If you have ever been to a revival screening of a movie, you are likely familiar with the problem of inappropriate laughter. Inevitably, there are always a few people who find a non-comedy film laugh out loud hilarious, seemingly because the movie is old. Is this just a few rude moviegoers, or is this part of something bigger?

I had heard of this problem before, but I had never experienced firsthand until earlier this year. Chicago's Music Box Theatre, a local art house theater, held a David Lynch retrospective. Lynch is not exactly known for comedy, but it appears the audience did not get the memo.

The opening night screening of "Mulholland Drive" was an absolute shock. There is a famously unsettling scene in the film in which a man in a diner recalls a nightmare he had in which a hideous figure emerged from behind a dumpster. He exits the restaurant only to find this nightmare play out in reality.

It is a surreal and shocking moment that is typical of Lynch's films. And yet the Music Box audience thought this was the pinnacle of comedy, laughing uproariously as the figure suddenly appears from behind the dumpster, effectively killing whatever terror might otherwise be derived from this scene. This continued on throughout the week, with audiences laughing their way through decidedly unfunny and disturbing Lynch films like "Blue Velvet" and "Lost Highway".

This phenomenon has been called "performance laughter", and it is hardly unique to the Music Box.

I have thought about this problem throughout the year, and I cannot think of any cure-all solution. I have been to a few screenings at the Music Box where the host presenting the film asked the audience not to laugh at the film because of its age, but this has only been occasionally successful. What drives people to laugh at old films? Is it even right to tell people how to enjoy a film?

Based on the number of films I have seen with inappropriate laughter from the audiences, I have come to a few conclusions. The films that garner the most laughter are those that are weird or otherwise unconventional, movies that are dated products of their time, and films with any sort of moment that is embedded in popular culture. It is also worth noting that when the audience for a revival screening skews towards older people, the laughter is nonexistent (e.g. there was not a peep at the revival screenings of "Cool Hand Luke" or "Wings").

I have not conducted a formal survey, but my guess is that the cause of this laughter is a desire to be an active participant in a group experience. Audience members laugh at Dennis Hopper's tirade against Heineken beer in "Blue Velvet" because that tirade is part of the pop culture lexicon. The laugher wants everyone to know that they too are aware of the pop culture status of that dialogue.

Laughter also frequently arises from a recognition of a false danger, as a means of relieving tension. Thus, when a film presents a disturbing or strange moment, the laughter arises as a means of reconciling something that briefly upsets the normality of filmmaking conventions.

More cynical (and older) writers who have touched on the subject have blamed this problem on the current generation and the blanket term "hipsters". While it is true that this is chiefly a problem exhibited by younger viewers, I think it is perhaps reductive to blame it on some ironic "hipster" disposition. Certainly, the "so bad it's good" culture of ironic movie watching may be partly to blame. When taken to a logical extreme, anything that is remotely campy or dated becomes the subject of mocking laughter, regardless of the film's overall quality. However, I think this is all part of a greater problem of a lack of arts education and media literacy.

I do not believe an entire packed theater of people paid to see the 1925 "The Phantom of the Opera" just to laugh at it.

I do think, however, that most people are unfamiliar with silent films and perhaps not prepared for the acting style of that era. Silent film acting more closely resembles theater acting, and as such features broadly telegraphed facial expressions and gesticulations. To someone unfamiliar with silent films, this can be off-putting and seem ridiculous, and thus worthy of laughter. However, anyone who is marginally familiar with silent films will know that this style of acting is par for the course.

It is not such a simple fix to educate every moviegoer on film. Many people do not go to the movies often enough for film education to be meaningful. Inappropriate movie laughter is a tricky problem to fix, and perhaps there is no solution. A true fix would probably require a complete overhaul of the human behavior of laughing at the unfamiliar and strange, and that is obviously not realistic. It sure would be great if people just laughed at comedies, though.