworthy or Jerry Seinfeld's humor. Seinfeld built a career on making jokes about "everyday" situations. Even in his TV show (which, admittedly, had a lot of absurdist humor in it) he had those jokes. Such as his date who had "man hands" or when his girlfriend dumped him because (due to the angle) she thought she saw him picking his nose in the car. The episodes about not remembering his girlfriend's name and his other girlfriend who appeared horrid in one type of light but beautiful in another are other examples of this.
Jeff Foxworthy's "You Might Be a Redneck..." humor made him millions by parodying rednecks and Southerners. I always liked, "If you have to climb to the top of a water tower with a bucket of paint to defend your sister's honor, you might be a redneck."
Chris Rock has built a career out of satirizing everything from gender differences to racial stereotypes. And satire is basically humor pointing out the discrepancies of logic contained in what people do and/or say (violations). I can watch Chris Rock and laugh my a$$ off because the things he says are so funny, because they're so true and familiar (in many people's eyes, at least).
We've all encountered these things (to one degree or another) and can all identify with the familiarity of them (of course, when we first encounter these things in our lives, they are originally violations of our expectations. Only later do they become familiar).
Tragedy is a violation of expectations (albeit a sad, negative one), otherwise it wouldn't be "tragic." Farting in bed is another one. As is a horse trying to spontaneously mount a reporter (saw that one on a blooper show once).
Comedy isn't based on "tragedy," per se. It's based on violation of the status quo from which we derive our expectations.
Without these violations, there would be no comedy"
Basically, the comedy writer takes these violations to the extreme and (sometimes) exaggerates the heck out of them in order to get the laugh.
I think, in terms of what Ebert said, the "what" comedy isn't as enduring as the "why" comedy. For me, the "what" is simply a cheap gag; a throwaway attempt at shock or humor. Basically, you see some funny gag in a movie and it's forever deflated. The "shock" of the gag just doesn't seem to have the same effect with repeated viewings. This is true, for me, with the movie "Me, Myself, and Irene" (and, pretty much any Farrely Bros. movie). The rarely rely on character development of comedy and instead rely on cheap gags.
However, sometimes the "what" comedy is great. "Team America: World Police" has a lot of "what" comedy in it (the sex scene in the unrated version) that keeps me laughing (though, admittedly, not as loud as the first time I saw it).
I don't think that either type of comedy is more funny than the other initially but, over time, one type does seem to stick with me longer; the "why."
The "why" type of comedy, I think, comes more from character and the situations that the character (by his/her nature) winds up in. This is the type of comedy I find the most enduring because the story is crafted in such a way that we become involved in and empathise with the character, therefore, no matter how many times we see the movie, when a "why" situation comes up, it's still funny.
"Forrest Gump" is a good example of this. The humor in that movie is more "subtle" and "cute," but it is mostly based on character. So, everytime I watch that movie, I always laugh at the same spots (dialogue, usually).
Having said all that, though, I think the best comedies expertly weave both the "what" and the "why" types of comedy together. A great comedy isn't one or the other, it's both, and it's always based on character, not just thrown in there randomly.
Optimus
Banned
"I think the best comedies expertly weave both the "what" and the "why" types of comedy together. A great comedy isn't one or the other, it's both, and it's always based on character, not just thrown in there randomly".
Great post Opti!
Steph
Great post Opti!
Steph
Optimus said:
It's sadly hardly "duh" nowadays. There's barely anything funny in lots of recent movies labelled comedy as far as I'm concerned.
I disagree with TheRuleofThirds that "If so, that's a pretty good place to start at for writing comedy". Unlike genres like action or romance that can still deliver while being formulaic, Humor doesn't get along with reverse engineering very well. It should all spring from the right brain, the left side is there to tend it and bring structure so it can bloom.
To beginning writers, I'd advise to practice through chats with friends on the introvert side. If after some time of using their tricks and if needed different approaches, their buddy gives them clues they cheer them up and are always the ones jumping on them to start a conversation, that's a great sign. But if they keep scoring awkwards moments and stuggle to keep interest alive, it'll be a good idea to give up on comedy.
