"This human life-feeling is the essence of comedy. [...] The illusion of life which the comic poet creates is the oncoming future fraught with dangers and opportunities, that is, with physical or social events occurring by chance and building up the coincidences with which individuals cope according to their lights." (Susanne K. Langer, “The Comic Rhythm” 331).
“With humans… there’s a tendency to die.” (What We Do in the Shadows 00:38:33-00:38:35).
In her essay “The Great Dramatic Forms: The Comic Rhythm,” Susanne Langer proposes that the heart of comedy is the depiction of human vitality against the backdrop of the World, which she also refers to as “Fortune” or “the great game with Chance” (“The Comic Rhythm” 331, 349). This vitality that defines comedy, Langer argues, originates from the uniquely human urge to “look for as much life as possible between birth and death” (“The Comic Rhythm” 333). This impulse propels human existence forward, leading people to deal with coincidences, opportunities, and dangers on the way to a happy ending – a vision of “unity, growth, and self-preservation” (“The Comic Rhythm” 350). Apparently, it is this adventure that all comedy seeks to portray – the hearty, vital, human, “rhythm of felt-life” (“The Comic Rhythm” 350). To Langer, comedy has a heartbeat.
I wonder what she would think about a comedy that has no heartbeat, literally – one that isn’t even about the “pre-deceased.” The 2015 mockumentary What We Do in the Shadows is about three flat-sharing vampires in modern day New Zealand, fielding all at once undead-ness, love, rivalry, secrecy, and the chore chart. The comedy of What We Do in the Shadows employs the undead to mimic the “human life-feeling” as identified by Langer. I will explore how the vital comic narratives of the film successfully build the evasion of death into the characters’ quest to cope with events of “life” – the coincidences that come their way. The vital feeling of life and of comedy persists even while “life” is less of a cycle or a circle, but a really, really, really long, squiggly line.
Langer puts great emphasis on coincidence in her definition of the “life” that comedy envisions. She writes, “The feeling of comedy is a feeling of heightened vitality [...] engaged in the great game with Chance” (“The Comic Rhythm” 349). To my mind, her idea here necessitates that comedy involves two forces constantly at odds with each other – the human (the bearer of vitality) and the coincidence that life entails. This “great game with Chance” is exactly what it says on the tin: “physical or social events occurring by chance” (“The Comic Rhythm” 331), involving no higher forces, nor any rhyme or reason that drive these events – only pure coincidences. In this respect, What We Do in the Shadows successfully delivers Langer’s illusion of life, because coincidences are baked into the film’s comic plot. In fact, the film is almost entirely coincidence-driven; one can hardly find any long-lasting motives culminating in actions that drive the plot forward.
An example of a coincident-driven plotline is the final comic act of the film: the Unholy Masquerade and the events that follow, which is set off by a single coincidence. Vladislav, the suave ex-tyrant vampire, is hopeful that he will be the guest of honor to the annual Unholy Masquerade. To his surprise, his ex-girlfriend, whom he refers to as “the Beast,” is awarded the title. This plot point is delivered as a complete coincidence in a letter (which might as well be a lottery ticket), offering no explanation or motives as to why the Beast is deserving of the title, or why Vladislav is not. This coincidence sets up the final act of the comedy: the vampires attend the Masquerade, unwittingly bringing along their human friend Stu and then having to defend him against a swarm of hungry ghouls, vampires, and zombies (and later, werewolves). In this act, Vladislav’s character arc is driven to its climax: he confronts the Beast to save his friend. Together with the other vampires, Vladislav shields Stu =from the undead guests while verbally and physically challenging both the Beast and her new ghoul boyfriend (What We Do in the Shadows 1:06:33 - 1:10:06). Vladislav’s actions are evidently merely reactions to these circumstances – the coincidences. He plays no part in engineering the situation, only reacts to it. In doing so, he evokes all aspects of his character: his friendship with Stu and the vampires, his emphasis on sexual appeal/rivalry, and his conflict with the Beast. The motion of the comic narrative is therefore precisely what Langer orders: coincidence(s) are delivered, and then the ways that “individuals cope according to their lights” (“The Comic Rhythm” 331).
However, in depicting coincidence (which Langer posits as an essential trait of “life”), What We Do in the Shadows does not attempt to fool us into thinking what we are watching is life unfolding. The fact that our characters are undead is never taken for granted or glossed over. In other words, our vampires are not humans who just happen to be undead; they are undead creatures dealing with uniquely undead coincidences. Langer suggests that the friction of human vitality against the coincidences of the world must somehow involve the quality of being alive, by virtue of being in between birth and death. She writes, “[t]he extraordinary activity of man’s brain [...] outruns the order of animal interests [...] and gives his life a new pattern dominated by his foreknowledge of death” (“The Comic Rhythm” 333). The fact that life must end (in death) gives significance to the events of life (its coincidences), and calls on man, motivating him to cope with life.
