The Green Room - What makes a good comedy?

Reply #30 - Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 10:30am

The Dark Knight Ex Member

Tshep wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 10:26am:

Quote:

[Perhaps then I misunderstand the the definition of "farce".

Per Websters:

Quote:

A farce is a comedy written for the stage which tries to entertain the audience by means of unlikely and extravagant yet possible situations, mistaken identities, crude verbal humour including puns and sexual innuendo, and a fast-paced plot whose speed usually increases even further towards the end of the play.

As opposed to romantic comedies, farces usually do not contain a traditional love interest or boy meets girl situation. Rather, they focus on the protagonist's urge to hide something from the other characters and the unforeseen chain reaction triggered by this attempt. Usually, there is only one setting throughout the play, in the majority of cases the drawing room of a family home which has numerous doors (and possibly French windows) leading to bedrooms, the kitchen, cupboards, and the garden. Alternatively, the setting can be a hotel or hospital room or an office.

Having no time to step back and consider what they have been doing or will be doing next, the protagonist has soon passed the point of no return, erroneously believing that any course of action is preferable to being found out or admitting the truth themselves. This way they get deeper and deeper into "trouble".

Many farces move at frantic pace toward the climax, in which the initial problem is resolved one way or another, often through a deus ex machina twist of the plot. Generally, there is a happy ending. To the audience's delight, however, the convention of poetic justice is not always observed: The protagonist may get away with what they have been trying to hide at all costs, even if it is a criminal act.

This skeleton in the closet may be real or just imagined (i e based on some misunderstanding or a misinterpretation of facts); a secret which concerns the immediate present or the long-forgotten past and has just re-emerged and started to threaten the main character's security or peace and quiet, at least seemingly. The subject-matters chosen by the various writers of farce reflect the social mores of the time: In the late 19th century, it can be a woman lying about her real age, or a man having an illegitimate child. In the course of the 20th century, it is mainly infidelity, with the protagonist trying to prevent their extra-marital affair from becoming publicly known.

As far as ridiculous, far-fetched situations and quick and witty repartee are concerned, there are parallels between farces on the one hand and TV sitcoms (such as John Cleese's Fawlty Towers) and, in film, screwball comedies on the other. See also bedroom farce.

Thanks. It turns out I understood the general definition correctly, I think I was just underestimating the importance of innuendo.

But, there's an example: innuendo leaves something to the audiencde imagnation, and is much more clever and funny than simply blurting out something crass.

I'm reminded of a line from "The Simpsons": "Her idea of wit is nothing more than an insightful observation phrased it a clever way and delivered with impeccable timing." In essence, that's my defintion of good comedy. "Fraiser" had it. The best farces have it. Adam Sandler movies and most modern "parodies" don't.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #31 - Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 10:34am

Tshep Offline
Ingenue
It made me feel sad, and
just a little bit dirty.
Beebe, Arkansas

Gender:
Posts: 723

Quote:

But I find I laugh harder at that which stors an emotion or thought deeper than "He fell down. Ha ha." �Consider Groucho Marx sparring with a pompous foil. The universal desire to see someone with an inflated sense of dignity deprived of that dignity is, to me, a little more complex than slippping on a banana peel, but just as universal, and much funnier. It's still about getting laughs, but it is, in my opinion, a higher quality laugh.

In a relative sense, yes indeed the laugh is higher-quality.... for you. But both scenario touch a response that is quite base and primal and cross cultural divides.

Even so-called sophisticated, intellectual humour is structured on the matrix of low-comedy. The more complex an elaboration, however, the further the comedy recedes from the universal. In the end, what may be terribly funny to you; largely due to complexity, is lost (or worse, viewed as precious and self-indulgent) to the majority.

They say, best men are moulded out of faults; &&And, for the most, become much more the better &&For being a little bad.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #32 - Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 10:36am

Wc365 Offline
All Access
The Random Element
West Punkt

Posts: 11610

Tshep wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 10:34am:

Quote:

But I find I laugh harder at that which stors an emotion or thought deeper than "He fell down. Ha ha." �Consider Groucho Marx sparring with a pompous foil. The universal desire to see someone with an inflated sense of dignity deprived of that dignity is, to me, a little more complex than slippping on a banana peel, but just as universal, and much funnier. It's still about getting laughs, but it is, in my opinion, a higher quality laugh.

In a relative sense, yes indeed the laugh is higher-quality.... for you. But both scenario touch a response that is quite base and primal and cross cultural divides.

Even so-called sophisticated, intellectual humour is structured on the matrix of low-comedy. The more complex an elaboration, however, the further the comedy recedes from the universal. In the end, what may be terribly funny to you; largely due to complexity, is lost (or worse, viewed as precious and self-indulgent) to the majority.

