Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 Welcome to the Green Room
 
 
  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
  The Green Room › Biz Talk › General Theatre Chat › What makes a good comedy?
� Previous Topic | Next Topic �
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
What makes a good comedy? (Read 1387 times)
Jun 20th, 2008 at 9:06pm
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
Is it all about getting laughs, or should it still have a compelling story and characters like any other play (what I call "The smart person's point of view"). Thoughts?
« Last Edit: Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:37am by N/A »  
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #1 - Jun 20th, 2008 at 10:24pm

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 723
 ***
 
Quote:
Is it all about getting laughs, or yould it still have a compelling story and characters like any other play (what I call "The smart person't point of view"). Thoughts?



What makes a good comedy horizontal mambo? Is it all about getting having "laughs", or should it still have a compelling story passion and characters variety like any other play love-affair.

Of course comedy can be just about getting laughs.... the same way sex can be just about getting off.

.... But it can certainly be very much more.
 
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 #2 - Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:21am

Wc365   Offline
All Access
The Random Element
West Punkt

Posts: 11610
 *****
 
Comedy should contain some kind of insight or commentary.  The best comedians hold a mirror up to the audience and give them not so much a bunch of jokes and pratfalls, but show them a portrait of themselves.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #3 - Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:31am
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
Tshep wrote on Jun 20th, 2008 at 10:24pm:
Quote:
Is it all about getting laughs, or yould it still have a compelling story and characters like any other play (what I call "The smart person't point of view"). Thoughts?



What makes a good comedy horizontal mambo? Is it all about getting having "laughs", or should it still have a compelling story passion and characters variety like any other play love-affair.

Of course comedy can be just about getting laughs.... the same way sex can be just about getting off.

.... But it can certainly be very much more.


So, in essence, there's a place for whores in either? Wink
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #4 - Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:37am
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
Quote:
Comedy should contain some kind of insight or commentary. �The best comedians hold a mirror up to the audience and give them not so much a bunch of jokes and pratfalls, but show them a portrait of themselves.


We agree again.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #5 - Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:42am

Wc365   Offline
All Access
The Random Element
West Punkt

Posts: 11610
 *****
 
Quote:
Tshep wrote on Jun 20th, 2008 at 10:24pm:
Quote:
Is it all about getting laughs, or yould it still have a compelling story and characters like any other play (what I call "The smart person't point of view"). Thoughts?



What makes a good comedy horizontal mambo? Is it all about getting having "laughs", or should it still have a compelling story passion and characters variety like any other play love-affair.

Of course comedy can be just about getting laughs.... the same way sex can be just about getting off.

.... But it can certainly be very much more.


So, in essence, there's a place for whores in either? Wink

CHeap laughs, cheap sex.  It's all a good time you may not remember in the morning.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #6 - Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:43am

Wc365   Offline
All Access
The Random Element
West Punkt

Posts: 11610
 *****
 
Quote:
Quote:
Comedy should contain some kind of insight or commentary.  The best comedians hold a mirror up to the audience and give them not so much a bunch of jokes and pratfalls, but show them a portrait of themselves.


We agree again.

It was actually mildly stolen.  I could quote it a bit better if i ever get my copy of The Watchmen back from that improv impressario I met...
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #7 - Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:46am
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
Quote:
Quote:
Tshep wrote on Jun 20th, 2008 at 10:24pm:
Quote:
Is it all about getting laughs, or yould it still have a compelling story and characters like any other play (what I call "The smart person't point of view"). Thoughts?



What makes a good comedy horizontal mambo? Is it all about getting having "laughs", or should it still have a compelling story passion and characters variety like any other play love-affair.

Of course comedy can be just about getting laughs.... the same way sex can be just about getting off.

.... But it can certainly be very much more.


So, in essence, there's a place for whores in either? Wink

CHeap laughs, cheap sex. �It's all a good time you may not remember in the morning.


