The Dearth of Comedy?

[stlukesguild]

Recently I came upon this essay on the subject of the dominance of tragedy in Western literature:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/greek-comedy-modern-literary-novel/

I must say I was intrigued with a good deal of the ideas here... both as they apply to literature... but also my own field of the visual arts/painting:

"The Greeks understood that comedy (the gods' view of life) is superior to tragedy (the merely human). But since the middle ages, western culture has overvalued the tragic and undervalued the comic. This is why fiction today is so full of anxiety and suffering. It's time writers got back to the serious business of making us laugh. What is wrong with the modern literary novel? Why is it so worthy and dull? Why is it so anxious? Why is it so bloody boring?

Brilliant comedies never win the best film Oscar. The Booker prize leans toward the tragic. In 1984, Martin Amis reinvented Rabelais in his comic masterpiece Money. The best English novel of the 1980s, it didn't even make the shortlist. Anita Brookner won that year, for Hotel du Lac, written, as the Observer put it, "with a beautiful grave formality."

The fault is in the culture. But it is also internalised in the writers, who self-limit and self-censor. If the subject is big, difficult and serious, the writer tends to believe the treatment must be in the tragic mode. When Amis addressed the Holocaust in his minor novel Time's Arrow (1991), he switched off the jokes, and the energy, and was rewarded with his only Booker shortlisting.

The tragic bias remains deep in the industry. And the more original the comic masterpiece, the harder it is to get it through the filters of western commercial publishing. Flann O'Brien's The Third Policeman, one of Ireland's three greatest novels, could not find a publisher in the author's lifetime. John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces was rejected by 36 publishers, and Toole eventually killed himself. Only a decade after his death was it published.

What makes it much worse is that it is now being coached, reinforced. All of the writers on the Granta list attended university creative writing programmes. All, in other words, have submitted to authority. This is a catastrophe for them as novelists.

The novel cannot submit to authority.

But the universities are authority or they are nothing. As the west has grown secular, the university has, quite organically, taken over from the church as a cross-border entity claiming universality, claiming to influence the powerful but not to wield power. "Education" is the excuse for a self-perpetuating power structure now, just as "religion" was the excuse then. The modern universities could claim to have no single ideology, but the same could be said of the Vatican under the Medicis, or the Borgias.

The problem is not that the universities are malevolent; they are not. They have no sinister intent in taking over the novel, professionalising it, academicising it. Like most of those who colonise territories that were getting on fine without them, they believe they do no great damage, they believe it's for the novel's good, they believe they are benign, idealistic and quite a bit cleverer than the natives. As ever, none of these beliefs is entirely true.

The literary novel, by accepting the embrace of the universities, has moved inside the establishment and lost contact with what made it vital. It has, as a result, also lost the mass audience enjoyed by Twain and Dickens. The literary novel—born in Cervantes's prison cell, continued in cellars, bars and rented rooms by Dostoevsky, Joyce and Beckett—is now being written from on high.

Professionalisation will make poor writers adequate. And will make potentially great writers adequate. Great novelists write for their peers. Poor novelists write for their teachers. If you must please the older generation to pass (a student writing for an older teacher, a teacher writing to secure tenure), you end up with cautious, old-fashioned novels. Worse, the system turns peers into teachers. Destroyed as writers, many are immediately re-employed, teaching creative writing. This is a Ponzi scheme.

A comparison between The Simpsons and a soap opera is instructive. A soap opera is trapped inside the rules of the format; all soaps resemble each other (like psychologically plausible realist novels). What the makers of The Simpsons did was take a soap opera and put a frame around it: "this is a cartoon about a soap opera." This freed them from the need to map its event-rate on to real life: they could map its event-rate on to cartoon life. A fast event-rate is inherently comic, so the tone is, of necessity, comic. But that is not to say it isn't serious. The Simpsons is profoundly serious. And profoundly comic. Like Aristophanes, debating the war between Athens and Sparta by writing about a sex strike by the women of Athens and beyond.

With its cartoon event-rate, a classic series of The Simpsons has more ideas over a broader cultural range than any novel written the same year. The speed, the density of information, the range of reference; the quantity, quality and rich humanity of the jokes—they make almost all contemporary novels seem slow, dour, monotonous and almost empty of ideas.

So steal from The Simpsons, not Henry James.

It's not that contemporary literary novels are bad. Line by line, book by book, they're often wonderful. But in the same few ways. Who needs more of that?

You may think that to praise The Simpsons at the expense of Henry James makes me a barbarian. Well, it does, but I'm a very cultured barbarian. The literary novel has gone late Roman. It needs the barbarians.

Thoughts?

[YesNo]

I liked the way Julian Gough differentiated comedy from tragedy:


The Greeks understood that comedy (the gods' view of life) is superior to tragedy (the merely human).

I do prefer reading something with a bit of humor in it and I'm glad to think that might be what the gods prefer as well.

[OrphanPip]

I wouldn't blame the universities though, the comic mode has been the bastard stepchild for a long time. The only period of cultural dominance the comedy enjoyed in English was during the 18th century (Satire was also more popular then). I wouldn't say comedy is dead though, it is incredibly popular in the television medium, where comedies are routinely the top ratings earners.

