Schizo-Analysis and It’s Always
Sunny in Philadelphia
Dayman:
‘Dayman, aah-aahh-aaahhh, Fighter of the Nightman, aah-aahh-aaahhh,
Champion of the Sun, You’re a master of karate and friendship for everyone,
Dayman, aah-aah-aaahhh, Daaaymaaaannn…’
– Dayman,
by Charlie Day as Charlie Kelly
Removing Structure from the image of thought:
In
envisioning their philosophical method, Deleuze and Guittari faced one
over-arching plane of immanence that could summarize the whole of their intent
for the project that they invested such great amounts of time and effort
into. This goal, if one calls it
that, was to challenge the very structure within which we pertain to think
about thought; challenging the framework that had culminated in the ‘End of
Philosophy’ in the Hegelian and Heideggerian schools, and to establish what
might be termed a ‘new image of thought.’
This ‘new image of thought’ would force a completely re-imagining of how
we comprehend our reality - now a ‘plane of immanence’ - and how we answer the
question ‘what is philosophy’.
This new image of thought would additionally require a new groundwork to
replace the hierarchy-establishing and depth-seeking systems dominating
philosophical-thought in the modern era.
These related methods were the approaches advanced in Marxism, Freud’s
Psychoanalysis, and structuralism, such as the system outlined by Heidegger. Deleuze and Guittari saw these theories
as the result of the culmination of philosophy in Hegel’s ‘end of
philosophy’. Hegel’s system of
incorporating negation as applied to the identity-difference relationship had
allowed him absorb any critique into his philosophy. Every new attempt in philosophy, moreover, seemed inevitably
bound to simply repeat Hegel’s philosophy.
Hegel’s
ever-so-powerful tool for making this ‘truth’ was the dialectic. The dialectic established that the
identity of a subject-statement was the result of the negation of propositions;
x is y, and x is not y. According
to Deleuze, this image of thought searched for truth in the ‘depths’ because it
believed that there existed a true identity of difference. This was the culmination of Plato’s
search for the ‘forms’ started thousands of years ago at the dawning of western
civilization. This has led western
philosophy and theology to forever seek out truth in the answers to questions
of ‘being’. However, Deleuze says
that all philosophers and philosophies that take this approach fall victim to
‘subjectification’. They favor
‘being’ over ‘becoming’; what is actual in contrast to what is potential.
Marxism,
Freudian psychoanalysis, and structuralist semiotics all make this same
mistake. Each of these systems
assumes various substructures subsume every construct. The identity of reality was thus hidden
in the difference between the visible structure and its underlying
sub-structure. This method of
thought constitutes the basic approach of ‘structuralism’. Marxism takes the Hegelian approach to
the dialectic and applies it to socio-economic concerns. It establishes the existence of the
lofty ‘super-structure’ and contrasts it with the underlying ‘base’ or
infrastructure. Freud proclaimed
the dialectic created by the ‘conscious’ in opposition to the
‘subconscious’. Structuralism in semiotics
sees language through the lenses of the signifier and the signified. True meaning is established through the
difference between the signifying word and the signified-subject. Each of these philosophies makes an
unwarranted subjectification where they evaluate the sub-structure of depths as
being prior to the witnessed structure.
Thus,
while Marxism, Freudianism, and Structuralism have formed much of the
groundwork of modern thinking, abandoning the dialectic will require entirely
new foundations to be dug in order to establish a new image of thought. The new philosophy would rest on the
notions of ‘surface’, ‘sense’ and ‘nonsense’. Instead of the dialectic and negation at a molecular level,
the new image of thought would see structure as resonating through the molar
repetition of differences. Deleuze
and Guittari began to see existence as constructed through the multiplicity of
rhizomes and called this new approach, rhizomatics. A good model of this strategy of thinking comes from the
post-modern quantum theory for atomic structures; elements exist molecularly as
the result of the differences in structuring of atomic particles repeated
billions of times. Multiplicty,
the existence of several planes and the abandonment of a determinable center,
would now be key, as opposed to negation in the Hegelian school of thought. Rather than analyzing the
inner-workings and depths of the psyche, they seek to map out desire. Schizophrenics could be said to occupy
at the surface of their desire, perceiving everything in terms of their will
and infinite becoming. In light of
this, Deleuze and Guittari advance ‘schizo-analysis’ as the future-way to
understanding the mind.