But if it's something really special and not cheap, you WILL remember it. Smiley
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #8 - Jun 21st, 2008 at 12:19pm

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 723
 ***
 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tshep wrote on Jun 20th, 2008 at 10:24pm:
Quote:
Is it all about getting laughs, or yould it still have a compelling story and characters like any other play (what I call "The smart person't point of view"). Thoughts?



What makes a good comedy horizontal mambo? Is it all about getting having "laughs", or should it still have a compelling story passion and characters variety like any other play love-affair.

Of course comedy can be just about getting laughs.... the same way sex can be just about getting off.

.... But it can certainly be very much more.


So, in essence, there's a place for whores in either? Wink

CHeap laughs, cheap sex. �It's all a good time you may not remember in the morning.


But if it's something really special and not cheap, you WILL remember it. Smiley

But it can be cheap and really fun... and memorable... therefore special.

And, there is at least a facet of whoring inherent in all theater (especially comedy).
 
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 #9 - Jun 21st, 2008 at 12:26pm
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
Tshep wrote on Jun 21st, 2008 at 12:19pm:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tshep wrote on Jun 20th, 2008 at 10:24pm:
Quote:
Is it all about getting laughs, or yould it still have a compelling story and characters like any other play (what I call "The smart person't point of view"). Thoughts?



What makes a good comedy horizontal mambo? Is it all about getting having "laughs", or should it still have a compelling story passion and characters variety like any other play love-affair.

Of course comedy can be just about getting laughs.... the same way sex can be just about getting off.

.... But it can certainly be very much more.


So, in essence, there's a place for whores in either? Wink

CHeap laughs, cheap sex. �It's all a good time you may not remember in the morning.


But if it's something really special and not cheap, you WILL remember it. Smiley

But it can be cheap and really fun... and memorable... therefore special.

And, there is at least a facet of whoring inherent in all theater (especially comedy).


This is true. But there's a difference between a $1000 a night call girl and some $10 dollar bimbo you'd pick up on State Street.

Now we're stretching the the metaphor a bit, aren't we?
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #10 - Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:49pm

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 723
 ***
 
Quote:
This is true. But there's a difference between a $1000 a night call girl and some $10 dollar bimbo you'd pick up on State Street.

Now we're stretching the the metaphor a bit, aren't we?


I don't think we are stretching the metaphor too much at all (no more than we'd be capable of doing the same to said callgirl or bimbo).

Actually, getting back to the thrust of your OP... You set up the premise that simply "getting laughs" need somehow be justified.... and you make clear that you find this a lesser form.... not "the smart person's POV" (heheh, and you call me condecending).

Personal taste aside, the historical foundations of comedy are a wealth of simply "getting laughs". The brilliance of Commedia d'ell Arte; which along with the Roman low comedy is the alter at which all modern comedy comes back to genuflect... is "simply getting laughs". Stock characters, comic scenario, schtick, pratfalls, slapstick, timing, burlesque, etc, etc, etc..... nuthin' deep, nuthin' "smart".
 
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 #11 - Jun 21st, 2008 at 11:14pm
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
Tshep wrote on Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:49pm:
Quote:
This is true. But there's a difference between a $1000 a night call girl and some $10 dollar bimbo you'd pick up on State Street.

Now we're stretching the the metaphor a bit, aren't we?


I don't think we are stretching the metaphor too much at all (no more than we'd be capable of doing the same to said callgirl or bimbo).

Actually, getting back to the thrust of your OP... You set up the premise that simply "getting laughs" need somehow be justified.... and you make clear that you find this a lesser form.... not "the smart person's POV" (heheh, and you call me condecending).

Personal taste aside, the historical foundations of comedy are a wealth of simply "getting laughs". The brilliance of Commedia d'ell Arte; which along with the Roman low comedy is the alter at which all modern comedy comes back to genuflect... is "simply getting laughs". Stock characters, comic scenario, schtick, pratfalls, slapstick, timing, burlesque, etc, etc, etc..... nuthin' deep, nuthin' "smart".


If you're going to use temrs like "alter" and "genulfect", you're still the condescedning one. Wink

Public excecutions were a historical foundation of live entertainment. Some things can be improved.