Optimus
Banned
My "Duh" was in response to stegosaurus' superficial, "In my opinion there is only one type of comedy: funny" comment.
Optimus
Banned
Wow.
Overreact much?
All you had to do was clarify. And, yes, I realize there is a difference between the dramaturgical genres of Tragedy and Comedy (in the Aristotelian sense), however, my cut-and-pasted response in my first post was referring to a question on another board which was asking about whether comedy comes from "tragedy," meaning something tragic or dreadful, not "tragedy" in the genre sense. Therefore, it wasn't used incorrectly in my post. You just didn't take the time to read it thoroughly and understand the context of the discussion.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Well, obviously not. But it should be.
I've never in my life "spewed a rule" about screenwriting and I've only ever read one screenwriting book, which sucked, so I doubt I've ever "regurgitated" anything from one. The only thing a screenwriting book can teach you is format.
Within the context of this discussion, a comment like "comedy is funny" IS superficial because the original post was about dissecting the elements of comedy (sparked by a comment from Roger Ebert). You offered nothing more than what a 3-year-old could have told us. And, your mordant, ego-bruised, mine-is-bigger-than-yours response is equally reflective of a 3-year-old.
Clarification of your position would've not only been appreciated (given the context of the original post, which you obviously missed), it might've actually been enlightening.
The point of this board is to educate and encourage those writers who don't have a Master's degree in blah blah but still can't spell "ad naseam."
What, in your posts here, has been either educational or encouraging?
All I see is a bunch of petulant chest-thumping and sabre rattling.
If you have all of this supposed knowledge and you're a teacher, I would think that your first inclination in this thread would've been to teach. Yet, instead of posting something helpful and insightful, you posted something obvious and glib and when that was pointed out (in a not-very-insulting manner), you responded with the reactionary vitriol of someone whose self-esteem might need more than a little maintenance.
I never attacked you in my above post; I pointed out the overriding quality of your comment (I said it was "superficial." Big deal.). You, however, lashed out at me as if I'd insulted you, your family, your occupation, your ancestors, and your dog.
Not only do you need to grow a thicker skin, you need to grow up.
Overreact much?
All you had to do was clarify. And, yes, I realize there is a difference between the dramaturgical genres of Tragedy and Comedy (in the Aristotelian sense), however, my cut-and-pasted response in my first post was referring to a question on another board which was asking about whether comedy comes from "tragedy," meaning something tragic or dreadful, not "tragedy" in the genre sense. Therefore, it wasn't used incorrectly in my post. You just didn't take the time to read it thoroughly and understand the context of the discussion.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Well, obviously not. But it should be.
I've never in my life "spewed a rule" about screenwriting and I've only ever read one screenwriting book, which sucked, so I doubt I've ever "regurgitated" anything from one. The only thing a screenwriting book can teach you is format.
Within the context of this discussion, a comment like "comedy is funny" IS superficial because the original post was about dissecting the elements of comedy (sparked by a comment from Roger Ebert). You offered nothing more than what a 3-year-old could have told us. And, your mordant, ego-bruised, mine-is-bigger-than-yours response is equally reflective of a 3-year-old.
Clarification of your position would've not only been appreciated (given the context of the original post, which you obviously missed), it might've actually been enlightening.
The point of this board is to educate and encourage those writers who don't have a Master's degree in blah blah but still can't spell "ad naseam."
What, in your posts here, has been either educational or encouraging?
All I see is a bunch of petulant chest-thumping and sabre rattling.
If you have all of this supposed knowledge and you're a teacher, I would think that your first inclination in this thread would've been to teach. Yet, instead of posting something helpful and insightful, you posted something obvious and glib and when that was pointed out (in a not-very-insulting manner), you responded with the reactionary vitriol of someone whose self-esteem might need more than a little maintenance.
I never attacked you in my above post; I pointed out the overriding quality of your comment (I said it was "superficial." Big deal.). You, however, lashed out at me as if I'd insulted you, your family, your occupation, your ancestors, and your dog.