Anyway, I'd say that the tragicomedy is the dominant mode today anyway. Since it is the obsession with the tragic in the common that predominates our art, not the fall of great/good people (a la tragedy) or the play of the disruption/harmonization of the common social sphere (comedy) that interests the academic audiences. The author makes the mistake of confusing the comic with the comedic, and they are not the same thing.

[Emil Miller]

Difficult not to agree with a good deal of what's written here about angst-ridden mediocrity, which is why I seldom read modern writers. When I want to engage with the kitchen sink I go into the kitchen, but the lack of comedy in today's writing is an unfortunate reality as is shown by the examples given.
It's even worse than is suggested, because the proliferation of fiction dealing with everything from Aspergers syndrome to incest via marital and mental breakdown, drugs, juvenile and adult delinquancy etc., is taken as the norm by the reading public and becomes a self-fuifilling prophecy. Po faced scribblings about the human condition should be well past their sell by date but, as the various awards for new writng show, such is not the case.
The first book i wrote dealt with the disintegration of a society from a political and legal standpoint. The second is about a psycologically disturbed man who is delusional; or is he? By the time I came to write a third, I started with every intention of writing a serious novel set in the world of publishing but I suddenly realised the comic potential of the protagonist and the book became a tragicomedy, and while the comic aspect lessens the seriousness of a novel that ends in suicide, the story would be noticeably depleted without it.

[Summer M]

Very interesting article. I think part of the problem is that in order to write a good comedy or satire, one must be intelligent and open-minded enough to realize that our leaders (for example) are nothing more than megalomaniac jackasses. We simply don't have that today. Every leftist thinks that Obama is a saint and every conservative thinks the same of Bush. It's not about academia or the Greek influence; it's about the ability to spot garbage, human or otherwise, and say, "it's nothing but garbage". We simply don't have people who can do that anymore. The whole thing boils down to the degeneration of intelligence and common sense.

There are exceptions. South Park has done a remarkable job mocking our society and our culture for many years, until it degenerated into fart jokes and stupid Cartman adventures on its way to imminent cancellation.

[Heteronym]

In defense of universities, they don't force would-be novelists to enroll in creative programs. If there's a demand for such courses, the universities would be foolish not to take advantage of people who think they can take classes to become novelists. I simply don't read those people.

As for humor, I think there's a lot of wisdom in this essay. But I tend to take an absurdist, mocking, non-serious view of existence. I'd also recommend reading Milan Kundera's books of literary criticism: he was the first critic to make me realize the crucial role of humor in the history of the novel, from Rabelais onwards.

[MystyrMystyry]

With the Simpsons we know the cast of characters and cultural references without the need to exert any effort. If a Novel attempted to cover the same ground there would necessarily be a pile of joke stalling context building. But comparisons are odorous. People who specialise in comedy will look for a paying audience - anything from sitcoms to stand up, talk shows to movie scripts. New mediums for a new age. Had television/film not appeared then both the light hearted view and black comedy would still exist in plays and performance and occasionally in print.

Travelling bards and troubadors would have used wit to communicate the news.

Poor Richard's Almanack, Pickwick Papers, Mark Twain's various pieces would have been read aloud to an enthusiastic audience back in their day. And of course some of the best one-liners become 'quotes'. Here are some from Mr Twain:


Sacred cows make the best hamburger

The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right

I don't suppose there was much danger. People born to be hanged are safe in water

One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity there ain't nothing can beat teamwork

Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass

[YesNo]

Sacred cows make the best hamburger

:D

Nice quote from Twain.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

A few points.

1. It sounds like the author doesn't like tragic or dark fiction. He seems quite biased. All his points about why comedy, such as The Simpsons, is better than current fiction are purely subjective.

2. I don't really get how the universities can be blamed. First, I'd love to know how many of the best-selling, dour writers went to a university and studied creative writing (it could be a lot, I don't know). Second, he's saying the tone of modern fiction is why people aren't reading as much. Really? If I were to take a guess, I'd say it had more to do with the deterioration of attentions spans due to film, TV, video games, the internet, etc.

3. The majority of people who actually do read don't even read the type of fiction--"high-brow," as it were--described. They read trashy romances, books about vampires and magicians; they read genre fiction, some of which is comedic and some of which isn't.

4. A subjective statement of my own: I rarely go to literature for comedy, and I love comedy. It's a genre I think works much better visually, for me, anyways.

5. I'm sure there could be a huge list compiled of comedic writers within the last hundred years, but I'm too lazy to do it.

[stlukesguild]

I think the point is that "comedy"... satire, etc... has long been, as Pip suggested, the bastard stepchild to "tragedy". As the essay notes, comedies almost never win the Oscar... no matter how brilliant. The literary prizes all go to "serious" tragedies... and not comedies or satires. In the traditional visual arts (painting, sculpture, etc...) there is an equal bias. Serious painting is tragic. The comic is "lightweight". This is not to undermine the tragic... but as the writer suggests, we need more of the comic.