Honestly, I think there's room for comedies that mean to do nothing but be be funny. But, I think there's a difference between cheap laughs and quality laughs. A good comedy, like any other play, is ABOUT something (that doesn't mean it has to be deep or have a message).

There is place for just telling jokes. It's called stand-up, and it can be GREAT.

Absolutely, what you're saying there is the BASIS for great comedy. But if you don't elaborate on it, you're just rehsashing what's been done before, and there's nothing creative about it. And don't coming crying to me if you get gonoreha.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #12 - Jun 21st, 2008 at 11:38pm
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
I freely admit I'm being pretentious and snarky, and I'm also being a bit facetious when I say things like "smart people".
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #13 - Jun 22nd, 2008 at 8:08am

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 723
 ***
 
Quote:
Tshep wrote on Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:49pm:
Quote:
This is true. But there's a difference between a $1000 a night call girl and some $10 dollar bimbo you'd pick up on State Street.

Now we're stretching the the metaphor a bit, aren't we?


I don't think we are stretching the metaphor too much at all (no more than we'd be capable of doing the same to said callgirl or bimbo).

Actually, getting back to the thrust of your OP... You set up the premise that simply "getting laughs" need somehow be justified.... and you make clear that you find this a lesser form.... not "the smart person's POV" (heheh, and you call me condecending).

Personal taste aside, the historical foundations of comedy are a wealth of simply "getting laughs". The brilliance of Commedia d'ell Arte; which along with the Roman low comedy is the alter at which all modern comedy comes back to genuflect... is "simply getting laughs". Stock characters, comic scenario, schtick, pratfalls, slapstick, timing, burlesque, etc, etc, etc..... nuthin' deep, nuthin' "smart".


If you're going to use temrs like "alter" and "genulfect", you're still the condescedning one. Wink


Hey man, if you can't play with the big lexicon; then feel free to stay on the linguistic porch.

Quote:
Public excecutions were a historical foundation of live entertainment. Some things can be improved.


Hardly an apt comparison.... more like simple sensationalism (but, then, you are a Speilberg fan).

Quote:
Honestly, I think there's room for comedies that mean to do nothing but be be funny. But, I think there's a difference between cheap laughs and quality laughs. A good comedy, like any other play, is ABOUT something (that doesn't mean it has to be deep or have a message).


Anything and everything can be "about something"; you're arguing the relative again. Your OP didn't propose relative valuation, it implied a clear dichotomy of value as opposed to lack of worth (good as opposed to the opposite). The objective answer to your OP is yes, there certainly can be (and still is) comedy that is all about getting laughs (and I've given you the historical precedent)..... now, if the conversation has degraded into your personal whiney-ness about the lack of gravitas in low-comedy.... then there isn't a whole lot of room for further discussion

Quote:
There is place for just telling jokes. It's called stand-up, and it can be GREAT.


From this, and other statements, I believe you have a limited and narrow view of the genre...... but, to each his own

Quote:
Absolutely, what you're saying there is the BASIS for great comedy. But if you don't elaborate on it, you're just rehsashing what's been done before, and there's nothing creative about it. And don't coming crying to me if you get gonoreha.


But that's really the point... comedy has continued to elaborate on its low-comic foundation... AND modern comedy continues to use elements of early comic classicist form... and you and most of us continue to laugh.
 
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 #14 - Jun 22nd, 2008 at 8:28am
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
This Herculean stuggle of comedic ideologies (getting off the "linguistic porch"Wink) �is rapidly deteriorating into a battle of who can be more pretentious. �The "Spielberg Fan" comment, was, frankly, well beneath you. But, again, I'm not going to take a compliment as an insult, even if it was feebly intended as such. I'm reminded of my earliest online argument, wherein I was derisively reffered to as "Mr. 'I like Henry V better than Lethal Weapon.'" �My "public execution" argument was, admittedly sensationalistic, but my point is that if we idealized the point where ideas began as the direction in which we should still be heading, we'd believe the Earth was flat. I'm arguing that comedy can and should evolve from where it began. Fine, you've made the point that's where comedy began. Bravo.