A New Image of Comedy:
Penetrating
what Deleuze is attempting to communicate with these concepts of ‘surface’ and
the ‘logic of ‘sense’ requires understanding how ‘nonsense’ manufactures
sense. The consequences of a new
image of thought extend far beyond debates on structuralism in classrooms and
into every area of thought, communication, and culture. The philosophy of Deleuze is clearly
rhizomatically related to iconic developments in popular culture of Deleuze’s
era and in the time since. There
may be no better endeavor with which to apply schizo-analysis, than to that gallant
tradition of destruction of nobility in carefully constructed thought;
well-timed comedy.
Humor
exists, according to Deleuze, in order to quickly deterritorialize the barest
of presuppositions. Humor,
thus, is a very definite function of the war machine. Yet, comedy has for long instead been derived from what Deleuze
calls ‘Socratic irony’. True humor
has always evaded this form of comedy, however. This is because the sense of humor demands the rapid destruction
of absurdity. Deleuze comments that, “By same movement with
which language falls from the height and depths then plunges below, we must be
led back to the surface where there is no longer anything to denote or even to
signify, but where pure sense is produced.” (Deleuze, 136) This is often
most effectively performed through the embracement and projection of the
absurd, of nonsense. Irony however
establishes the co-existence of two contradictory meanings, leading to a
resentful sarcasm that favors the underlying intent. Deleuze describes classical irony as, “The
instance which assures the coextensiveness of being and of the individual
within the world of representation.” (Deleuze, 138) Well into the
twentieth-century, comedy seemed to fall into the same structuralist traps as
Marxism and Freudianism. Youth-culture
movements such as the ‘hipsters’ favored being ironic over literal. However, this form of territorializing
comedy would never last. By the
twenty-first century a term had emerged for a new cultural direction;
post-irony. In order to define such
a pop-culture based term there is only one conceivable source of definition,
the user-contribution based UrbanDictionary.Com. Urban Dictionary defines ‘post-ironic’ as, “When
one's ironic appreciation of something becomes genuine, usually due to either
prolonged exposure or the enjoyment derived from how amusingly terrible it is.” Deleuze himself has very specific
complaints about comedy derived from irony. He writes that, “What all the figures of irony have in
common is that they confine the singularity within the limits of the individual
or the person. Thus, irony only in
appearance assumes the role of a vagabond.” (Deleuze, 139) In simpler terms, irony is never funny
because it focuses what it calls ‘absurd’ within boundaries it has set to
derive a measure of truth. It
cannot be funny because it ignores the potential of the individual’s desire,
rather than embracing it as a way of destroying absurdity. Irony is only hypocrisy then.
Hence,
the concept of the ‘post-ironic’ would seem to strike the heart of the sense of
humor. After all, what is funny is
always being simultaneously being laughed at and with. Thus, true comedy would favor no
subjectification. Jokes would not
be constructed through the contrasting of the ‘real’ world within an ideal one
as is the case with jokes based purely in irony. Deleuze summarizes how
to be funny as such, “What is required is humor, as opposed to the Socratic
irony or to the technique of the ascent.” (Deleuze, 135) Through nonsense the comedy would
rapidly generate a sense of destroying the absurdities proclaimed all around as
truth or logic. The characters
would thus need to be appropriately schizoid; living presently, occupying the
surface, and perceiving desire as one intense flow. They would approach issues nomadalogically, letting their
lines of flight guide them along their planes of immanence. Humor is referred to as an adventure by
Deleuze, and indeed it is, he summarizes, “This adventure of humor, this
two-fold dismissal of height and depth to the advantage of the surface is,…,
the adventure of the Stoic sage.” (Deleuze, 136) Thus, comedians embody what could be deemed a post-modern
embracement of Stoicism, accepting and confronting the chaosmos in its absurd
entirety without resentment.