I'll try to address this further at a later date... having downed some 4 or 5 strong, dark beers... including this absolutely magnificent brew...:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Southern-Tier-Creme-Brulee-Imperial-Stout.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Southern-Tier-Creme-Brulee-Imperial-Stout.jpg)

... a virtual dessert brew... at 10% alcohol... after a magnificent t-bone on the grill as part of our July 4 celebration. Right now... as should be expected... I'm listening to the Stones at full volume... feeling seriously buzzed... and only able to type thanks to modern technology (online spell check).:cheers2:

Mutatis! If you get the chance... give this brew a taste. Even you might like it. Delicious as a White Russian. (I still think you should stop messing about and jump in at the deep end with a Long Island Ice Tea. I lived on these things during my year and a half in New York where they made them strong enough to strip the plaque off your teeth. Nothing like staggering about Manhattan at 3 AM... especially if you end up in Washington Square Park or Christopher Street. Eye-opening, to say the least.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, do we need more of the comic, or more recognition of it?

And I'll be sure to keep the reccomendation in mind :nod:.

[stlukesguild]

I share a studio where the two sides of this dichotomy are in direct confrontation. My studio mate paints large brooding paintings dealing with the tragedy of the Holocaust. I'm currently wrapping up a painting of Diana at her bath... except my Diana is Wonder Woman... caught topless by Acteon. In the wings I have a painting with Herman Munster and Dita von Tiese (The Beauty and the Beast) and another with Spider-man in the works. The shared common narratives of the Renaissance came from Homer, Aeschylus, Ovid, and the Bible... today they come from comic books, television, pro-sports, rock music, and porno films. :biggrinjester::cornut:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Those sound awesome. Are you going to post pictures of them (unless you already have)?

[Summer M]

As the essay notes, comedies almost never win the Oscar... no matter how brilliant.

Perhaps, but why restrict ourselves to the cinema? Many if not most of the most successful TV shows in history have been comedies, including the number one (Seinfeld) and the most watched episode in history by percentage (The MASH finale).

[kelby_lake]

As the essay notes, comedies almost never win the Oscar... no matter how brilliant.

Not true. Recently, we've had The Artist and The King's Speech. There's also been Shakespeare in Love, Forrest Gump, Driving Miss Daisy, The Apartment, All About Eve...the Academy love films about misery but they also love heartwarming light comedies.

Films are not always easily categorised into comedy/tragedy and comedies are varied beasts. Shakespeare in Love is a comedy but so is American Beauty.

And as Summer M says, most beloved TV shows are comedies.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Those are comedies? The King's Speech and American Beauty? Does having a few funny parts now make something a comedy? If you loo up academy award winners, the vast majority are dead serious dramas. I completely agree that comedies are short changed by the Oscars: it's hard to make someone laugh, and it's especially hard to make someone laugh with a smart story. The Coenz are masters of combining brilliant comedy with excellent narrative.

[Raven Falcon.]

Those are comedies? The King's Speech and American Beauty? Does having a few funny parts now make something a comedy? If you loo up academy award winners, the vast majority are dead serious dramas. I completely agree that comedies are short changed by the Oscars: it's hard to make someone laugh, and it's especially hard to make someone laugh with a smart story. The Coenz are masters of combining brilliant comedy with excellent narrative.

No Country For Old Man is dead serious.

[AuntShecky]

Brilliant comedies never win the best film Oscar.

The following Best Picture honorees were not only comedies but also brilliant:

It Happened One Night (1934)

You Can't Take it With You (1938)

Tom Jones (1963)

Annie Hall (1977)

One could perhaps make a case that One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) Forrest Gump(1994), and the aforementioned American Beauty(1999) are comedies. Admittedly, it's still a short list, in light of the fact that the Academy Awards go way back to their inception in 1927. But that's not counting the several "Best Pictures" that were Musical comedies--plus the multiple Oscars@ for best screenplay going to comedies, of which the original (i.e. non-musical) version of The Producers may rank among the funniest. So to say that " Brilliant comedies never win the Best Film Oscar" is flat-out wrong.

Secondly, I'm not sure whether the Academy Award is the gold standard when it comes to assessing the quality of a particular film or screenplay. On the one hand, MPAA is a respected institution -- anybody who has an inflated sense of his or her own integrity, claiming that he or she would "refuse to accept" an Oscar is either lying or demented. Even so, the Oscars are a just a tiny step up the prestige ladder from the Golden Globes, full of cheesy spectacle, bombast, and and self-congratulatory pretentiousness. There have been several neglected classics, the cliché of the critical success considered box office bombs, not to mention the unknown number of screenplays never having been produced at all, their scripts gathering dust in some file cabinet in Iowa. (The other end of the spectrum are the dreadful books and movies that are excessively praised because other people have done so--the "Emperor's new clothes" syndrome.)

But to the author's original contention --that comedy is a more realistic depiction of the human condition, I could not agree more. He is absolutely spot on about The Simpsons as well; arguably the finest comedy writing produced in the last 25 years can be found in various episodes of that show, next to which which makes the uneven comedy of Saturday Night Live pales in comparison. (Only the old SCTV show comes anywhere close to the quality of The Simpsons.) Several years ago, The New Yorker did a profile on "The Funniest Man in America." No, it wasn't Stephen Colbert or Ben Stiller, Judd Apatow or any current Hollywood funnyman--it was George Meyer, who at the time was head writer for The Simpsons.