You're a accusing me of making a statement I never made. You're arguing WHAT IS COMEDY, when my question was WHAT MAKES A GOOD COMEDY? I am disucussing degrees of quality, and you are arguing the minutiae of defining what comedy is. A worthwhile endeavor, to be sure, but not the point of the conversation. Adam Sandler and Christopher Guest and Christopher Guest both make comedies. This fact is undeniable. The disparity in quality between the two is immense. You're saying that I said Adam Sandler (which, to be clear, I'm using as a metaphor for "lowbrow") isn't comedy, which is not what I said, or implied. I implied that comedy can aspire to more, and that we can judge comedy by a higher standard than ONLY whether we are laughing, just as we can judge musical theatre by a higher standard than whether we're whistling the music as we walk out of the show. "Historical precedent" doesn't change that. �I never denied comedy did, could or should use elements or early classicist form. I asked whether a good comedy (my original post makes it clear I am talking about the specific genre of the comedic play, not about the wide variety of all that qualifies as comedy. If we were talking about the entire comic medium, my view there is extrememly broad) is ONLY about getting laughs. Like the musical, the comedy is more as art form than a simplistc view would lead us to believe.

I admit, the comic exaggeration of "smart people's point of view" was an extremely poor choice of words, wherein my attempt to get a cheap laugh detracted from the overall value of what I was presenting. Which is, metaphorically, my whole point. Because I went for the cheap laugh, this discussion became far less than it could have been. And it wasn't really that funny, anyway.

I will try to read between the lines and see your point, and I concede that you are right: there ARE good comedies which are only about making us laugh. I concede that you have in essence won this debate, due in large part to my extremely poor choice in how I began it with a lame parody of message board pretense. Now, let us get on with the long, painful process of rebuilding our lives . . .
« Last Edit: Jun 22nd, 2008 at 9:49am by N/A »  
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #15 - Jun 22nd, 2008 at 11:00am

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 723
 ***
 
*sigh*  Oh DK; you're getting as easy to rile as Toddy and Amilicious...... but to your credit, you do retain your reason a good deal better. There is a valid discussion to have here, but first we should get past the pissing-match.

Quote:
This Herculean stuggle...... beneath you. But, again, I'm not going to take a compliment as an insult, even if it was feebly intended as such.


I don't claim it as beneath me.... I root in the merde as happily as the rest of the pigs.... That being said, there is much that is accurate in the comment.... which, by the way, wasn't intended as an insult.

Quote:
........ but my point is that if we idealized the point where ideas began as the direction in which we should still be heading, we'd believe the Earth was flat. I'm arguing that comedy can and should evolve from where it began. Fine, you've made the point that's where comedy began. Bravo.


Yes, we are approaching detante on this point... albeit with detours. Some clarification though, referring back to my most prevois post:

comedy has continued to elaborate on its low-comic foundation... AND modern comedy continues to use elements of early comic classicist form... and you and most of us continue to laugh. 

So, clearly I have extended the discussion beyond historical foundations. What we could well get into here are examples of how comic form has evolved while retaining much of what Terrance, Plautus, Gozzi and Goldoni created.

Quote:
You're a accusing me of making a statement I never made.


Nope... here's the OP verbatim for later reference:

Quote:
Is it all about getting laughs, or should it still have a compelling story and characters like any other play (what I call "The smart person's point of view"). Thoughts?


Quote:
You're arguing WHAT IS COMEDY, when my question was WHAT MAKES A GOOD COMEDY?


Your OP hypothesis has nothing that explicitly asks a value question, however it certainly implies a valuation and your stance on value. You ask if comedy is all about laughs  or should have yaddayaddayadda like any other play. Even getting away from the "smarter person" snark, your personal stance on value is clearly imposed. If there is any explicit question being asked, however, is IS the "Is it?" premise... You open the conversation asking all and sundry 'what comedy is'.... but you couch this in 'what makes comedy good' and can comedy be good if it doesn't "have a compelling story and characters like any other play"... according, of course, to your relative valuation.

