Why can't something funny be good?
This post is a follow-up to this one, about why there's no comedy training for actors.
This whole business is a symptom of a broader culture in which things that are funny can't possibly be good, and vice-versa. Think of this year's Oscars. "The Squid and the Whale," Noah Baumbach's wonderful serio-comic film, received the only comedy nomination in any of the major categories. The only one! Out of like 30! If you want to find any other comedy at all, you have to look at the animation category. I guess if it's funny, it isn't art.
Of course, this is self-reinforcing. If a funny prestige film gets no prestige, then why try to make funny prestige films? And if you're not making a prestige film, why not just aim for the bottom of the barrel?
Even the best comedies of the last few years, films like "School of Rock," "Rushmore," and "High Fidelity," are ignored. "Sideways" slipped through, but it was about hoity-toity stuff, which pretty much gives it a pass. I remember watching the good-but-not-great "In Good Company," and being shocked. Not because it was a shocking film, but simply because I realized I was watching a comedy that was trying to be a good film.
When no one's trying to make something good, the cream of the comedy crop ends up being semi-improvised mish-mashes like "The Wedding Crashers." There's a place for movies like that, don't get me wrong, but the pile-of-jokes thing gets old after a while. I mean, I liked "Old School," too, but I feel like I've been watching it over and over for five years.
"The 40-Year-Old Virgin" was a problematic film, but at least they gave it a shot. The main character had some dignity, the romance was somewhat credible. It was a bit bloated and a bit formulaic, but at least it didn't abandon all hope of being a story, with characters we care about.
At this year's SF Sketchfest, David Cross & Bob Odenkirk of Mr. Show pointed to the sketch-iness trend in recent comedies. Why bother with story, the asked, when people just want to see a bunch of jokes? Why not just make a sketch movie?
Like this post? Click here to subscribe to the blog.
This whole business is a symptom of a broader culture in which things that are funny can't possibly be good, and vice-versa. Think of this year's Oscars. "The Squid and the Whale," Noah Baumbach's wonderful serio-comic film, received the only comedy nomination in any of the major categories. The only one! Out of like 30! If you want to find any other comedy at all, you have to look at the animation category. I guess if it's funny, it isn't art.
Of course, this is self-reinforcing. If a funny prestige film gets no prestige, then why try to make funny prestige films? And if you're not making a prestige film, why not just aim for the bottom of the barrel?
Even the best comedies of the last few years, films like "School of Rock," "Rushmore," and "High Fidelity," are ignored. "Sideways" slipped through, but it was about hoity-toity stuff, which pretty much gives it a pass. I remember watching the good-but-not-great "In Good Company," and being shocked. Not because it was a shocking film, but simply because I realized I was watching a comedy that was trying to be a good film.
When no one's trying to make something good, the cream of the comedy crop ends up being semi-improvised mish-mashes like "The Wedding Crashers." There's a place for movies like that, don't get me wrong, but the pile-of-jokes thing gets old after a while. I mean, I liked "Old School," too, but I feel like I've been watching it over and over for five years.
"The 40-Year-Old Virgin" was a problematic film, but at least they gave it a shot. The main character had some dignity, the romance was somewhat credible. It was a bit bloated and a bit formulaic, but at least it didn't abandon all hope of being a story, with characters we care about.
At this year's SF Sketchfest, David Cross & Bob Odenkirk of Mr. Show pointed to the sketch-iness trend in recent comedies. Why bother with story, the asked, when people just want to see a bunch of jokes? Why not just make a sketch movie?
Like this post? Click here to subscribe to the blog.
posted by Jesse Thorn at Friday, March 10, 2006
1 Comments:
You missed Kiss Kiss Bang Bang...But the whole topic is problematical. As Peter O'Toole repeated in My Favorite Year(a good comedy that):"Dying is easy. Comedy is Hard."
Part of the problem is that TV is better than or on par with cinema -- which may not say much, but these's not a qualitative difference between the two mediums in way of generating laughs. This is partly why old sitcom DVD's have such a market.
But the other aspect -- which you touch on, at least in the US -- is that comedy is being compartmentalised and the route to the cinema is so well worn (standup/SNL/features/sitcom...)that you cannot expect much else with a limited pedigree to draw from primartily because of the selective process involved.The herd's bif but they are fighting over the same gen pool.
For my money the Christopher Guest stuff ( eg; A Might Wind) shows what is posible with a certain take that is both original and consistently funny.
But elsehwere in the world it is just as doldrum like -- at best it in TV that the stuff shines , look at Britain or here in Australia where the film industry is in poor shape.
And the interesting road in Britain is Radio > Television and sometimes to film --as has happened to the Kumar crowd and the delightfull Little Britain.
By the time it gets to film speak it is leeched of a lot of its spontaneity and drive. Its a hard medium for comics: look at Peter Sellers -- 3-5 great comic movies amongh crap (and with the Pink Panther out we can wonder what happened to Steve Martin en route to the box office too.)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home