Not only do you need to grow a thicker skin, you need to grow up.
Last edited:
Optimus
Banned
*Yawn*
Thanks for not only proving my point, but assuring that you will never be taken seriously in this forum again.
Thanks for not only proving my point, but assuring that you will never be taken seriously in this forum again.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2005
- Messages
- 1,676
- Reaction score
- 376
i like this question and as always it leads to great debate and interesting points.
so, i'd like to keep this alive.
i agree that comedy does come from the 'violation of expectations (or a familiarity with those violations), not simply tragedy' to quote Opti's high quality post from above.
how do you feel about satires? things such as catch 22 and spinal tap that take certain stereotypes (such as the crazy commanding officer etc) and play them over-the-top.
i think that is part of the beauty of the comedy. it plays to the stereotype one assumes those people to be like (so doesn't violate expectations in one way)
but plays on it so much, it goes over the top and cements those stereotypes (which we, in a way, expect to be broken in some way), thus violating our expectations in terms of content (rather than form).
so the form would be the stereotype and the content would be how far they play to it.
i apologise for the poor construction of this post, i am in quite the tired rush, but please tell me what you think about playing to the stereotype in such a way as to make it seem real and violate us yet again.
if we could come up with examples from scripts, i think that would help us a great deal.
so, i'd like to keep this alive.
i agree that comedy does come from the 'violation of expectations (or a familiarity with those violations), not simply tragedy' to quote Opti's high quality post from above.
how do you feel about satires? things such as catch 22 and spinal tap that take certain stereotypes (such as the crazy commanding officer etc) and play them over-the-top.
i think that is part of the beauty of the comedy. it plays to the stereotype one assumes those people to be like (so doesn't violate expectations in one way)
but plays on it so much, it goes over the top and cements those stereotypes (which we, in a way, expect to be broken in some way), thus violating our expectations in terms of content (rather than form).
so the form would be the stereotype and the content would be how far they play to it.
i apologise for the poor construction of this post, i am in quite the tired rush, but please tell me what you think about playing to the stereotype in such a way as to make it seem real and violate us yet again.
if we could come up with examples from scripts, i think that would help us a great deal.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 18,805
- Reaction score
- 4,600
- Location
- Caledonia
- Website
- derekpaterson.net
when the laughter stops
I bet if I posted script pages with characters who argued over something as trivial with this, and who delivered such cutting insults (whew, I'm spattered with gore!), you guys would tear 'em apart, and rightly so.
Seriously, I don't know what anyone's saying any more, I've lost empathy with this thread.
Comedy's the hardest genre to analyze because everyone has a different sense of humor. Pick your audience, write your comedy subgenre, and hope for the best.
-Derek
-> * <- Click on this magic star to be transported to my website. Ruby slippers optional.
________________________________________________
The practice of art isn't to make a living. It's to make your soul grow. ~The Complete Handbook of Novel Writing (Kurt Vonnegut)
I bet if I posted script pages with characters who argued over something as trivial with this, and who delivered such cutting insults (whew, I'm spattered with gore!), you guys would tear 'em apart, and rightly so.
Seriously, I don't know what anyone's saying any more, I've lost empathy with this thread.
Comedy's the hardest genre to analyze because everyone has a different sense of humor. Pick your audience, write your comedy subgenre, and hope for the best.
-Derek
-> * <- Click on this magic star to be transported to my website. Ruby slippers optional.
________________________________________________
The practice of art isn't to make a living. It's to make your soul grow. ~The Complete Handbook of Novel Writing (Kurt Vonnegut)
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 18,805
- Reaction score
- 4,600
- Location
- Caledonia
- Website
- derekpaterson.net
Truth to tell, Opty posted his "Duh" response just ahead of me posting the same thing, so I cancelled my message. Then I had this awful feeling you wanted me to pause and think about the profound simplicity of your statement. Well okay, but it could have been funnier. Needed a rubber chicken, maybe.