The
great Steve Martin once pined, “Chaos in the midst of chaos isn't funny, but
chaos in the midst of order is.”
Mr. Martin thus grasped that in order to be funny comedy must affirm the
chaosmos by showing how chaos emerges from order in everyday life. Any attempt to search for
depth, height, or the illusion of progress would ultimately be doomed to
absurdity. Deleuze expands that,
“There is a difficult relation, which rejects the false Platonic duality of the
essence and the example. This
exercise, which consists in substituting designations, monstratinos,
consumptions, and pure destructions for significations…” (Deleuze,136) These
destructive elements would spread the most refreshing elements of the war
machine throughout the living rooms of Comcast customers everywhere. Only such a comedy, imagined from these
lines, would be truly funny. Perhaps, no show on American
television has a better grasp of this, and schizo-comedy in general, than It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia,
created by Rob McElhenney, Glenn Howerton, and Charlie Day.
The Gang Gives
Frank an Intervention:
Charlie: “Dude man what is going on with you man,
you’ve been going off the deep end lately?”
Mac: “Really Stepping up the
Insanity Frank”
Frank: “I’m trying to push
myself see how far I can go.”
Dennis: “ I feel like you’ve
been standing on the edge of a cliff for a while now, I say, ‘hop off.’”
- From ‘The Gang Gives
Frank an Intervention, It’s Always Sunny
in Philadelphia
In
the momentous episode of It’s Always
Sunny in Philadelphia, ‘The Gang Gives Frank an Intervention’, the gang, a
group consisting of three male and 1 female thirty-year olds who run a bar,
seek urgent assistance for their nomadic patriach, Frank Reynolds, a
drug-addled former robber-baron, played by Danny Devito. Frank has enough money and few enough
morals that he is able to live out his glory days perfectly nomadically. He is always experimenting with his
limits, trying to map out new territories for himself. Frank understands
becoming, living within the realm of his possibilities.
Eventually,
however, the Gang comes to the conclusion that some new ‘event’ is required to
re-territorialize Frank’s life.
However, they struggle to communicate their special needs for an
intervention to the therapist attempting to assist them. She asks them for information to help
her ‘understand’ Frank’s problem. “What’s
Frank struggling with the most?”
The Gang, who understands that Frank’s problem is beyond comprehension,
gives her a reply that is completely at the surface, only reflecting what they
see as the main problem along Frank’s plane of immanence. Dennis responds to the therapist, “Well
he is trying to bang our aunt.” (which is true, as now she and Frank are both
widows).
The
therapist, like most therapists, struggles to see the situation without
evaluating the problem as lying with drugs and alcohol. She states, “These things normally have
more to do with drugs and alcohol.”
The Gang however, realizes that drugs and alcohol are not the cause of
Frank’s problem they are however related to it at the surface, which they are
trying to map out. Charlie
summarizes for the therapist, “Drugs and alcohol are rolled into what we’re
talking about.”
The
therapist tries to gain an understanding of the situation, but at the end of
their conversation she can only say, “You know? I do offer group therapy.”
The Gang is absolutely
bewildered by this, responding, “What is this? Did you try to intervene on us?” The therapist politely reflects upon what they have been
discussing, “With All Due Respect, you’re talking about bringing guns to an
intervention, and you’re drinking wine out of a soda can.”
The
therapist immediately begins to search for depth in the Gangs comments and
actions, seeing problems with how they live at every turn. She cannot understand that the live at
the surface. The Gang however can
see the situation in no other way.
