"Man, you got to see Up in Smoke," a friend of mine informed me. This friend of mine was a cool friend. He was hip, and everyone wanted to be his friend. "That thing is hilarious," he furthered. I saw it as my job, as a kid, to see this movie and love it as much as he did. I was probably in the fifth grade. It was an impressionable age for me. Everyone I knew loved Cheech and Chong, and most of them said that Up in Smoke was their best by far. I’m not sure if I was particularly naive, or if everyone loved the movie to say they loved the movie.

When I finally watched the movie, I didn't get it.  I tried really hard to get it, but I just didn’t see the allure of it. I didn’t want to be seen as a naive, little kid though, so I lied. I told them I got it. I even managed to memorize a few lines they gave, and I repeated them with laughter. Later on, when I watched it with friends, I made sure I was laughing in all the right places.

Robert Bork wrote of a societal phenomenon called Sliding towards Gomorrah.  In it, Bork wrote of American society’s incremental progression towards the immoral practices of the Biblican city of Gomorrah. As evidence of his thesis, he wrote of the pervasive progression of pornography. He wrote that there was a time when one could attain the label of pariah if he was seen leaving a theater that played pornographic material, the progression to video stores lessened the inhibitions of those seeking the titillation of the material, and the internet lessened it even more to a point where pornography is nearly an acceptable genre of entertainment in the modern age of these United States.

In my life, I have seen some of the same progressions in the art of comedy. What is funny is relative, of that there is no doubt, but to what is it relative? The first and greatest vein of comedy is your own experience. If a comedian, or a comedy, can tap into an experience you’ve had, he can effortlessly create something that is funny. For the comedian, or screenwriter, funny cannot be all about experience however, for the comedian cannot rely on the fact that he’s touching each individual’s wide ranging experiences. With that in mind, an artist must create funny.

What is funny though? Is there a chemistry to funny? Is there a beat to funny? Is funny all about breaking societal taboos? A famous philosopher once stated that it is easier to entertain than it is to educate.  To further this quote, it is far easier to shock than it is to entertain. 

Falling is funny. Mel Brooks once said that if you fall down a manhole, that’s funny. If I do, that’s tragedy. Slapstick material such as that enacted by the Three Stooges, the Airplane guys and Chevy Chase is universal and timeless. Everyone from the little old lady to the five year old boy can find humor in a guy falling, getting poked in the eye, or having a pie thrown in his face.

Falling will gain you a cheap laugh, however, it’s never going to gain you the label hilarious. Falling will never gain you the label revolutionary. The politically partisan critics will never label you groundbreaking with a fall, and you will never gain street cred by falling.

The question then becomes: how does one evolve the art form of comedy to suit his material and possibly change the minds of his audience to see the tragedy of his life and derive humor from it? Without having lived in the era, I can guess that Richard Pryor’s endless routines on drug use would not have worked with a 1930's audience. They may have been silenced with awe and sadness for the incidents that occurred in the man’s life, but a majority of people would not have thought him funny. In the late 70's and early 80's, however, the man was king of the comedy castle. The question that arises is: did we come down to his level, or did he come down to ours?

Many in Pryor’s inner circle claimed that the man hated white people, and I don’t think it’s much of a stretch–-based on his voluminous drug intake--to say that Pryor hated himself. He changed how we looked at our world with his comedy however, and he also changed what we thought was funny. Previous to Pryor, not many of us thought racial strife was funny. He created funny in our minds on this topic. Previous to Pryor, not many of us considered drug intake funny. He made it so.

In the course of his career, with his coarse material, Pryor gained the labels revolutionary and groundbreaking from politically partisan, cultural elites in the critical fields. They gave him the title hilarious, and even if a part of us didn’t find his material "hilarious" we kept it secret, for we didn’t want to be seen as naive, little kids or old sticks in the mud who held true to his puritanical ideals. We learned that it was funny, or we conditioned ourselves to consider it.

As for the labels "revolutionary" and "groundbreaking" granted to Pryor, I cannot quibble. He almost single-handedly redefined funny, but did he change it for the better? Isn’t it every man’s goal to leave this place a better world than it was when he entered onto it?

One who broke onto the scene, on Pryor’s coattails, was Cheech Marin. Cheech once spoke about the arc of his career in comedy. He said that when he attempted mainstream comedy, he and Tommy Chong were not very successful. When they began to focus their material on drug use and sexual exploits, their careers took off. At what price though? When they eventually leave this world, can they look back on their careers and made their mark on the world, and the world is a better place because of it?

Some will argue for the legalization on drugs, but I don’t think anyone can argue that the world will be a better place because drugs are made more available. With that in mind, how does one break down the barriers of society and open the flood gates to debauchery: you make them laugh at themselves.

How does one break down the puritanical barriers on sexual promiscuity, you make them laugh. You tell them, through humor that they are nothing but sticks in the mud for believing that sexual activity should be reserved for marriage.

How does one break the powerful taboo placed on homosexuality, you make them laugh.

How many of us have engaged in promiscuous sexual activity, how many of us have injected or smoked illicit drugs into our bodies? How can we make them laugh at that, when they can’t relate to it at all?

What is the legacy of Cheech and Chong, Pryor, Carlin and the many other comedians who spoke of illicit drug use, carnal activity and general nihilism? What brought about a progression of a generation? How did risque comedy become so redefined that a newcomer to the scene, such as Cheech Marin, had to focus on drugs and sex if he wanted a career in comedy?

I was too young to understand the brand of humor of a Cheech and Chong brought to America in their prime, but peer pressure being what it is I learned that if I wanted to be seen as cool I would have to consider them funny. I learned by watching friends, my friend’s parents and my classmates. Like I said, I was young and impressionable. I wanted to learn adult humor, and I would later learn that if I was to ever be considered hip or cool I would have to be laughing myself to tears over this material.

I learned that drugs and sex were funny. Cussing was funny too after awhile. Cussing was funny at first, because it was naughty. I learned a lot in my life.  I spent a lot of time in school, and I've spent a lot of time in my various circles of life learning about our culture and our way of life.  I've learned that cussing, sex and drugs are funny because they are naughty.

"I can’t believe he described sex in such a casual, bawdy manner, or that he did drugs while there?" Rarely is a guy funny, in this day and age, if he is currently doing drugs. Most of us agree that that is a little sad. If a guy used to alter his mind with hallucinogenic substances...Oh LORD! If he did bizarre things while his mind was altered, he might be able to fashion himself a career.

In a Rolling Stone interview, the man behind the Darth Vader mask, David Prowse, once said he did more cocaine during the filming of the Star Wars movies than there is snow on Hoth. On the surface, this isn’t really that funny, but if you factor in the idea that he was a child’s icon it is hilarious. Really? Why? Is it because Prowse pulled the ultimate naughty...doing drugs while doing that?

How far can the boundaries of the shock value of comedy go? We now have Howard Stern, shock jocks daring people to have sex in churches, American Pie, Friends, Chris Rock and the list goes on. Will there be an unconscious rebellion that eventually occurs one day when the bubble cannot be stretched anymore, or will the progression continue ad infinitum?