There are two problems, as far as I can see. The first is that comedy is excruciatingly difficult to get right. As the actor said on his death bed--"Dying is easy. Comedy is hard." Either the writer (and performer) "tries too hard" and the result comes out lame, or the lines are too subtle, which "go over" the audience's head--the very real phenomenon of being "too hip for the room." (The other day a fellow LitNutter and I were discussing the difference between British and American humor, with the former "drier" than the latter, which tends to be "broad," "slapstick-y," and more than a little vulgar. Of course, there's much overlapping, as in a Venn diagram.) Although one can make a case that depiction of resonant emotion in drama is also tricky -- wherein one should avoid soap opera histrionics and bathos at all costs --I firmly believe that the comic mind is more "cerebral" than the strictly emotional one. Few people these days ever refer to Horace Walpole, except to quote his famous definition: "The world is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think."*


The second problem with considering the comic world-view to be superior to the more so-called "serious" dramatic one is that outside the realm of literary criticism-- across the spectrum of high and low-brow audiences (including the segment which the great Dwight MacDonald called "middle brow") --both the hoi polloi and the upper classes may be more likely to buy a ticket for a comedy than for a revival of, say, Mourning Becomes Electra. Despite the hard-to-get, prohibitively expensive ducat for The Book of Mormon,audiences nearly always reserve their awards (including Oscars) for what they have been led to believe is "high art," the "serious" stuff, the tragic as opposed to the comic. Because tragedy can sometimes--not always-- bring about catharsis, it is considered better than comedy, which, when it's done well, makes you feel good, not worse. Comedy is "light" (but not "trivial") and while it doesn't bring the kind of epiphany that cathartic tragedy does, it puts the world in perspective--things are not as bad as they seem. Even satire, the branch of comedy whose raison d'etre is to point out society's wrongs, stems from an optimistic motive: shining a flashlight on pomposity and stupidity is the first step in getting the world back into balance, using chaotic devices to bring order out of chaos.

And to the idea that the best literature is "comic" is absolutely true, despite the lionizing of works without one single laugh. Even a work as ponderous as Dante's Inferno has one joke--it's a fart joke, but a joke nonetheless. Shakespeare works, as has already been noted in this thread, simultaneously play with tragedy and comedy (with the misnomer "comic relief" in tragedies and dark elements in the comedies.)

Oscar Wilde is the one who said "Life is too serious to be taken seriously," and by the way, though I think the article's author does think that Joyce, Beckett, et al. are "comic"--at least I hope so!--but the notion that James Joyce is "not" comic? Maybe in some parallel universe.

And those who claim that the Bible doesn't contain any jokes either haven't really read it or failed to see the beautiful humor that can be found through both Testaments. The Good Book is full of situational comedy, multi-lingual puns and other word-play, Dionysian drunkenness, deflated pomposity, and that primary ingredient of comedy--resilence. Among modern and contemporary takes on The New Testament, I strongly recommend Man of Nazareth by Anthony Burgess. That novel looks at the Life of Christ with a respectful yet from the jaundiced view of an uncommitted witness who depicts some of the well-known and revered stories of the disciples and their Lord with a humorous perspective. The last chapter of the novel posits the
"ludic" (game-playing) nature of religion, and is an intriguing way to look at the relationship between the human and the divine.

For every excruciatingly somber opera from the Ring cycle or weighty Hardy novel, there are scores of classic works which hold a mirror up to human nature the way it really is; because of the impossibility of escaping death, there is undeniable sadness in everyone's life, yet in our day-to-day ramblings we can't obsess over the fact that we're all going to die someday. Comedy is a way of manouvering through life's rough stops and side-stepping the bumpy sidewalks strewn with banana peels by helping us back on our feet, giving us a slap on the back, and hitting us with a pie in the face.




*Just as comedy has a tendency to introduce a dash of chaos into the mix,
we can confound our argument even further by bringing in Neitzsche.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian

The wiki-page includes Camille Paglia's take on the concept, wherein she views the Dionysian half of the principle as "chlonic," darker, and inferior. But if I haven't misinterpreted the German philosopher's theory, it seems to consider boththe diametric opposites of comedy and tragedy as integral components of art, or did I get that wrong?

"Comedy is tragedy plus time." --Sid Caesar

PS>(Added 4:12 pm EDT)--Woody Allen's critically-trounced Starlight Memories(1980) has a wonderful line. When Woody's character comes across some extraterrestrial aliens in the woods, he asks them how he could help mankind. And one of the aliens answers, "You want to do mankind a service? Tell funnier jokes!"

PPS: The OP has given us a refreshingly interesting thread! To those who contributed to the lively discussion I strongly recommend that they rent a DVD of the brilliant Preston Sturges's movie, Sullivan's Travels(1941.) In that comedy, the title character is an idealistic film director who meanders across the U.S. in search of material for his socially-conscious movie, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" (The Cohn brothers borrowed that title for a much-later comedy of their own, a good one, I might add.) Anyway, Sullivan gets to witness much human misery, and lands in seemingly inextricable hot water of his own. But his experiences bring him a revelation--making a movie about human misery is much less effective as making his fellow man laugh!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Oh, yeah, comedy sure is more true to life than drama. I can't count all the times I've been in the hospital waiting to have surgery for cancer, just yukkin' it up! Good times.

Seriously, though, I don't know what kind of lives other people are living, but mine doesn't seem like a comedy or a melodramatic tragedy. It's quite dull, really. I don't think either are very good reflections of life, aside from those fw interesting people out there, and in there cases usually snippets of their lives only are interesting.