There thoughts have already followed their lines of flight to
wine-filled soda can. Dennis
interjects, “You’re drinking out’ve that can?” This leads Dee and Charlie to map out Frank’s other
qualities. Dee responds, “Yeah you
like that… he’s a smart man.” Charlie agrees, “You stole Frank’s idea… he’s got
good ideas… but I do I think she just tried to intervention on us.” This leads the gang back to the plane
of immanence currently facing them with the therapist and intervention. Dennis refuses to allow the therapist
to territorialize for them like that, casting her aside with, “I do think she
tried to intervene on us… I think you’ve lost control of the room here.”
Later
on, the Gang takes the initiative to initiate the intervention according to
their desire. They decide to map
out their desire by writing letters to Frank explaining the various ways in
which his addiction has injured them.
Charlie, being illiterate, dictates to Dennis, posing this revealing
question for Frank; “When was the last time we played night-crawlers together
Frank?” Dennis can’t help but ask,
“Okay, what is that?” Charlie
explains to him that, “It’s no big deal… it’s what it sounds like.”
At
this time however, Dennis can no longer resist the line of flight pulling him
towards greater discovery. Dennis claims, “Yeah, but now you’ve said it, and I
can’t move past it… What it sounds like is that you two crawl around together
at night… like worms.” This new line of flight was begun by the event that
Dennis cannot move past; night-crawlers.
Perhaps Dennis desires explore a similar becoming-animal to the surface
mapped by Charlie and Frank in their apartment games.
The
time for the intervention approaches, and the Gang has realized that they may
not know if what they are doing is a good idea. This leads them to ask the therapist to return to help them
however, as Dee surmises, “I’m guessing from that look on your face you
wouldn’t have lured him [Frank] down here with a fire.” The therapist continues to resist
deterritorializing from the normal boundaries within which she acts and thinks,
commenting, “Yeah. And I wouldn’t
have an intervention at a bar either.”
Sweet Dee can only reply, “Well, look lady, all mistakes we made on our
own, so it’s a good thing that you’re here.”
Suddenly
Frank bursts into the room waving his pistol high in the air. Filled with the passion of the
war-machine and ready to face the destructive and deterritorializing force of
the fire he yells, “Where’s the Goddamn fire?” However, the Gang quickly descends upon him frantically
trying to wrestle the firearm away from Frank while shouting, “Intervention! Intervention… Intervention! Woooooop! You’re trapped! You’re trapped… you’re trapped! Woooooooop! Gotcha! Gotcha!”
Frank
confused about where the lines of flight are leading from this event asks, “What’s
going?” Dennis’s reply summarizes
the Gang’s mapping out of surface of the event very plainly for them. He drunkenly proclaims, “You sit down
so we can tell you what an asshole you’ve been!” while Dee adds “We’re gonna
get all in your face and point out your faults!”
Frank,
however, in true schizophrenic fashion, transforms the event so that at the
surface, which Frank most definitely occupies, becomes something according to
his desire; “A Roast?!” “I’ve
always wanted to be roasted!”
Series on the Intervention:
Charlie: “Why do we
never play night-crawlers anymore?”
Frank: “I don’t know
Charlie?”
Dee: “What is that?”
Dennis: “It’s a game where
they crawl around at night like worms.”
Charlie“I never said that.”
Frank: “Yeah, well that’s
what it is.”
Charlie: “Intervention!
Intervention! Is nothing private Frank?”
-From ‘The Gang Gives Frank
an Intervention, It’s Always Sunny in
Philadelphia
“Intervention! Intervention… You can’t be banging Gail
the snail!” shout Dennis and Dee at a new event interrupting their plane of
immanence and directing their lines of flight away from the previous
events. This new event was the
intervention of the gangs other member Mac. He replies with, “What are you interventioning on me for…
Donna just reminds me so much of your mom which was you know like the best sex
I ever had.”
