Yuri Tsivian: The trendline at 6 gives a frequency picture of laughters.
Yuri Tsivian: Change height to 500 to see Chaplin’s laughter economy. Note that the hightest laughter intensity typically coinsides with the areas of the highest frequency. Am I imagining things, but this correlation between frequency and intensity reminds one of something I heard people say about coitus and orgasm. Cinemetrics, brace yourself to measure hard porn!
Torey Liepa: This is a fascinating alternative use of Cinemetrics. Particularly interesting is the fact that “Laughter” is nearly always bracketed by “Giggles,” such that the audience rarely shifts from a “Chuckle” to outright “Laughter,” but rather transfers progressively to “Giggles” first, though this could be in part a reflection of the measurer’s perspective. I am assuming that “Giggles” are more emphatic that “Chuckles” though on the other hand each could refer to an entirely different mode of laughter altogether. Perhaps you could include “Chortle” in purple for those rare expulsions of cathexis found in slapstick comedy and This is Spinal Tap…
Yuri Tsivian: By chucles I meant the low-level sounds, though as I heard them against the film I realized that these often are reactions to subtle jokes, visual gags, etc; not necessarily something inferior to louder giggles or still louder laughter. And yes, I notices that laughter must be built up by modest jokes.