The use of coincidences in What We Do in the Shadows both subverts and extends Langer’s theory about what constitutes comic life. Inherently subversive to Langer’s idea that life gains meaning from its ending in death, What We Do in the Shadows’ coincidences are always built upon the characters’ undead quality. Beyond Vladislav’s misfortune, other coincidences featured in the film follow the same motif: the coincidence setting up a comic situation where characters must demonstrate how they cope “according to their lights” (“The Comic Rhythm” 331). For no apparent reason (at least, not to the vampires and by extension, us), Deacon’s familiar – Jackie – happens to be turned into a vampire by Nick (and comedy ensues when Deacon runs into her). For no apparent reason, Viago happens to decide that it is time to woo Katherine again in her nursing home (and comedy ensues when the pair unite and their appearance doesn’t match their real age gap of 379 and 96 – vampires’ appearances don’t age). In the first coincidence, the undead is the essential ingredient – Jackie must have evaded death and therefore become Deacon’s equal – to set up the comedic situation of Deacon losing his employee. In the second, the coincidence hinges entirely on the fact that Viago is undead and can turn Katherine into a vampire, enabling them to escape death together. This evasion of death is necessary for the coincidence to set up the comedic situation, for the jokes about Viago being a “cradle-snatcher” to be comedic. Neither of these coincidences would have been possible, or able to produce a comedic situation afterwards, if they weren’t centered upon the fact that these characters are not subject to “life” processes such as aging… or death.
But What We Do in the Shadows contains more than these situational coincidences. That these characters are undead in the first place is the most encompassing coincidence of all. They become vampires through coincidences, completely devoid of any reason. Originally supposed to be the trio’s victim, Nick was turned into a vampire by Petyr as a coincidence – no motives offered (and comedy ensues from Nick’s inability to keep his vampire status a secret (What We Do in the Shadows 00:41:13 - 00:42:30)). Viago and Vladislav offered none of their vampire origin stories – we are supposed to accept that they became vampires one day, unexplained; whereas Petyr just happened to turn Deacon into a vampire, the story of which Deacon gleefully recounted as his comedic meet-cute with Petyr (What We Do in the Shadows 00:05:38 - 00:06:48). Evidently, these original coincidence(s), those which spawned our vampires, set up the comedy of the entire film. In short, the film itself starts in coincidences. In recognizing that the film wields coincidences as a recursive force to generate all comic acts, we arrive at this unexpected realization: for all its subversion, What We Do in the Shadows indeed still inherits Langer’s comic rhythm of life despite its focus on the undead. Our comic poets – Waititi and Clement – portray their own version of Langer’s comic Fortune, not as a mirror image of life which gains meaning from its ending in death, but meaningful and possible because of the evasion of death.
Moving beyond the minute mechanics of coincidence, I am eager to validate that the comic movement employed in What We Do in the Shadows ends where Langer theorizes it should. Langer posits that the vital response to coincidences moves comic narratives towards the vision of “unity, growth, and self-preservation” (“The Comic Rhythm” 350). This vision is inherently “light” (“The Comic Rhythm” 348), with each individual’s response to the events of life being a “delightful encounter” (“The Comic Rhythm” 349). This vision is indeed represented by the ending of What We Do in the Shadows. The motionsof coincidence for Viago culminates in the reunion between himself and Katherine. A similar motion for Vladislav culminates in his reunion with “the Beast.” In fact, everyone gets a happy ending: Nick – banished from the vampires’ household – is again welcomed into the group, Stu – believed to be mauled to death by werewolves – returns mostly unscathed (self-preserved) as a werewolf (and thus, integrated into the undead society), and the territorial rivalry between werewolves and vampires ens with a homely visit that signals newfound unity. The film ends with a celebration – a sing-and-dance montage inside the vampires’ flat, featuring indeed as many characters as possible, all healthy and happy, heartily rounding out Langer’s comic narrative. Undead quality notwithstanding, the comic narrative of What We Do in the Shadows perfectly captures the coincidental nature of vitality that Langer identifies with comedy. Throughout its vital coincidences, What We Do in the Shadows skillfully weaves in the ever-present undead quality of its characters, simultaneously reminding us of the very lack of death and presenting (the undead version of) Langer’s rhythm of life.