Suddenly
Frank shouts “Intervention!
Intervention! You banged my
dead wife?”
The Gang’s line of flight has been
rapidly deterritorialized by the intervention of another event; Mac’s past
affair with Frank’s now deceased wife.
The word, ‘intervention’, has come to have an entirely different sense
as it is used by the Gang in comparison to what normal semiotics would
interpret it to signify. The Gang
may just as well substitute the word ‘event’ for intervention and say that they
are staging an event rather than giving an intervention. All they are really looking to do is
create a moment of aggression in order cause a detteritorialization. This event causes them to remap their
plane of immanence and to redraw their lines of flight according to their
desire. Thus, by screaming,
“Intervention!” in someone’s face, the Gang have discovered a method in which
they can create an event allowing them to exist at the surface. By shouting they draw attention to the
present moment, the line of flight that have brought them there, and the plane
of immanence facing them.
It is
obvious how the characters within the show make use of the word to keep
themselves and others at the surface, but it was the writers of the show that are
the real engines of comedy. By
always keeping their characters at the surface – usually through on-screen
intoxication – the producers of the show have also found a way to continually
and rapidly deterritorialize their show for the audience. The show is less written filled with
jokes rather than it is determined by the schizophrenic interruptions of its
cast. This prevents the audience
from attempting to create territories for the show. Such territorialization might allow them to extract meaning
from the show, but there is none to be had. It is entirely at the surface, and must be watched as
such. Anyone who cannot do this
will not enjoy the humor in the show.
It is not a show for state-thinkers.
Mac: “Well she was alive at
the time? Did you not know that?”
Frank: “No…”
Charlie: “It’s cool
man. Intervention… Intervention.”
-From ‘the Gang Gives Frank
an Intervention, It’s Always Sunny in
Philadelphia
The Nightman Cometh:
Charlie: “doo deedee doo deedee
doo, some other musical stuff!”
Mac: “What’cha doing buddy?”
Charlie: “I wrote a musical”
-From ‘The Nightman Cometh’,
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia
And with
that completely nonsensical opening, begins a new tale of superheroes,
Princesses, monsters, and villains.
There will be bravery and there will be mischief. And true to form, the paradigm episode
of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia’s
fourth season, ‘The Nightman Cometh’ is completely devoid of depth
whatsoever. It is a pure
schizophrenic episode. The coming
of the Nightman could indeed be seen as an event within the context of the show
in the true Deluzian sense of the term.
It was this coming that served as the major focal event around which the
show’s most schizoid character, Charlie Kelly, organizes his plane of immanence. The writing of his musical was an act
borne solely out of desire.
The
gang responds to Charlie’s statement with their usual astoundment. Dennis asks, “What? Why?” Sweet Dee even proclaims to Charlie that, “Nobody writes a
musical without a reason. That
makes no sense.” However, this search
for ‘reason’ betrays Dennis and Dee’s common miscomprehension of the term
sense. Sense is not produced through
formal logic in statement. Things
do not need a reason to make sense.
In fact, having a reason for action is inherently a search for depth,
thus keeping the actor from acting on the surface of their desire. “But who
verses? Who are we doing this verses?”
Mac asks. Neither Mac, nor the
rest of the Gang, can apprehend the situation through any mechanism other than
the dialectic. They see everything
in terms of negation; their actions continually expect and enforce a
displacement of the other. Charlie
understands this, however the others do not. To their questions, Charlie’s only response is a mere, “Okay, well, this guy did.”
Dee
later has additional struggles with interpreting the ‘meaning’ of the
performance. She asks Charlie in
frustration, “Charlie… What the hell is this play about? However, she inevitably fails in her
quest to do so, because she cannot envision the drama without conceiving of a
substructure to it, the words and lyrics must imply some deeper meaning. Sweet Dee continues, “I’m a Princess
who lives in a coffeeshop? Why am
I in love with a little boy?”