Quote:
I am disucussing degrees of quality


Yes.... and now you're doing so explicitly.

Quote:
and you are arguing the minutiae of defining what comedy is. A worthwhile endeavor, to be sure, but not the point of the conversation.


Not really arguing minutiae... yet. And the base definition of whatever we are debating the value of is most certainly, if not the goal, then an integral part of the conversation.

Quote:
You're saying that I said Adam Sandler (which, to be clear, I'm using as a metaphor for "lowbrow") isn't comedy, which is not what I said, or implied.


Not at all.... please, if I've mislead, show me where you've come to understand this.

Quote:
I implied that comedy can aspire to more, and that we can judge comedy by a higher standard than ONLY whether we are laughing, just as we can judge musical theatre by a higher standard than whether we're whistling the music as we walk out of the show.


Agreed.

Quote:
"Historical precedent" doesn't change that.  I never denied comedy did, could or should use elements or early classicist form. I asked whether a good comedy (my original post makes it clear I am talking about the specific genre of the comedic play, not about the wide variety of all that qualifies as comedy. If we were talking about the entire comic medium, my view there is extrememly broad) is ONLY about getting laughs. Like the musical, the comedy is more as art form than a simplistc view would lead us to believe.


Um, yeah.

Quote:
I admit, the comic exaggeration of "smart people's point of view" was an extremely poor choice of words, wherein my attempt to get a cheap laugh detracted from the overall value of what I was presenting. Which is, metaphorically, my whole point. Because I went for the cheap laugh, this discussion became far less than it could have been. And it wasn't really that funny, anyway.


It might've been funny... or at least recognizable as an attempt at humor.... but you were missing tone to give the statement context. As it is it simply reads like a straightforward editorial remark.... not funny at all; and indeed contributing to your personal valuation.

Quote:
I will try to read between the lines and see your point, and I concede that you are right: there ARE good comedies which are only about making us laugh. I concede that you have in essence won this debate, due in large part to my extremely poor choice in how I began it with a lame parody of message board pretense. Now, let us get on with the long, painful process of rebuilding ou...


Hell man, the premise is a good one... and there are probably many out there who feel the same way. No reason to abandon it yet.
 
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 #16 - Jun 22nd, 2008 at 11:05am
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
Honeslty, I wasn't meaning to get riled.  But, as a Spielberg fan, I am a bit emotional. Wink That may have been partially what you meant, and if so, you're right )in my defense, not tone or qualifier there either, so I misunderstood. I freely admit my Spielbergian views color my perception of EVERYTHING. As an observation, that was correct).

I enjoy our banter, Tshep. If I didn't, I'd just walk away from the conversation. Sorry if it seemed otherwise. I'm all for a productive discussion. Perosnally, I rather enjoyed the sex/prositution metaphor.

Your latest post makes me understand your points a lot better. Honeslty, I think we disgaree less than I thought, and most of the fault is mine for communication poorly. I take your jibes as part of the debate process, and usually enjoy it.

Maybe I should include more smilies. I tend to think of them as dumbing down a post, but the fact is, without them, tone is so unclear. AGain, I acknowledge my bad choice of words there.

Perhaps you did not mislead. Perhaps I merely misunderstood. I honeslty don't know. The important thing is, NOW I know what you mean.

We're cool here. I'd be happy to continue the discussion. I admit my mistakes and look forward to further insights. Please give me an example of a stage comedy you admire, on any level. I would love to hear it. Now that we each have a better understanding of each other, this could become a great thread, and I honestly do value your insights. You are correct that I should have left my perosnal biases and thought out of my original question.

Let's join hands and sing "Kumbaya" . . . (to clarify, that was a joke. Not a very good one, but a joke nonetheless)
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #17 - Jun 22nd, 2008 at 11:32am

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 723
 ***
 
NP DK... I'm cool with it.

I'll get back to you on the examples. Maybe this calls for another list. First I'd refer you to, as a modern reference, the absolutely brilliant work of Bill Irwin.