I remember Joan Rivers pulling out a rubber chicken during one of her stand-ups. It got her that cheap laugh, but then she made it sing "I got you babe" a la Cher and the audience bust a gut laughing. So it's not just the prop, it's what you do with it.
Rubber chicken, food for thought, heh heh. Anyways...
Sorry that you had to come in and spank us, DPat.
That's one mental image I could have done without! My eyes! My eyes!
-Derek
-> * <- Click on this magic star to be transported to my website. Ruby slippers optional.
________________________________________________
The practice of art isn't to make a living. It's to make your soul grow. ~The Complete Handbook of Novel Writing (Kurt Vonnegut)
I remember Joan Rivers pulling out a rubber chicken during one of her stand-ups. It got her that cheap laugh, but then she made it sing "I got you babe" a la Cher and the audience bust a gut laughing. So it's not just the prop, it's what you do with it.
Rubber chicken, food for thought, heh heh. Anyways...
Sorry that you had to come in and spank us, DPat.
That's one mental image I could have done without! My eyes! My eyes!
-Derek
-> * <- Click on this magic star to be transported to my website. Ruby slippers optional.
________________________________________________
The practice of art isn't to make a living. It's to make your soul grow. ~The Complete Handbook of Novel Writing (Kurt Vonnegut)
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 18,805
- Reaction score
- 4,600
- Location
- Caledonia
- Website
- derekpaterson.net
Bejaysus, I just sprayed Diet Coke down my nose. I think I've found my party trick for the New Year.
-Derek
-> * <- Click on this magic star to be transported to my website. Ruby slippers optional.
________________________________________________
The practice of art isn't to make a living. It's to make your soul grow. ~The Complete Handbook of Novel Writing (Kurt Vonnegut)
-Derek
-> * <- Click on this magic star to be transported to my website. Ruby slippers optional.
________________________________________________
The practice of art isn't to make a living. It's to make your soul grow. ~The Complete Handbook of Novel Writing (Kurt Vonnegut)
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,376
- Reaction score
- 81
- Location
- Stuck in Dell Hell
- Website
- www.rainynightproductions.com
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2005
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 2
I laugh at awkwardness. Like, the effect of something someone has said over a group and just watch it fizz...
Geraldine Chaplin in NASHVILLE (To the driver who doesn't like to be reffered to as a driver and offers her a tour around Nashville) "I'm sorry, what was your name again... Norman? I make it a point never to gossip with servants"
But, she is a Goddess. Every single line she says in this film is funny.
I love the contrast between well bred and ignorant people. Everything that comes out of Stewie Griffin's mouth also bowls me over with laughter. I have to post this to demonstrate how a rambling stream of consciousness can just be hysterical when delivered by the right character (A baby bent on world domination, in this case) Also I felt these quotes are applicable to most of us... well, me anyway. Substitute script for novel, screenwriters.
Stewie: How you uh, how you comin' on that novel you're working on? Huh? Gotta a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Gotta, gotta nice litte story you're working on there? Your big novel you've been working on for 3 years? Huh? Gotta, gotta compelling protaganist? Yeah? Gotta obstacle for him to overcome? Huh? Gotta story brewing there? Working on, working on that for quite some time? Huh? (voice getting higher pitched) Yea, talking about that 3 years ago. Been working on that the whole time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? At the end your main character is richer from the experience? Yeah? Yeah? (voice returns to normal) No, no, you deserve some time off.
Stewie (his voice getting progressively higher): Oh I know it hurts now Brian, but look at the bright side: you have some new material for that novel you've been writing. You know...the novel you've been workin' on? You know the the one, uh, you've been workin on for three years? You know the novel. Got somethin' new to write about now. You know? Maybe a, maybe a main character gets into a relationship and suffers a little heartbreak? Somethin' like what... what you've just been through? Draw from real life experience? Little, little heartbreak? You know? Work it into the story? Make the characters a little more three dimensional? Little, uh, richer experience for the reader? Make those second hundred pages really keep the reader guessing what's going to happen? Some twists and turns? A little epilogue? Everybody learns that the hero's journey isn't always a happy one? (Voice returns to normal.) Oh, I look forward to reading it.
