What is the difference between a great comedy and a really funny movie? Is one easily classifiable and the other too subjective? It’s quite possible. Billy Wilder’s Some Like it Hot is considered by many academics and critics to be the best comedy film of all time. I won’t argue, as I’m not an expert on the craft of comedy, but despite the fact that I enjoy the film, it’s not one that makes me laugh much. Meanwhile I’ll fall on the floor laughing at parts of Cabin Boy, which I know is not a well-made movie, and which I don’t even especially like. So, the question is, how does one award comedy?
Every year during the awards season, people talk about how comedies and comedic performances are largely overlooked. I’ve already commented once on the subject, regarding this year’s Golden Globe nominations, but since then I’ve noticed more complaints about overlooked comedies, and in most instances there seems to be a confusion about what it really means to be a great comedy and what is just a funny movie. Today, the IMDb linked to the Misfortune Cookie Blog and its honoring of “the year’s funniest in film.” The site references Knocked Up and Juno as “comedic achievements” that will go unrecognized (never mind that Juno is a Best Picture Oscar front-runner) yet also makes the point of naming Superbad the “Funniest Movie of the Year” with a disclaimer stating that it is not the “best movie, or best-written, or most likely to change your life.” So, what is the argument? Are you making a point of recognizing under-appreciated comedic genius, or are you just pointing out something that made YOU laugh.
Now, I don’t mean to pick on this single blog, but since it is likely getting a lot of traffic from the IMDb today, I figure it’s fair to argue against its intent. I will say first that the blog is good to point out the high Rotten Tomatoes ratings for comedies such as The Simpsons Movie and Hot Fuzz, neither of which is making it on to many end-of-year lists nor receiving award nominations. But then, I don’t think a lot of critics review comedies the same way they review dramas, either. How many critics are able to positively review a comedy they don’t find funny — not because it isn’t funny, but because it falls within a different humor bracket than the critic’s senses appreciate?
Because Americans have different senses of humor, it’s easy to assume that many people consider the best comedy (or funniest movie) of 2007 to be Wild Hogs, or Enchanted, or Shrek the Third, or I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, or Rush Hour 3, or … Alvin and the Chipmunks. And there’s a chance that one or more of these will be nominated for an MTV Movie Award or some other more pop-centric award that recognizes comedy. I wonder: if the Academy Awards had a separate category just for comedy (not even split with musical), would the nominees even appease these higher-brow comedy fans?
Just for the record, I laughed the most in Life of Reilly, but I think Hot Fuzz is the best comedy of the year. However, I’m still not sure what are my qualifications for the latter.
5 Comments
“Comedy” in the traditional sense (and by the traditional sense I’m referring to the Greek Theater sense of Comedy and Tragedy), is more about the structure of the plot rather than anything that funny that happens in it. The very rough rule of thumb is that comedies end in weddings, tragedies end in death.
‘Hamlet’ has some really funny lines, but it is considered a tragedy because of the story structure. Comedies can have parts in them that move you to tears, but end with everyone pairing up and going off to live happily ever after.
‘Hot Fuzz’ would be classified as a parody, which isn’t always thought of as the strongest form of comedy. This is primarily because the parody relies on a prior work to succeed. Would ‘Hot Fuzz’ be as successful if an audience member approached it without prior action film knowledge. I would argue that it does stand on its own, but because the question is even asked, it loses a little bit of prestige.
I think Hot Fuzz is fine on its own, and it’s not technically a parody nor is it intended to be. I think just as you can watch Romeo and Juliet without being familiar with Pyramus and Thisbe or any of the other allusions, you can also watch Hot Fuzz without being familiar with buddy action movies. Of course, in any situation, the more appreciated layers, the better.
Also, you got me thinking: should Shaun of the Dead be considered a tragedy since most of the characters die? Or a comedy because Shaun and Liz end up happily together at the end. Don’t actually answer that question. Obviously, today we have different understandings of comedy and tragedy from Greek standards. And we have boundary-crossing examples.
The main thing to consider, I think, is that film is not about comedy or drama and any film that utilizes the visual medium the best should be honored — if you have to honor film, that is. I think Edgar Wright utilizes the medium to its fullest and funniest. As does Brad Bird, for that matter. Both of them deserve more recognition in their own right, rather than as comedy or animated film only.
Hey Chris,
I just had to comment because I run an Independent Film Society called the Chlotrudis Society for Indpendent Film. Every year the membership compiles a movie list, and this year we just completed our list of the 100 Funniest Films of all time. We haven’t even gotten the press release out about it, but since you posted the above, I thought I’d share. You can take a look at http://www.chlotrudis.org/favorite/funny.html.
Thanks Michael. Interesting that you guys would do “Funniest Films” but not choose the wording “Best Scary Films” rather than “Scariest Films”.
The horror genre is somewhat relative, huh?
Here’s another interesting bit to include in the discussion: Armond White’s claim that I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry is better than Knocked Up. I haven’t seen the former so can’t concur, but then I don’t care much for the latter, anyway. I like that White uses the term “better” but then “funnier”. Here is the quote:
“Homophilia is funnier than heterostupidity. The status-quo audience Judd Apatow panders to is the one Adam Sandler challenges and respects.”