Now, I want to move even further beyond the flow of the comic rhythm and examine the very concept of life and death as Langer theorizes. At the very core of her argument about the comic rhythm, Langer assumes that humans would naturally move to respond to coincidences of life in the first place. That when faced with events of Chance, man would unquestioningly exercise his vitality, because he is blessed with his “foreknowledge of death” (“The Comic Rhythm” 333). In other words, merely by virtue of existing between birth and death, humans for Langer naturally embark on the great undertaking to “look for as much life as possible between birth and death – for adventure, variety and intensity of experience, and the sense of growth that increase of personality and social status can give” (“The Comic Rhythm” 333).
The humans of What We Do in the Shadows indicate otherwise. While the undead – our vampires and werewolves – are embodiments of the vital quality of life, ready to take on uniquely undead coincidences in their uniquely undead ways, the living in the movie are plagued with a sluggish inertia that resists all the coincidences and events of life. Viago, upon discovering video calling, calls on his old servant Phillip. Phillip reminds his former master of his promise to turn Phillip into a vampire, pleading, “I am 90 years old. You promised, and now I am so old. I never did anything with my life, I’ve been waiting…” – and Viago cuts the call (What We Do in the Shadows 00:39:40 - 00:40:29). Interestingly, the same dynamic (a human servant doing a vampire’s bidding in the hopes of eventually being turned into one) is repeated with Jackie, Deacon’s servant. Jackie frustratedly explains to Deacon her dilemma: that she is aging and wants to be “the best version of [herself]” (for the rest of eternity), therefore hopes to be bitten soon (What We Do in the Shadows 00:18:23 - 00:18:58). Yet for all her aspirations for self-improvement, she wastes time doing the vampires’ chores instead of spending time on her life. Inferably, she would have met the same fate as Phillip, if not for Nick turning her into a vampire (this was presented as a coincidence, for what it’s worth – he offered no explanations for this “favor”) (What We Do in the Shadows 01:02:00 - 01:02:38).
The only humans featured in the film fail to harness their “human” vitality. Focused only on becoming undead, they do not seek out any great adventures, nor demonstrate how they deal with coincidences of life. They put their life on hold and wait around in the hopes for eternal life, not doing anything with the one they currently have. This lethargic image of humans simultaneously conforms to Langer’s view of humans’ innate drive for adventure and subverts it. These human characters affirm Langer via proof of contradiction: since they do not view their life as the space between birth and death (they hope to omit death entirely), they disregard the coincidences of life entirely and withhold all vital reactions. If only they weren’t so set on evading death! At the same time, What We Do in the Shadows’ humans subvert Langer’s view in that even though they are viscerally aware of their own (decidedly human) aging process – and by extension mortality — they are not of their vitality. This suggests one does not automatically possess vitality by virtue of being human. And third time’s the charm: the film further drives home this paradox by showing Vladislav rapidly aging when distressed about the Beast (What We Do in the Shadows 01:00:50 - 01:01:16). His brief experience with this process of life, that which is reserved for the living, occurs when he was in a catatonic state, refusing to get dressed for the Unholy Masquerade. Instead of coping with the coincidence that comes his way, he actively recoils from it.
In defining comic rhythm as the rhythm of life, Langer does not explicitly define what death is. I humbly present a suggestion: death is hiding. Irrespective of material, physical death, a figurative death where one hides instead of courageously, heartily takes on coincidences is powerful enough to be the antithesis to vitality – and by extension halt the comic rhythm. Before, I proposed that What We Do in the Shadows leans on the evasion of death to power its coincidence-driven comic rhythm. Even so, the film is not devoid of death – death is found in the living. (We may speculate on the fact that Jackie not being allowed to die this death, instead ending up with a coincidence-driven happy ending, is what allows What We Do in the Shadows to remain a comedy.) I propose a complementary extension to Langer’s theory of the comic rhythm of life: the vitality at the heart of comedy does not necessitate the foreknowledge of death, or even come from humans at all for that matter (our vampires made that clear). The only prerequisite to generating this vital feeling is a relentless drive to rise against the currents of life – the coincidences brought on by the great game of Chance. Against the backdrop of coincidences of Fortune and towards a vision of harmony, What We Do in the Shadows effectively explores the unexpected associations between the living and death and the undead and life to create its unique, subversive, vital comic rhythm.
Langer, Susanne K. “The Great Dramatic Forms: The Comic Rhythm.” In Feeling and Form: A Theory of Art. Charles Scribner and Sons, 1955.
What We Do in the Shadows. Directed by Taika Waititi and Jemaine Clement, 2015.
my resume ---- my LinkedIn ---- my e-mail