No Country For Old Man is dead serious.
And? Fargo, Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski, Burn After Reading, O Brother Where Art Thou . . . I rest my case.

[MystyrMystyry]

Good points Aunty. You could mention Some Like It Hot, The Man Who Came To Dinner, and a heap of classics that missed out on awards because of the lightness aspect. But they stand the test of time. Just those two prove that 'low brow' can also have a 'high brow' quality because they invite you to analyse the comedic process.

Actually it says more about awards ceremonies than proof of worth. The best team's victory is obvious, and the footballer may receive a best on field, but rarely the player who 'tried the hardest' with perhaps an undisclosed injury gets a deserving mention.

Awarding any artform though, so to say 'this is the best' of a selected crop, the notion of 'best' is extremely dubious. Using the painting analogy again - I like Van Gogh's Starry Night, but not all the time. Not even every day or week. There are too many other works in his catalog vying for my attention to single out just one.

At a recent portrait prize exhibition I didn't find fault with any of the 100+ submissions, but I suddenly could when the winner was announced: "What!? That one!? Why that over this!? What's so special about it!? What's wrong with this one!? Or that one!? In fact all the others are better than the stupid panel's decision!" etc

Odd how impartial and fair I'd been just a minute earlier.

Personally I thought No Country was very funny. But how should it be justly compared at say a universal award show? With Woody Allen's Shadows and Fog, Silence of the Lambs, Se7en?

And on that note if their must be a (Categorical) Academy Awards then there should also be separate categories for best film and actors, art direction and music, costume design and titles, director and producer, low brow and highbrow, etc, for all the different types and gradations of various films, retrospectively, back to the first ever motion picture. It's only fair.

[stlukesguild]

The American Film Institute voted upon the following 100 films as the greatest 100 American/English Language Films:

Citizen Kane
Casablanca
The Godfather
Gone with the Wind
Lawrence of Arabia
The Wizard of Oz
The Graduate
On the Waterfront
Schindler's List
Singin' in the Rain
It's a Wonderful Life
Sunset Boulevard
The Bridge on the River Kwai
Some Like It Hot
Star Wars
All About Eve
The African Queen
Psycho
The General
Chinatown
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Grapes of Wrath
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Maltese Falcon
Raging Bull 1980
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Dr. Strangelove
Bonnie and Clyde
Apocalypse Now
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Annie Hall
The Godfather Part II
High Noon
To Kill a Mockingbird
It Happened One Night
Midnight Cowboy
The Best Years of Our Lives
Double Indemnity
Doctor Zhivago
North by Northwest
West Side Story
Rear Window
King Kong
The Birth of a Nation
A Streetcar Named Desire
A Clockwork Orange
Taxi Driver
Jaws
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Intolerance
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
The Philadelphia Story
From Here to Eternity
Amadeus
All Quiet on the Western Front
The Sound of Music
MASH
The Third Man
Fantasia
Rebel Without a Cause
Nashville
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Vertigo
Sullivan's Travels
Tootsie
Stagecoach
Cabaret
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
The Silence of the Lambs
Network
The Manchurian Candidate
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
An American in Paris
Shane
The French Connection
Forrest Gump
Saving Private Ryan
Ben-Hur
The Shawshank Redemption
Wuthering Heights
The Gold Rush
Dances with Wolves
In the Heat of the Night
City Lights
American Graffiti
All the President's Men
Rocky
The Deer Hunter
The Wild Bunch
Modern Times
Spartacus
Giant
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
Platoon
Titanic
Fargo
Duck Soup
A Night at the Opera
Mutiny on the Bounty
Frankenstein
12 Angry Men
Easy Rider
Patton
The Sixth Sense
The Jazz Singer
Swing Time
My Fair Lady
Sophie's Choice
A Place in the Sun
The Apartment
Goodfellas
Pulp Fiction
The Last Picture Show
The Searchers
Do the Right Thing
Bringing Up Baby
Blade Runner
Unforgiven
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Toy Story
Yankee Doodle Dandy

Very few comedies overall... and a good many of these older films. One might argue that films like Network or Casablanca might be counted as "comedies" due to comedic elements... but I'm not certain that a few jokes establish an overall comedic/satiric intent.

[mortalterror]

Martin Amis isn't the new Rabelais. He's the new Colley Cibber. However, Trey Parker is the new Aristophanes.

When I saw the examples the essayist was making I had to check it's date. 2007. Even five years ago, The Simpsons were a dated reference. Family Guy had taken it's place in the cultural zeitgeist by then, though now even that is starting to wane as people are moving on looking for the next big thing.

[stlukesguild]

I'm not sure whether the Academy Award is the gold standard when it comes to assessing the quality of a particular film or screenplay.

That may be true... but then look at the rather unbalanced choices by the American Film Institute for the 100 Greatest Films. Or go beyond this an peruse the Nobel Prize Laureates for literature. Of all the Laureates since 1901, I would only think of the following authors as having an oeuvre that might be called comedic:

G.B Shaw
Luigi Pirandello
William Faulkner
Shmuel Yosef Agnon
Saul Bellow
I.B. Singer
Gunter Grass
Mario Vargas Llosa

And I have the sort of warped black humor that sees Faulkner's As I Lay Dying as comedic... but I wouldn't say much more of his oeuvre falls into that realm. What is painfully obvious is just how outrageous the omissions are of writers whose works are indeed "comedic": Franz Kafka, James Joyce, J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Gore Vidal, and surely Philip Roth.