Charlie tries to calm Dee by answering, “You’re in love with a young man.” However, Dee cannot understand yet how
a boy becomes a man – by the end of the episode, everyone will – she claims, “You
wrote boy… the audience is going to think I’m a child molester.” Sweet Deandra can only see the
subject boy as signifiying a little boy, and her intents as signifiying to
commit statutory rape, as if her performance of a character in a play would
cause people to seek a molesting-depth in the nonsensical song she is supposed
to sing. Dee continues to impede
the progress of the play, “Charlie, are you goddamn Kidding me? You’re wanting me to say I want to make
love to a tiny, little, baby boy!”
Charlie
has soon had enough of Dee’s problems, later saying that he will “Smack the
face out of your face!” Charlie,
again by far the most schizophrenic character, knows that the drama he has
written has no meaning – after all, Charlie is illiterate. The words are only reflective of his
desires, which are discovered later in the episode. Charlie argues with Deandra, reiterating, “I’ve explained
this to you. It’s a metaphor.”
Dee,
however, can still not abandon her search for deeper meaning, questioning him, “I’m
not convinced you know what that word means.”
Series on Trolls:
Frank: “You’ve gotta pay the
troll toll, to get into this boy’s hole, you’ve gotta pay the troll toll to get
in, you’ve gotta…”
Charlie: “Okay, stop,
stop. Good rhythm, I like the
enthusiasm. It sounds like you’re
saying ‘boy’s hole’, and its clearly ‘soul’.”
-from ‘the Nightman Cometh’,
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia
Dee’s
confusion over the play’s obvious lack of meaning is shared by the rest of the
cast. The Gang’s perennial
attempts to search for symbols within the work continue to forcefully
territorialize it. Mac presents
the issue as, “Charlie, can I bring something up? I think we have to be very careful about how we do the rape
seen.” The Gang misreads the
schizoid play like Freudian psychoanalysis misreads the schizophrenic mind,
favoring the depth to form a hierarchy.
Charlie point blankly responds that, “There’s no rape seen.” Mac, who plays the character of the
Nightman while Dennis play the part of the little boy to become Dayman,
continues with, “Well sure… I pay the troll-toll, then I rape Dennis.”
Words
and their meanings have a very different function in the schizophrenic mind of
Charlie. Charlie attempts to
explain the very different concepts embodied by the words he uses, telling Mac
that, “No, you do not rape him… you become him…. Let me walk you guys through
this…. Once he gets near you, you
have to sense him, suddenly you sense him!” The meaning in the language that Charlie uses is based on
his desire rather than on words functioning as symbols for a signified
something. The fact that the
audience gets the ‘sense’ of rape from this scene underscores the inherent
aggression and violence in becoming.
The Nightman approaches the sleeping boy from behind, turning away from
the face and betraying the trust of the boy. However, by doing so the Nightman initiates an event of
becoming, which forever changes the little boy. This event actually leads the boy on the path to fulfillment
by forcing him to become a man, finally allowing him to follow his line of
flight.
Hence,
the event of the coming of the Nightman leads the boy to a profound affirmation
of his own manliness. He gains the
strength to confront the troll that has dominated and territorialized every
aspect of his plane of immanence.
The troll demands, “Come over here and scratch my itchy-witchy
toesy-woesies… I control you!”
However, the coming of the Nightman has brought something the
despot-troll did not expect, for the boy has not emerged as Nightman, but as
Dayman, his polar opposite. The
boy now makes his declaration of manliness, “You control nothing. I am not you’re slave anymore, and I am
not a boy! I am not a man… I am…
the Dayman!” There is not a
dialectic established between the Nightman and the Dayman, the identity of ‘the
boy’ – which reflects Charlie – is not determined by the negation of the
two. Rather Charlie’s identity can
only be understood through Charlie’s desire to become ‘Dayman’ as he has shaped
his plane of immanence entirely in response to the event of the coming of the
Nightman.