Geraldine Chaplin in NASHVILLE (To the driver who doesn't like to be reffered to as a driver and offers her a tour around Nashville) "I'm sorry, what was your name again... Norman? I make it a point never to gossip with servants"
But, she is a Goddess. Every single line she says in this film is funny.
I love the contrast between well bred and ignorant people. Everything that comes out of Stewie Griffin's mouth also bowls me over with laughter. I have to post this to demonstrate how a rambling stream of consciousness can just be hysterical when delivered by the right character (A baby bent on world domination, in this case) Also I felt these quotes are applicable to most of us... well, me anyway. Substitute script for novel, screenwriters.
Stewie: How you uh, how you comin' on that novel you're working on? Huh? Gotta a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Gotta, gotta nice litte story you're working on there? Your big novel you've been working on for 3 years? Huh? Gotta, gotta compelling protaganist? Yeah? Gotta obstacle for him to overcome? Huh? Gotta story brewing there? Working on, working on that for quite some time? Huh? (voice getting higher pitched) Yea, talking about that 3 years ago. Been working on that the whole time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? At the end your main character is richer from the experience? Yeah? Yeah? (voice returns to normal) No, no, you deserve some time off.
Stewie (his voice getting progressively higher): Oh I know it hurts now Brian, but look at the bright side: you have some new material for that novel you've been writing. You know...the novel you've been workin' on? You know the the one, uh, you've been workin on for three years? You know the novel. Got somethin' new to write about now. You know? Maybe a, maybe a main character gets into a relationship and suffers a little heartbreak? Somethin' like what... what you've just been through? Draw from real life experience? Little, little heartbreak? You know? Work it into the story? Make the characters a little more three dimensional? Little, uh, richer experience for the reader? Make those second hundred pages really keep the reader guessing what's going to happen? Some twists and turns? A little epilogue? Everybody learns that the hero's journey isn't always a happy one? (Voice returns to normal.) Oh, I look forward to reading it.
Optimus said:
I got it that way but I agree with Steg. Lots of recent comedies are more embarassing than funny. Especially those written for teenagers (American pie, Duke of hazzards,...) or the surreally stale "guess who I'm dating?" type which form a big chunk of the production in the genre. All gag, no wit.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 201
- Reaction score
- 2
- Location
- New Yorker in California
- Website
- www.ginaritter.com
But they're selling. Why then? No doubt Dukes was a commissioned piece, but the others (I assume) are coming from purchased finds.
What's making the sales if these are so bad?
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 201
- Reaction score
- 2
- Location
- New Yorker in California
- Website
- www.ginaritter.com
Sometimes it seems like they also choose cheesy scripts with an actor in mind (contracts I guess) that are just crap. But it plays up the "endearing" qualities of the actors.
Guess there's a chance even a crappy script of mine will sell. Guess I'll try to market them all no matter how I feel about them. LOL
Guess there's a chance even a crappy script of mine will sell. Guess I'll try to market them all no matter how I feel about them. LOL
the problem with comedy is you often have to speak to the intelligence level of your audience. This 'crap' that 'sells' is speaking to the lowest common denomenator. This is not necessarily going to be funny to more sophisticated people. If you look at some of Woody Allen's good comedy, I think it only speaks to a certain group of people and other's 'don't get it'. Or look at Clerks -- are jokes about the Death Star funny to people who don't have a large familiarity with Star Wars?
I think people try to make comedy universal and it isn't. I think a lot of times it falls flat under these circumstances. I think part of writing good comedy is actually writing for a specific audience.
I think people try to make comedy universal and it isn't. I think a lot of times it falls flat under these circumstances. I think part of writing good comedy is actually writing for a specific audience.
I agree what's funny to one group isn't to another. I think the most important thing, is for the audience to be able to identify with the situation. I laugh at things I relate to and when they're exaggerated I laugh harder. Stand-up comics do this all the time. They talk about something average, the audience ID's and goes crazy with laughter.Jennifer
- Status