Few people these days ever refer to Horace Walpole, except to quote his famous definition: "The world is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think."

J.L. Borges suggested something similar. I don't have the exact quote at hand, but essentially he declared that we were living in a Baroque... mannered... decadent era, and all Baroque art, he continued, was self-conscious and comedic by nature.

My Jewish studio-mate has spoken of the same Jewish tradition that the article author touched upon. He suggests the obvious: that humor was a means of coming to terms with the horror of life without going insane... or wallowing in self-pity and slitting your wrists. The two of us have a "horrible" black humor... and contrary to Mutatis suggestion we have sat in the hospital awaiting surgery roaring with laughter over the absolute absurdity of things. Indeed, such a sense of humor has been a survival mechanism. I doubt that few could survive working under the conditions involved in today's inner-city schools without being able to laugh at the insanity and the absurdity of it all. The alternative is to become bitter, hateful, and jaded... or just burn out.

...across the spectrum of high and low-brow audiences... both the hoi polloi and the upper classes may be more likely to buy a ticket for a comedy than for a revival of, say, Mourning Becomes Electra... (yet) audiences nearly always reserve their awards (including Oscars) for what they have been led to believe is "high art," the "serious" stuff, the tragic as opposed to the comic.

Thus, perhaps the consolation prize for the artist of the comedic is that while he or she may be ignored when they are handing out the prizes for "serious" artistic achievement, the same artist may just be laughing all the way to the bank. Again... on a personal note... my studio mate is fully aware that his art: dark... bleak... ugly meditations on the Holocaust and sufferings of the Jews over history as a whole... has little or no chance of selling. Last Christmas there was an "Open Studio" art walk in which artists could make a little money on the side just in time for the holiday by selling little ceramic or glass works, or small decorative paintings to the artistically-minded holiday shoppers. We sat roaring with laughter over his chance of selling anything: "Nothing says Christmas like the Holocaust!"

When he is in one of his darker moods, he refers to any artist of a more comedic frame of mind... including myself... as "lightweight" and "meaningless". "It's a complete nothing!" he'll roar. Thus I am led to wonder how much of the bias against the comedic is nothing more than jealousy?

And those who claim that the Bible doesn't contain any jokes either hasn't really read it or failed to see the beautiful humor that can be found through both Testaments. The Good Book is full of situational comedy, multi-lingual puns and other word-play, Dionysian drunkenness, deflated pomposity, and that primary ingredient of comedy--resilence. Among modern and contemporary takes on The New Testament, I strongly recommend Man of Nazareth by Anthony Burgess.

Harold Bloom suggests that there is a great deal of ironic humor in the Old Testament, and the poet/translator Stephen Mitchell points out the link between the Book of Job and Kafka... with a God, who like the Greeks, takes pleasure in toying with mankind for laughs... or for some perverse reason that we are unable to discern. My studio mate finds endless humor in the notion of the Jews being the "chosen people" considering their history, as well as in the absurd covenant involving circumcision. "Let me get this straight," he'll chortle... "The Arabs get all the oil... and I have to chop off the end of my what!!!??" A year ago he attended the Bris of his nephew's first born son. he was in absolute stitches over the fact that the Moil earned some $3000 a week or more... for chopping off... well, you get the picture. He caused all the little old blue-haired Jewish women at the gathering to drop their salad forks in unison when he suddenly asked... in the middle of the first course of the meal... "By the way... what do they do with the foreskin when their done with the snipping?":eek::yikes::smilielol5:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Actually, I have had quite a few laughs in the hospital, but like you say, it's sort of a survival mechanism. The idiom "If you don't laugh, you cry," is quite true.


Martin Amis isn't the new Rabelais. He's the new Colley Cibber. However, Trey Parker is the new Aristophanes.

When I saw the examples the essayist was making I had to check it's date. 2007. Even five years ago, The Simpsons were a dated reference. Family Guy had taken it's place in the cultural zeitgeist by then, though now even that is starting to wane as people are moving on looking for the next big thing.
Man, the Simpsons quit being relevant, and funny, in the 90s--I sorta assumed that's when the article was written. Like you said, Family Guy is the current pop culture hit, and if one wants pop culture references, FG blasts them out at an unprecedented rate--a lot of times I don't even know what they're referencing. But FG, even though still funny, is past its prime. It seems like every few weeks a new cartoon is coming out to try and be the next big thing, but none have managed it yet. Daniel Tosh has a cartoon coming out in a few months, but I don't see it succeeding.

I'm glad you mentioned Trey Parker (poor Matt Stone, always sitting in Parker's shadow) because South Park was the reigning champ after Simpsons and before FG really exploded. I think South Park is probably the smartest cartoon comedy ever done (and one of the smartest comedies ever, cartoon or otherwise). It's rife with social commentary, and their ability to put episodes out that deal with current issues is unbelievable. They actually don't even begin making most episodes until a week before they're supposed to air. Talk about crunch-time. Like FG it's passed its prime, but is still pretty damn funny. Neither FG or SP have ventured into Simpsons territory of being unwatchable.

