We all know the old saying: “Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.”
Unlike most other genres, comedy taps into something entirely subjective in each audience member. A horror film can trigger our collective “fight or flight” instincts. A drama can force us into painful situations or face uncomfortable realities. A thriller can engage our adrenaline and our mind simultaneously (excluding ANGELS AND DEMONS, of course). But comedy relies on our past and current definitions of funny, and often what makes us laugh is as unique to each of us as our own fingerprint.
Most comedies attempt to make us laugh at absurd situations and comments. The successful ones combine outrageous character moments with endearing business that helps the audience relate to the onscreen antics. Think about your favorite comedies of all time, and you will probably identify with the characters and situations in it. For me, a film like MR. MOM is funny because Michael Keaton’s plight is instantly identifiable to men everywhere. TOOTSIE works as a comedy because the situation, no matter how bizarre, plays on our collective understanding of gender roles (not to mention several brilliant performances). Films like KINGPIN or DUMB AND DUMBER appeal to our baser instincts, but they also have winning characters and timeless topics to drive the humor.
But it’s particularly difficult to create a comedy around a character that’s supposed to be a comedian. Think back to a film like KING OF COMEDY. It works as a drama, but it’s not particularly funny. Or the more recent THE ARISTOCRATS, which contained a who’s-who of American comedy. It’s a shocking look at the history of the joke, but it’s not very funny.
The problem is the subject matter. We expect that a person presented to us as a comedian should be able to make us laugh, which then forces us into a defensive position in which we defy the person to make us laugh. It’s like that old game show from the seventies called MAKE ME LAUGH, which had comedians attempting to break the stony silences of the contestants; I doubt if there wa sever one memorably funny line in the entire run of the show, mainly because the comedians were expected to make people laugh … which made it less funny.
The upcoming Adam Sandler comedy FUNNY PEOPLE is in just this sort of predicament. The film stars Sandler as a stand-up comedian who finds out he’s dying (hilarious!!). He recruits a lesser known comedian played by Seth Rogen to help him out … when he then discovers he’s not dying anymore!
The crucial element of the film is selling Sandler and Rogen as credible stand-up comedians. Sandler started his career on SNL, which should give him some leverage as long as he’s allowed to cut loose in the film and actually do his standard routines from 15 years ago. Rogen, while funny, doesn’t really strike me as a stand-up.
But I must admit that I haven’t even cracked a smile at any of the promotional clips I’ve seen from this film so far. Worst of all are the supposed comedy club bits from the film, which feel awkward and pre-programmed in a Hollywood soundstage kind of way. To work, the film must present Sandler and Rogen with some funny stand-up material … otherwise the film falls apart. The fact that none of the trailers have managed to be even remotely funny is a potentially poisonous problem.
Even more telling are the awful attempts to virally market this film via the internet. A recent example is the horrible website for Randy, the villainous comedian played by Aziz Ansari in the film. Simply put, Randy is a comedian in the Dane Cook vein, content to shock audiences with inane putdowns and “cooler than you” asides. The comedy featured is, I imagine, supposed to be bad. But what, then, is the film trying to say about its target audience? Is the film mocking the poor taste in comedy of most audiences?
First and foremost, a film is a comedy only if it’s funny. It’s not called a comedy simply because it expects the audience to laugh. And that’s the unfortunate vibe coming from FUNNY PEOPLE … the marketing almost DARES the audience to come and laugh at well-known comedians doing stand-up routines and talking about death.
It sounds like a deadly recipe for disaster.
5 Comments
yea the trailer was a mess i thought. from the stupid stereotyping of the german doctor(bruce willis killer! LOL…), to the silly accent judd appatow’s wife keeps talking in(which she thinks is FRACKIN HILARIOUS apparently) opposite eric bana, and the cheap candle gag at the end of the trailer (i dont think he went to heaven, went to hell..) Seriously, this is edgy humor?
i also think they show too much in the trailer as far as the drama goes. When we hear he’s dying, the audience is kinda sucker punched and prepare for the rest of the trailer being melodramatic and a tearjerker…but then, he suddenly, ISNT DYING? wtf?
it just has a reallllllllyyy bad mix with what is supposed to be a comedy, from the guy who came to be known as the bittersweet adult comedies…the trailer just seems to go back and forth with stupid gags that don’t really have to do with the central story- seth rogen taking after adam sandler. so it kinda fails, really. the trailer. and in the past, apatow’s trailers usually had that kinda spark that made you want to go see it. but something about this, screams out “HEY WATCH THIS! ITS FUNNY…AND SAD! AND FUNNY AGAIN!” and i dont wanna be forced to laugh and then forced to cry for someone who’s not dying…end.
@ nedd – I agree with your assessment of the trailer. Frankly, I still think it looks very sappy and sentimental despite the fact that he lives.
I don’t really want life lessons from my comedies .. just make me laugh.
I always like my comedy with a bit of pathos, it adds perspective, sadly this looks like its heading wide of the mark.
I agree with your main point, whenever I write something the first edit I do is delete every “x laughs” instruction. Its just so presumptuous and if an actor is good enough (and its written well enough) then they’ll have the confidence to put that in themselves.
@ Pete – Hmmmm … interesting idea. However, in some cases indicating laughter in a script also indicates fragments of character, does it not? Two characters could say the exact same line; one laughs, the other does not. Indicating whether or not they laugh would tell the actor more about that character … he/she might be more straightfaced, etc.
No, I take your point and its true, but it depends on what is being said, what provokes the laughter really dictates whether I leave it in (so maybe I misused the word ‘every’ there).
But in dialogue having characters laugh at what each other are saying as a recognition of some kind of wit has become a horrible trend since Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino changed the writing landscape, you see it most on TV comedies where characters are laughing at each other, but its not funny, it just makes them come across as self-satisfied or incredibly annoying.
When Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield are talking at the beginning of Pulp Fiction the laughs come naturally because two confident actors and a great director have worked together to find a method of delivery that works. But when you write ‘x laughs’, its basically telegraphing your own jokes (which is quite a condescending act anyway) and if they fall flat then your script is dead.