Another example I give my students is the sitcom Fraiser. Very contemporary, literate, "smart person" humor that nonetheless found its best moments of comic performance in the historic basics of minstrel burlesque (Tambo and Bones), Commedia scenario, and late neoclassic French farce.
 
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 #18 - Jun 22nd, 2008 at 2:17pm

kitchensinger   Offline
Ingenue
in my kitchen

Gender: female
 Posts: 912
 ***
 
Tshep wrote on Jun 22nd, 2008 at 11:32am:
First I'd refer you to, as a modern reference, the absolutely brilliant work of Bill Irwin. �


I have no idea WHAT you guys are talking about, but...in regards to Bill Irwin...I would like to say (at the risk of dumbing-down this post *lol*)...



...and may I add O/T...he is in the cast of Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water." (not in a comedic role, but he's still grand) �AND he's on the Sondheim DVD I've mentioned in two other threads (he's the HILARIOUS host of the concert).
 
"I have noticed that nothing I never said ever did me any harm."--Calvin Coolidge&&&&"Some families go water skiing together;  others go camping.....our family does THEME PARTIES." --my brother Ben
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #19 - Jun 22nd, 2008 at 2:51pm
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
kitchensinger wrote on Jun 22nd, 2008 at 2:17pm:

...and may I add O/T...he is in the cast of Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water."


Well, I still like Paul Giamatti, Bob Balaban, Geoffrey Wright and Bryce Dallas Howrd, so I can't hold one lapse in judgement against Irwin, either. Wink
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #20 - Jun 22nd, 2008 at 3:00pm

kitchensinger   Offline
Ingenue
in my kitchen

Gender: female
 Posts: 912
 ***
 
Quote:
kitchensinger wrote on Jun 22nd, 2008 at 2:17pm:

...and may I add O/T...he is in the cast of Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water."


Well, I still like Paul Giamatti, Bob Balaban, Geoffrey Wright and Bryce Dallas Howrd, so I can't hold one lapse in judgement against Irwin, either. Wink


Lapse in judgement? Smiley �OH!....You mean YOU'RE lapse in judgment for not liking that show.

Don't worry. �I forgive you for not liking everything I like (as you should).
 
"I have noticed that nothing I never said ever did me any harm."--Calvin Coolidge&&&&"Some families go water skiing together;  others go camping.....our family does THEME PARTIES." --my brother Ben
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #21 - Jun 22nd, 2008 at 3:03pm
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
kitchensinger wrote on Jun 22nd, 2008 at 3:00pm:
Quote:
kitchensinger wrote on Jun 22nd, 2008 at 2:17pm:

...and may I add O/T...he is in the cast of Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water."


Well, I still like Paul Giamatti, Bob Balaban, Geoffrey Wright and Bryce Dallas Howrd, so I can't hold one lapse in judgement against Irwin, either. Wink


Lapse in judgement? Smiley �OH!....You mean YOU'RE lapse in judgment for not liking that show.

Don't worry. �I forgive you for not liking everything I like (as you should).


Yes, that must have been what I meant. Shocked

But we're starying very far off topic now. Wink Enough of Shyamalan, already.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #22 - Jun 23rd, 2008 at 6:11am

Wc365   Offline
All Access
The Random Element
West Punkt

Posts: 11610
 *****
 
Tshep wrote on Jun 22nd, 2008 at 11:32am:
NP DK... I'm cool with it.

I'll get back to you on the examples. Maybe this calls for another list. First I'd refer you to, as a modern reference, the absolutely brilliant work of Bill Irwin.

"In Regard of Flight" is some of the best time I've ever spent with on what might have amounted to a field trip, if it weren't so damned funny.

Quote:
Another example I give my students is the sitcom Fraiser. Very contemporary, literate, "smart person" humor that nonetheless found its best moments of comic performance in the historic basics of minstrel burlesque (Tambo and Bones), Commedia scenario, and late neoclassic French farce. �

Hmmm...
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #23 - Jun 23rd, 2008 at 9:17am

Wc365   Offline
All Access
The Random Element
West Punkt

Posts: 11610
 *****
 
Tshep wrote on Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:49pm:
Quote:
This is true. But there's a difference between a $1000 a night call girl and some $10 dollar bimbo you'd pick up on State Street.

