The Dearth of Comedy?

[kelby_lake]

All About Eve is a comedy. Singin' In The Rain is a comedy. Sunset Boulevard is a dark comedy in the grotesque vein. My Fair Lady is a comedy.

Neither the IMBd (Internet Movie Data base) nor the American Film Institute classify either All About Eve nor Sunset Boulevard as "comedies". Both are categorized as "drama" and "film noir". I doubt almost anyone would think of either as comedies. My Fair Lady and Singin' in the Rain are categorized as musicals... although they are admittedly of a comedic vein.

Musicals break down into categories though.

I think of All About Eve as more of a satire than a drama. Don't most people remember it for the one-liners? At least, it's not a serious film in the sense that Gone With The Wind is.

As for Sunset Boulevard, I'd categorise it as a film noir/black comedy. The humour is dark and grotesque for the most part, which is why people may not refer to it as a comedy, but it's there. That's what makes it so disturbing.

Comedy does not automatically equal lightweight, at least in my opinion.

[kelby_lake]

I agree with you, and that s why it is hardly surprising that throughout history and in all cultures, tragedy was and is perceived as superior to comedy. Tragedy is feel good, it reminds us of the beauty and nobleness of life, it makes whatever troubles which torment us in our lives seem minuscule and trivial, it leaves us with a sense of refreshment like bathing in a stream at dawn.

Comedy on the other hand, reminds us of the ridiculous and pathetic elements of life, it shows us the flaws of the world and makes our own lives feel ridiculous. Tragedy inspires the heart, comedy leaves us thinking that life is too ridiculous to be taken seriously, the former gives us momentum the later inertia.

That's a good distinction. It explains why Chekhov called his plays comedies.

[OrphanPip]

That seems an awful lopsided view of comedy though. Horatian Satire is traditionally playful and kind to its subject, the point of the Rape of the Lock was to reunite the feuding families over a mutual recognition of the silliness of their dispute.

Also, the dramatic tradition has many examples where comedy suggests that the powerless can overcome the obstacle of authority. The traditional ending of a Shakespearean comedy is the triumph of the lovers and the harmonious reconciliation of most of the characters at a marriage. This continues well into the 19th century where the protagonist in comedy often does come out on top at the end.

Then there are the cultural traditions of camp in the lower class gay community, and Jewish comedy in general, that suggest comedy is often a focus of resistance and expression for marginalized groups.

If all you see of comedy is a hollowing out of humanity, you're not reading comedy close enough or widely enough.

[AuntShecky]

[QUOTE=Alexander III;1153063]

When I read [. . .] Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, if not tears at least I was in possession of the sentiment of tears. . .

Venus and Adonis is one of the funniest things I've ever read!
Cf.: The first three paragraphs of the intro to this.

(I guess it's like Oscar Wilde's crack about the demise of Little Nell.)

I would defend that comedy is certainly the harder the write.

Also, I think the dominance of tragedy has to do with what we want from art; I think most people want to believe that life is tragic because only tragedy elevates our suffering to something resembling poetry. There's something enjoyable about a tragic view of life because it makes our little lives seem noble and epic.

Then comes comedy taking us down a notch or two, telling us life is absurd, silly, pointless, that all our suffering and complicated relationships are meaningless and that our values aren't really special and that we're just fooling ourselves by thinking that we're anything unique. Comedy is an acid, it corrodes things, especially our illusions, and it's not what people want to hear.

Tragedy is a lot more reassuring than comedy.

Except for your concession that comedy is harder to write, I'm sorry to say that I strongly disagree with your posting.

There's nothing inherently "reassuring" about tragedy. The experience of catharsis is not supposed to be "enjoyable"--it's designed to be painful,and thus ultimately cleansing. Purgative, if you will. Watching a tragic hero, such as Oedipus or Hamlet, take a fall shouldn't really make us, the audience, believe that there is anthing necessarily "noble" and "epic" about our lives. Tragedy can take us down "a notch or two" just as much as comedy can. There's always the possibility of resilience, perhaps more accessible with comedy (and its characteristic "happy ending") than with tragedy (always ending sadly.)

If you think only comedy can "shatter illusions", I'd say you probably haven't read much of Eugene O'Neill, with that very theme throughout all of The Iceman Cometh. (There's much comedy in that play as well, but strictly speaking, it's a tragedy.) You don't think illusions are shattered in Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman? Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?


In comedy, though, there is a certain distance. In some comedies we do see our own faces reflected in that mirror--as well we should! But in other works the audience is placed in an almost de facto position of superiority; laughing "at" rather than "with" the comic foil comes from a distance. Some works can evoke both seemingly contradictory reactions. It's a pretty complex process, and that's why good comedy is so damned hard to pull off.

[Anton Hermes]

The original article was about literary comedy, but I wonder how many of the people here discussing the relative merits of Hollywood comedies and TV shows have even read the books Gough cited. The Third Policeman is one of the darkest and smartest comedies of the twentieth century. I, contrary to Gough, consider Time's Arrow a brilliant black comedy.

Certainly the standard-bearer of twentieth-century comedy has to be Samuel Beckett, whose absurdist novels and plays mixed the Marx Brothers and Kafka. He was a master of making people laugh and think at the same time.

I see what Gough is saying and agree with him up to a point, but I think there are great comic writers even in our age. Though David Foster Wallace is recently gone, Thomas Pynchon is still writing his glorious mad novels. Ben Marcus and George Saunders are mining Beckett's tragicomic literary vein.

[kelby_lake]

That seems an awful lopsided view of comedy though. Horatian Satire is traditionally playful and kind to its subject, the point of the Rape of the Lock was to reunite the feuding families over a mutual recognition of the silliness of their dispute.

Also, the dramatic tradition has many examples where comedy suggests that the powerless can overcome the obstacle of authority. The traditional ending of a Shakespearean comedy is the triumph of the lovers and the harmonious reconciliation of most of the characters at a marriage. This continues well into the 19th century where the protagonist in comedy often does come out on top at the end.

Then there are the cultural traditions of camp in the lower class gay community, and Jewish comedy in general, that suggest comedy is often a focus of resistance and expression for marginalized groups.

Comedy shows that characters can overcome the obstacle of authority but not that people can. Whilst it offers humour and relief, it also shows us that we cannot achieve such things in life. Shakespeare's comedies are contrived to give us a happy ending because a happy ending would not naturally arise.

Camp is a defence against prejudice from a marginalised group by confronting the prejudiced ones with their views of how gay people should be. Whilst it may be therepuetic for the marginalised group, it also highlights bigoted views.

It is easier to find truth in a tragedy than it is in a comedy. A bad comedy is worse than a bad tragedy because there's the feeling that we've been deceived, that life is not like this.



And I agree, comedies are hard to do well for the reasons above.

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't think it matters that comedies aren't getting award recognition from organizations like the Oscars, that's all just fluff. "The Academy" has always been kind of douchey anyway ("Film Actors Guild?"), and they're not the word of law. I mean, Chicago was alright, but I wouldn't call it the best picture of 2002. What really matters about comedies is that they're being made, and there have been some great comedies in the last couple of decades. The Big Lebowski, I mean come on, probably the funniest work ever created, ever. Comedy can't be dying.

As a side note, I'm really happy to see so many people on this thread mention Book of Mormon. That's great, it looks like rather than being dismissed as "juvenile" Trey Parker is getting some academic recognition for his brilliant work. As for Matt Stone being overshadowed by Trey Parker's talent, I suppose that's true - but Matt Stone is the cute one, so their virtues balance out.