And then there was Beavis and Butthead, also a hilarious show. It didn't dethrone Simpsons, but it did take some of the spotlight away for a couple years. It's funny watching it now and remembering how big a deal was made of it, seeing as how tame it is compared to even FG, which airs on a major network.

[OrphanPip]

Simpsons is better written though, something Parker and Stone agree with. Family Guy is never really going to compare with Simpsons in cultural impact, the Simpsons have actually introduced words into the everyday lexicon of most people. Family Guy is all cheap gags and non-stop allusions.

The Simpsons and Family Guy actually flip flop in ratings share, neither is much more popular than the other. Although, I think Matt Groening's best work was on Futurama instead of Simpsons.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Simpsons is better written though, something Parker and Stone agree with. Family Guy is never really going to compare with Simpsons in cultural impact, the Simpsons have actually introduced words into the everyday lexicon of most people. Family Guy is all cheap gags and non-stop allusions.

The Simpsons and Family Guy actually flip flop in ratings share, neither is much more popular than the other. Although, I think Matt Groening's best work was on Futurama instead of Simpsons.

Nah, Simpsons was better written. I don't know what the ratings are, but I don't know anyone who watches the Simpsons anymore (especially the new episodes), yet I know literally dozens of people who watch FG. I agree FG is cheap gags and non-stop allusions, but when it aired there was absolutely no cartoon that had that same kind of humor and style. Plus, it's funny as hell, cheap laughs or no.

Aside from "Doh!" what words did Simpsons introduce? They made some words that already existed popular, but I can't think of any neologisms, such as Quagmire's "Giggity."

[billl]

Aside from "Doh!" what words did Simpsons introduce? They made some words that already existed popular, but I can't think of any neologisms, such as Quagmire's "Giggity."

I've heard or seen all of these get used (outside of the show and my circle of friends) more than once:

craptacular
meh
cromulent
glavin! (punctuation, at the end of a precise and geeky explanation--admittedly, inspired by Jerry Lewis Nutty Professor nonsense)
embiggen (opposite of belittle)
Okely-Dokely!
saxamaphone
Yoink!

[kelby_lake]

Those are comedies? The King's Speech and American Beauty?

American Beauty is a black comedy, although as comedies go it's probably more sophisticated and highbrow. The King's Speech is a sort of comedy-drama- hardly a tragedy anyway.

The point made was that comedies (more lightweight films, not seen as "worthy") are less well-regarded than tragedies (highbrow films, seen as "worthy") in the eyes of the Oscar committee, when they've frequently gone for the populist films. The Reader, an Oscar-type film, lost out to Slumdog Millionaire a few years ago.

[kelby_lake]

The American Film Institute voted upon the following 100 films as the greatest 100 American/English Language Films:

Citizen Kane
Casablanca
The Godfather
Gone with the Wind
Lawrence of Arabia
The Wizard of Oz
The Graduate
On the Waterfront
Schindler's List
Singin' in the Rain
It's a Wonderful Life
Sunset Boulevard
The Bridge on the River Kwai
Some Like It Hot
Star Wars
All About Eve
The African Queen
Psycho
The General
Chinatown
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Grapes of Wrath
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Maltese Falcon
Raging Bull 1980
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Dr. Strangelove
Bonnie and Clyde
Apocalypse Now
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Annie Hall
The Godfather Part II
High Noon
To Kill a Mockingbird
It Happened One Night
Midnight Cowboy
The Best Years of Our Lives
Double Indemnity
Doctor Zhivago
North by Northwest
West Side Story
Rear Window
King Kong
The Birth of a Nation
A Streetcar Named Desire
A Clockwork Orange
Taxi Driver
Jaws
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Intolerance
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
The Philadelphia Story
From Here to Eternity
Amadeus
All Quiet on the Western Front
The Sound of Music
MASH
The Third Man
Fantasia
Rebel Without a Cause
Nashville
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Vertigo
Sullivan's Travels
Tootsie
Stagecoach
Cabaret
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
The Silence of the Lambs
Network
The Manchurian Candidate
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
An American in Paris
Shane
The French Connection
Forrest Gump
Saving Private Ryan
Ben-Hur
The Shawshank Redemption
Wuthering Heights
The Gold Rush
Dances with Wolves
In the Heat of the Night
City Lights
American Graffiti
All the President's Men
Rocky
The Deer Hunter
The Wild Bunch
Modern Times
Spartacus
Giant
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
Platoon
Titanic
Fargo
Duck Soup
A Night at the Opera
Mutiny on the Bounty
Frankenstein
12 Angry Men
Easy Rider
Patton
The Sixth Sense
The Jazz Singer
Swing Time
My Fair Lady
Sophie's Choice
A Place in the Sun
The Apartment
Goodfellas
Pulp Fiction
The Last Picture Show
The Searchers
Do the Right Thing
Bringing Up Baby
Blade Runner
Unforgiven
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Toy Story
Yankee Doodle Dandy

Very few comedies overall... and a good many of these older films. One might argue that films like Network or Casablanca might be counted as "comedies" due to comedic elements... but I'm not certain that a few jokes establish an overall comedic/satiric intent.

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.

Yes, it is true that older comedies are more highly regarded than modern comedies; maybe a comedy has to "prove" itself more than a tragedy or serious drama does.