Practical application: Three Stooges- universally funny. Britcoms- only funny to roughly a quarter of the English speaking world.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #33 - Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 10:47am

The Dark Knight Ex Member

Tshep wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 10:34am:

Quote:

But I find I laugh harder at that which stors an emotion or thought deeper than "He fell down. Ha ha." �Consider Groucho Marx sparring with a pompous foil. The universal desire to see someone with an inflated sense of dignity deprived of that dignity is, to me, a little more complex than slippping on a banana peel, but just as universal, and much funnier. It's still about getting laughs, but it is, in my opinion, a higher quality laugh.

In a relative sense, yes indeed the laugh is higher-quality.... for you. But both scenario touch a response that is quite base and primal and cross cultural divides.

Even so-called sophisticated, intellectual humour is structured on the matrix of low-comedy. The more complex an elaboration, however, the further the comedy recedes from the universal. In the end, what may be terribly funny to you; largely due to complexity, is lost (or worse, viewed as precious and self-indulgent) to the majority.

True. On the other hand, there are many of us who don't laugh at someone slipping on a banana peel. Which is why I say I ideailize the balance of "Frasier" or the best of "The Simpsons": A more "high-brow" joke is alternated with a more "low-brow" joke. �Didn't get that reference to histroy or art? it doesn't matter. Homer is about to do something stupid that will make us laugh on a basic level. Didn't laugh at the pandering fart joke? It doesn't matter. Something truly clever is about to happen that will make you laugh on a more "sophisticated" level. And so on. Everyone is pleased (to the extent that such a thing is possible). That's the way Shakespeare did it. The essence of universal comedy. I never argued against ANY "low" comedy. I argued against it being used EXCLUSIVELY.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #34 - Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 10:51am

Tshep Offline
Ingenue
It made me feel sad, and
just a little bit dirty.
Beebe, Arkansas

Gender:
Posts: 723

Quote:

Tshep wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 10:34am:

Quote:

But I find I laugh harder at that which stors an emotion or thought deeper than "He fell down. Ha ha." �Consider Groucho Marx sparring with a pompous foil. The universal desire to see someone with an inflated sense of dignity deprived of that dignity is, to me, a little more complex than slippping on a banana peel, but just as universal, and much funnier. It's still about getting laughs, but it is, in my opinion, a higher quality laugh.

In a relative sense, yes indeed the laugh is higher-quality.... for you. But both scenario touch a response that is quite base and primal and cross cultural divides.

Even so-called sophisticated, intellectual humour is structured on the matrix of low-comedy. The more complex an elaboration, however, the further the comedy recedes from the universal. In the end, what may be terribly funny to you; largely due to complexity, is lost (or worse, viewed as precious and self-indulgent) to the majority.

Practical application: Three Stooges- universally funny. �Britcoms- only funny to roughly a quarter of the English speaking world.

Yes.... however there are modifiers to this. Note that, although the Stooges can be found funny by the vast majority, they are generally funnier to men.

And, there are Britcoms that aim their humor more universally (Coupling, for instance) and are funnier to a broader swath.

Getting back to DK's premise... I believe we can agree that although low-comedy may not be considered the most satisfying to some; it is the most effective across the most diverse range of audience AND is at the foundation of anything more complex.

I would offer that the quality of the basic components make the most difference. It is something like comparing haute cuisine to the whole food movement. Technique matters less when the ingredients are the best.

They say, best men are moulded out of faults; &&And, for the most, become much more the better &&For being a little bad.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #35 - Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 11:03am

The Dark Knight Ex Member

Tshep wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 10:51am:

[quote author=Card of the Wild link=1214017573/30#32 date=1214239008]

Getting back to DK's premise... I believe we can agree that although low-comedy may not be considered the most satisfying to some; it is the most effective across the most diverse range of audience AND is at the foundation of anything more complex.

I would offer that the quality of the basic components make the most difference. It is something like comparing haute cuisine to the whole food movement. Technique matters less when the ingredients are the best.

Agreed. I'm simply saying that "Frasier" and "The Simpsons" appeal to more people than Adam Sandler and "Married With Children" (simple ratings and box office support that) because of the way they expand on those elements. I absolutely agree with you that those are the foundations of universal comedy.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #36 - Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 11:15am

The Dark Knight Ex Member

I would also argue that relying open the same basic lowbrow schtick will serve you well for a time, but will eventually become stale and lose public support. Ask Mike Myers if this is true as he looks at the weekend grosses for "The Love Guru".

Back to top

IP Logged

BackStage Utah