In the opening scene of the Three Stooges short Healthy, Wealthy, and Dumb (1938), Moe and Larry are sitting at a kitchen table playing poker, using as chips the pancakes that Curly is cooking at a stove nearby. Curly sits down to complete his entry in a slogan contest for Stik-Fast Glue, a can of which sits on the table next to a can of maple syrup. Curly naturally uses the syrup to seal his envelope while Moe pours the glue on his pancakes, and Moe doesn’t realize his mistake until his mouth is glued shut. Eager to help, Larry fetches a tea kettle from the stove, pulls Moe’s head back by the hair, and pours boiling water on his face—to the sound effect of searing flesh.
In Pardon My Scotch (1935), Moe, Larry, and Curly are carpenters installing a door in a drugstore. Curly uses a table-saw to cut a board, in the process also cutting through the work table that Moe is standing on. The table collapses and Moe falls violently to the ground (in real life, Moe broke three ribs in the fall; after delivering the scripted retaliatory double-slap to Larry and Curly, he fainted and was taken to a hospital).
Click here to view the embedded video.
Such is the Stooges’ style of crudely violent slapstick. It has been dismissed by critics as juvenile, vulgar, and brainless—and so it is. But audiences overwhelmingly enjoy it, and in recent decades at least Moe, Curly, and Shemp have come to be recognized as talented comic actors. Still, there remain plenty of people who are put off by the Stooges’ violence or who find them simply too dumb to watch. Others admit to being amused but feel vaguely guilty or embarrassed about it, whether for the violence or the stupidity or both.
All of which prompts the question: Are the Stooges funny? This means, of course, not “Do the Stooges make people laugh?” but rather “Are the Stooges worth laughing at?”, by comedic (and perhaps also moral) standards.
Although the question isn’t obviously philosophical, at least one philosopher has addressed it in a professional capacity. In a talk entitled “Are the Stooges Funny?: Soitanly!” (1996), Robert Solomon, who taught philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin until his death in 2007, argued not only that the Stooges are funny but that the fact of their funniness constitutes a counterexample to the major philosophical theories of humor and is the basis of a better view, which he called the inferiority theory.
Historically, philosophical opinions about the nature and function of humor have tended to fall into three broad categories: superiority theories, incongruity theories, and relief theories. According to superiority theories, humor essentially involves a feeling of superiority to others (or to our former selves): we find funny the misfortunes and failings of those we perceive as lesser than ourselves because they confirm that we are better by comparison. According to incongruity theories, humorous situations involve the unexpected, the surprising, the out-of-place, or the absurd; humor, according to one version of such theories, is a pleasurable reaction to such perceived incongruity. Relief theories tend to focus on psychological explanations of laughter as involving the release of a certain kind of energy or tension. Some relief theories incorporate elements of the superiority view by supposing that we take pleasure in the misfortunes and failings of others and that relief consists in knowing that it is they and not we who are suffering.
According to Solomon, the humor of the Stooges is one of “ritualized humiliation”, which comes in part through familiar violent gestures such as slaps and eye-pokes. But it is a humiliation we share with the Stooges (a “mutual humiliation”), not one we take pleasure in avoiding. In fact, the Stooges encourage empathy. They allow us to feel as ridiculous and silly as they are or to act (in imagination) as foolishly as they do. And in doing so we take pleasure in the realization that we and our projects are less important than we often pretend. We pointedly refuse to take ourselves seriously. This is a good thing, because, apart from being entertaining, it cultivates virtues such as compassion and modesty. (See Stephen Davies, “Bob, Little Jim, Bluebottle, and the Three Stooges”; 2008.)
Superiority theories, says Solomon, don’t account for what is funny about the Stooges because (as noted) we don’t laugh at them because we consider ourselves better than they are. The incongruity view also fails, because the Stooges’ humor doesn’t depend on the unexpected. In fact, the trouble they get into is usually quite foreseeable. Moreover, according to Solomon, “the Stooges get better with repetitive viewing, and … imitation is part and parcel of Stooges spectatorship.” Relief theories likewise cannot account for why we should find our 27th viewing of Malice in the Palace (1949) just as funny as our first; nor again are we relieved that it is Moe’s mouth that is glued shut (or Larry’s hair that is ripped out, or Curly’s pants that are caught in a seat cushion, or Shemp’s head that is pressed in a vice) and not ours.
So the next time you hear someone disparaging the humor of the Three Stooges, remember Robert Solomon’s inferiority theory. Then extend your arm with your palm facing outward while making a squealing sound with your mouth closed. Then say, “oh, ungrateful, eh?”