The reason why comedy loses out is that comedy is a very subjective thing. We can all watch King Lear and understand the tragedy, but not everybody will find As You Like It amusing whereas some might find it very funny. Black comedy can be divisive but a tragedy will never be divisive, unless it's a discussion on whether the tragedy was done well.

[kelby_lake]

Another problem with comedies is that they can date. There will be people who look back on old seventies sitcoms and still find them hilarious but others will look back and find them very dated. Tragedies do not date.

[MystyrMystyry]

Good comedies don't date. Maybe the references do, but here's one from the early seventies: and the slapstick relies on the oldest joke in the book

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfrShu_Lp2A


The trouble with the Academy is that it's ultimately concerned with the bottom line. The best comedies will live on, but it's actually the dramas that have a limited shelf life and have to maximise their returns before the fashion shifts. I can't say exctly how much an Oscar is worth at the box office, but it's a packet, and the entire Hollywood Who's Who have a vested interest. That is they have investments in the industry.

Okay that sounded a bit absolute, but I'm tired.

[OrphanPip]

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is a comedy as well, albeit with the serious undertones that come with the subject of an interracial marriage in the 1960s.

[Summer M]

So far we've been discussing the relative merits of good comedies and good tragedies, but there is another side to this coin: comedy is not taken seriously because when comedy is bad, it's awful, whereas bad drama or tragedy is usually not nearly as unbearable.

For example, I am incapable of watching Everybody Loves Raymond. Everything about that horrible show makes me sick to my stomach. Same with Adam Sandler: a mere look at his face makes me want to smash my TV. No drama or tragedy, no matter how bad, has ever been this bad, in my opinion. House is awful, but I can still watch a whole episode without a noose nearby.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Everybody Loves Raymond wasn't bad, not were the early Adam Sandler movies.

[WyattGwyon]

Pulp Fiction is a comedy, right? At least, it never occurred to me it could be taken another way.

[stlukesguild]

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.

[stlukesguild]

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is a comedy as well, albeit with the serious undertones that come with the subject of an interracial marriage in the 1960s.

I thought of including that as well as Cabaret... which is a musical with dark, satiric overtones... but neither the AFI nor the IMBd recognize either as "comedies". There are certain works... undoubtedly... that truly straddle the line. As I've admitted, I see As I Lay Dying as black comedy... but it might surely be seen as tragedy as well. Many take Kafka deadly serious as tragic writer... although he himself was reported to have read his works to friends while laughing hysterically... and I see the works as darkly comic as well.

[stlukesguild]

So far we've been discussing the relative merits of good comedies and good tragedies, but there is another side to this coin: comedy is not taken seriously because when comedy is bad, it's awful, whereas bad drama or tragedy is usually not nearly as unbearable.

I don't know if I buy that. I always find work that has delusions of grandeur or pretensions of genius... yet which falls flat... to be far worse than something lacking such pretense.

By the way... Everybody Loves Raymond was most certainly not without moments of brilliance... especially involving the comedic genius of Peter Boyle.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Everybody Loves Raymond was an odd show. The first half of every episode was almost always hilarious, but a lot of times it devolved into these unrealistic, schoolgirl arguments among the family.

Also, I don't think anyone has mentioned this possibility, so I will: Maybe tragedy is just better than comedy.

[stlukesguild]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this possibility, so I will: Maybe tragedy is just better than comedy.

Actually... I think many have suggested as much... go so far as to suggest... if only obliquely... that the comic is "lightweight". Is it? Again I would ask, what of Cevantes, Rabelais, Swift, Sterne, Twain, Kafka, Gogol, Borges, Calvino, Roth, etc...?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't really think one is better than the other. A great piece of art is a great piece of art, be it serious, comedic, or any other adjective one would want to throw in there.

[Summer M]

I don't know if I buy that. I always find work that has delusions of grandeur or pretensions of genius... yet which falls flat... to be far worse than something lacking such pretense.

By the way... Everybody Loves Raymond was most certainly not without moments of brilliance... especially involving the comedic genius of Peter Boyle.

This would have to be one of those "agree to disagree" moments. I've never watched a drama or tragedy that left me disgusted or angry, but when I hear people laughing at the jokes of George Lopez, Ray Romano, or Adam Sandler, I feel repulsed.

[Heteronym]

Also, I don't think anyone has mentioned this possibility, so I will: Maybe tragedy is just better than comedy.

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.

[Emil Miller]

The King's Speech is a sort of comedy-drama- hardly a tragedy anyway.

I didn't see The King's Speech but the last ten seconds of this clip are hilarious.

http://youtu.be/ifgBoARGcZs

There's an amusing send up on You Tube where, instead of King George, the man under instruction is George W Bush. Now that would have been a real mission impossible.

[Alexander III]

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.


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.

I am reading Dom Quixote now, and it is a book of great beauty, but when I finish reading every night I see a life devoid of life. When I read the Great Gatsby or Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, if not tears at least I was in possession of the sentiment of tears, there was no emptiness, rather there was a fullness of life. For I am quite sure that any man here, who has had a period when they were living but devoid of life; can attest to the sweetness of sadness, or anything as long as it is not emptiness. Tragedy fills, comedy hollows out.

[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]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 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1136997&postcount=77).

(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. :p