Now we're stretching the the metaphor a bit, aren't we?


I don't think we are stretching the metaphor too much at all (no more than we'd be capable of doing the same to said callgirl or bimbo).

Actually, getting back to the thrust of your OP... You set up the premise that simply "getting laughs" need somehow be justified.... and you make clear that you find this a lesser form.... not "the smart person's POV" (heheh, and you call me condecending).

Personal taste aside, the historical foundations of comedy are a wealth of simply "getting laughs". The brilliance of Commedia d'ell Arte; which along with the Roman low comedy is the alter at which all modern comedy comes back to genuflect... is "simply getting laughs". Stock characters, comic scenario, schtick, pratfalls, slapstick, timing, burlesque, etc, etc, etc..... nuthin' deep, nuthin' "smart".

But isn't there something in all of these, particularly the Greeks and Romans, that isn't just about the laughs, but also shows a picture of everyday life and makes comments about it that people can identify with?
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #24 - Jun 23rd, 2008 at 9:33am
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
Tshep wrote on Jun 22nd, 2008 at 11:32am:
Another example I give my students is the sitcom Fraiser. Very contemporary, literate, "smart person" humor that nonetheless found its best moments of comic performance in the historic basics of minstrel burlesque (Tambo and Bones), Commedia scenario, and late neoclassic French farce. �


Which is why "Fraiser" is a show I idealize. There is balance, and many different types of comedy were used. I think the best "Simpsons" epidoes do the same thing. it's comedy that goes for nothing but lowbrow that I dislike. Utilizing elements of neo-classicist French Farce is not something I would ever deliberately describe as dumbed-down.

It took me a log time to recognize and appreciatecommeida, because all I saw was bastardized forms of the medium from people who didn't undertsand how to do it. Bungled comedia is painful.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #25 - Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:11am

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 723
 ***
 
Quote:
Tshep wrote on Jun 22nd, 2008 at 11:32am:
Another example I give my students is the sitcom Fraiser. Very contemporary, literate, "smart person" humor that nonetheless found its best moments of comic performance in the historic basics of minstrel burlesque (Tambo and Bones), Commedia scenario, and late neoclassic French farce. �


Which is why "Fraiser" is a show I idealize. There is balance, and many different types of comedy were used. I think the best "Simpsons" epidoes do the same thing. it's comedy that goes for nothing but lowbrow that I dislike. Utilizing elements of neo-classicist French Farce is not something I would ever deliberately describe as dumbed-down.

It took me a log time to recognize and appreciatecommeida, because all I saw was bastardized forms of the medium from people who didn't undertsand how to do it. Bungled comedia is painful.


I suppose the important definition is, what is "low-brow"; what is "dumbed-down"? Farce, at its root, is not much more than sex and fart jokes.
 
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 #26 - Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:16am
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
Tshep wrote on Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:11am:
Quote:
Tshep wrote on Jun 22nd, 2008 at 11:32am:
Another example I give my students is the sitcom Fraiser. Very contemporary, literate, "smart person" humor that nonetheless found its best moments of comic performance in the historic basics of minstrel burlesque (Tambo and Bones), Commedia scenario, and late neoclassic French farce. �


Which is why "Fraiser" is a show I idealize. There is balance, and many different types of comedy were used. I think the best "Simpsons" epidoes do the same thing. it's comedy that goes for nothing but lowbrow that I dislike. Utilizing elements of neo-classicist French Farce is not something I would ever deliberately describe as dumbed-down.

It took me a log time to recognize and appreciatecommeida, because all I saw was bastardized forms of the medium from people who didn't undertsand how to do it. Bungled comedia is painful.


I suppose the important definition is, what is "low-brow"; what is "dumbed-down"? Farce, at its root, is not much more than sex and fart jokes.


