First of all, here is an importantstatement I feel like I have to establish before I start this paper over: amusement is a relative concept meaning it is not quite the same depending on individuals.
I personally really liked how he usedbody language to show his point, his speech being punctuated with funny and yet very exaggerated gestures. I think that without those movements, his show would have been less enjoyable, even boring.Pulling faces and large expressive movements contributed a lot to the comic aspect of the show, from my point of view.
I have to add that the audience is more prone to laugh at his saying if theyalready had a cat or a dog or if they do have one at the moment. My point being, his whole text is based on pet’s bizarre ways of acting in presence of humans, I guess that if people never had experiencedthose things themselves, it is harder to actually understand the simple truthfulness and absurdity of the situation.
How well and exact that man was able to reproduce and explain pet’s ways ofacting in such simple and close to reality means is simply amazing. This is mainly also what makes it so funny : how light and harmless he shares his observations. But, I must admit that Carlin’s scriptsubject was not somehow well refined nor deep but he still managed to be pretty entertaining in its own simplicity.
Finally, both the reasons I have been developing may be subject to disagreementsince they are mine and totally questionable. In my opinion, hand gestures and mimicry, as well as the truth and the innocence of his text all together were the reasons why George Carlin’s the...