Becoming the Charlie Day-man:
Princess: “You have defeated
the evil that was here. You once
were a boy but now you’re a man and I am in love with you.”
-From The Nightman Cometh, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia
Throughout
It’s Always Sunny there is one
character that embodies the new image of comedy in its fullest sense. That event is Charlie Kelly, who goes
by the first name of the actor who plays him, Charlie Day. Psychoanalysists would most likely kill
to get Charlie Kelly onto their plush velvet sofas. Throughout the course of several seasons the It’s Always
Sunny audience comes to learn that Charlie’s mother was – and actually still is
– a prostitute who commonly has relations with his Uncle. It also becomes quite evident however,
that this Uncle molested Charlie multiple times when he was a child, quite
possibly with the knowledge of his mother. Psychoanalysis will never be able to correctly understand
the impact these abuses had on Charlie however because the do not map out the
his schizophrenic desires that have arisen in response.
Only
schizo-analysis can begin to bring revelation about this character and the nonsensical
musical he produces. His drama,
‘The Nightman Cometh’, contains no symbolism and no deeper structure underlies
it. Only understanding it at its
surface can bring clarity. The
search for depth leads the Gang to look for meaning under the surface sense of
the plays songs and lines, causing them to see molestation everywhere within
it. Now obviously audiences –
although in multi-season long dramatic irony, not the Gang – make the obvious
connection between the abuses Charlie suffered in childhood and the Dayman’s
conflict with the troll and Nightman.
However, psychoanalysis offers no further understanding because it does
not see how the play is in response to Charlie’s desire, not his response to
being molested years ago.
A
the very end of the musical, after the choir has finished the last refrain of
Dayman, Charlie Kelly emerges in a brilliant yellow Producer’s suit to sing one
final song. In this song he
affirms his past, but also his becoming into something new. He reveals that the play was not
reactive, but an active force of his desire. What Charlie desires, is that Coffee-shop Princess singing
about little boys performed by Sweet Dee.
The real Coffee shop waitress is however sitting in the audience, for
Charlie had agreed to stop stalking her on the condition that she come watch
the musical. He reveals to the
entire audience that the entire play was only the instrument of his desire for
her.
“I was that little boy, that
little baby-boy was me, I once was a boy, but now I am a man, I fought the
Nightman, lived as Dayman, now I’m here to ask for your hand, so if you want to
marry, will you marry me?”
-from ‘The Nightman Cometh’,
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia
Obviously
her reply is a firm and resolute, “No!”
The Charlie Kelly of Philadelphia may have failed his audience, however
Charlie Day, the writer and actor, has provided real audiences with the perfect
summary of schizoid desire, all in within one twenty-two minute episode. His comprehension of how to keep a
character at the surface, of how to communicate a character’s desire, is
strongly reminiscent of another legend of American comedy with the same name,
Charlie Chaplin. These geniuses
keep their audiences from penetrating the surface of their show, relying on
nonsense to produce sense for their watchers. This is as Deleuze explains, “In all these respects, the
surface is the transcendental field itself, and the locus of sense and
expression.” (Deleuze, 125) Thus, they are able to create a world of continual
and violent deterriotrializiation that is quite simply very funny. As Deleuze writes about humor in The Logic of Sense, “The important thing
is to do it quickly: to find quickly something to designate, to eat, or to
break, which would replace the signification (the Idea) that you have been
invited to look for. All the
faster and better since there is no resemblance between what one points out and
what one has been asked.” (Deleuze, 135)
Charlie Day and the rest of the Gang from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia understand that humor functions
in this way, providing them with a finely honed comedic sense allowing them to
turn the most ordinary and meaningless of themes into absurdly revealing
situational comedy. They possess
what Deleuze refers to as an ‘odd inspiration’ — that, “one know how to
‘descend.’” (Deleuze, 135) This is
the new image of comedy.