Good point. Honestly, I don't inherently consider sex jokes "dumbed down". There can be some very smart sex jokes. Fart jokes, it's possible, but less likely.

Perhaps then I misunderstand the the definition of "farce".
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #27 - Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:16am

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 723
 ***
 
Quote:
Tshep wrote on Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:49pm:
Quote:
This is true. But there's a difference between a $1000 a night call girl and some $10 dollar bimbo you'd pick up on State Street.

Now we're stretching the the metaphor a bit, aren't we?


I don't think we are stretching the metaphor too much at all (no more than we'd be capable of doing the same to said callgirl or bimbo).

Actually, getting back to the thrust of your OP... You set up the premise that simply "getting laughs" need somehow be justified.... and you make clear that you find this a lesser form.... not "the smart person's POV" (heheh, and you call me condecending).

Personal taste aside, the historical foundations of comedy are a wealth of simply "getting laughs". The brilliance of Commedia d'ell Arte; which along with the Roman low comedy is the alter at which all modern comedy comes back to genuflect... is "simply getting laughs". Stock characters, comic scenario, schtick, pratfalls, slapstick, timing, burlesque, etc, etc, etc..... nuthin' deep, nuthin' "smart".

But isn't there something in all of these, particularly the Greeks and Romans, that isn't just about the laughs, but also shows a picture of everyday life and makes comments about it that people can identify with?


Certainly.... effective comedy has universality... connects to the broadest swath of audience. When someone slips on a banana peel, there is a polyglot laugh response. Actually, contrary to what you're posing, making comedy about more than the laugh takes you further out of the realm of the universal.... and really makes the comedy less funny.
 
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 #28 - Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:23am
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
Tshep wrote on Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:16am:
Quote:
Tshep wrote on Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:49pm:
Quote:
This is true. But there's a difference between a $1000 a night call girl and some $10 dollar bimbo you'd pick up on State Street.

Now we're stretching the the metaphor a bit, aren't we?


I don't think we are stretching the metaphor too much at all (no more than we'd be capable of doing the same to said callgirl or bimbo).

Actually, getting back to the thrust of your OP... You set up the premise that simply "getting laughs" need somehow be justified.... and you make clear that you find this a lesser form.... not "the smart person's POV" (heheh, and you call me condecending).

Personal taste aside, the historical foundations of comedy are a wealth of simply "getting laughs". The brilliance of Commedia d'ell Arte; which along with the Roman low comedy is the alter at which all modern comedy comes back to genuflect... is "simply getting laughs". Stock characters, comic scenario, schtick, pratfalls, slapstick, timing, burlesque, etc, etc, etc..... nuthin' deep, nuthin' "smart".

But isn't there something in all of these, particularly the Greeks and Romans, that isn't just about the laughs, but also shows a picture of everyday life and makes comments about it that people can identify with?


Certainly.... effective comedy has universality... connects to the broadest swath of audience. When someone slips on a banana peel, there is a polyglot laugh response. Actually, contrary to what you're posing, making comedy about more than the laugh takes you further out of the realm of the universal.... and really makes the comedy less funny.


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.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #29 - Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:26am

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 723
 ***
 
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.
 
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 #30 - Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:30am
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

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

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

Gender: male
 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 23rd, 2008 at 10:36am

Wc365   Offline
All Access
The Random Element
West Punkt

Posts: 11610
 *****
 
Tshep wrote on Jun 23rd, 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 23rd, 2008 at 10:47am
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

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

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

Gender: male
 Posts: 723
 ***
 
Quote:
Tshep wrote on Jun 23rd, 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 23rd, 2008 at 11:03am
The Dark Knight   Ex Member

 
Tshep wrote on Jun 23rd, 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 23rd, 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
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
� Previous Topic | Next Topic �
  « Home ‹ Board Top of this page

The Green Room » Powered by YaBB 2.5 AE!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge

Keep this site running!
You can donate to this site to help us meet the costs of keeping this service running for you. Click the button above and you can donate any amount you'd like. No amount is too small.
(Donation payments are made through PayPal to our parent company, Zen Cowboy Design)