Someone wrote a blog entry last week that in part had to do with Knocked Up. She classified it as humor primarily, unless I missed something. I wonder though, was it primarily humor? It struck me as a dramedy, or half comedy, half drama. There's a love story in there so that's romance (a subgenre in many people's books for drama). That love story is an integral part of the movie and its plot. Is there a movie that is pure comedy that people really look at critically and say "I loved that movie"? I think it might be a requirement that comedy is coupled with another genre to create anything of substance. Some pure comedy genre movies that I'm thinking of include Monty Python, Blades of Glory, and Scary Movie type stuff. Some people might love this stuff, but it's pretty much a cult following or an "I have to be in the right mood" type of love. When was the last time a comedy or something primarily humorous was nominated for an award of substance like an Emmy or Golden Globe?
It makes humor seem meaningless unless attached to something else. Grawe talks about this same problem or presupposition. He talks about how Aristotle and other rhetoricians just wisked right by humor and comedy, not treating it seriously, denying it any enduring worth. He extends the argument saying basically, no wonder no great writers more than dabbled in it.
I guess this is a weird observation coming from Knocked Up. I mean it doesn't have all that much substance, maybe. Romance and comedy tend to have less serious consideration in the public eye in genre. Maybe the real message is just lost or the audience doesn't want to acknowledge it, make fun of it by saying that the message is become a baby daddy and then marry the mommy, yeah that's the way. How about people find love in really weird ways, but it's real. Too corny for a modern audience? Probably. Ridiculous? Maybe. But maybe not.
So back to the question: Does comedy have to be coupled with something to be at its best? I think probably, if it has a message.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with what you're saying about comedy being at its best when attached to something else, something more "serious."
ReplyDeleteI have to defend Monty Python, however. While some skits may be pure comedy in the sense that you're talking about, I think there are a lot of instances where it fits this exact category you're talking about: comedy mixed with drama. The Holy Grail, for instance, parodies some actual historical events and brings up questions about their validity. The Life of Brian is a pretty scathing lens on religion.
Hmm, I hadn't really thought much about the film specifically in the context of comedy; though, because I was exploring Rogen as a "comedic actor/figure," I definitely see connection. Either way, your observation on genre blending is interesting. I'd even venture to say that it is probably really difficult (if not impossible) to isolate one genre as "pure." Laughter and comedy (via "comic relief") make their way into even the most somber tragedies/dramas, for example, while sad moments are woven into comedies...
ReplyDeleteAs far as a modern example goes, I would be hard pressed to find one that could stand alone as a work of substance as well as pure comedy...
ReplyDeleteHowever, go back a couple hundred years, and I think if you look at Shakespeare's comedies, you will see they are the closest things you will find which can stand on their own as comedic works with substance... (Specifically, I'm thinking of plays like A Midsummer Night's Dream, which despite being primarily humorous, still manages to convey rather weighty messages about love, politics, relationships...