http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/11/21/comedy-oscars-judd-apatow-categories/

After reading that article I thought of the following from a JB Reelthought a few years ago:



That's it right there. As we've established elsewhere on these here boards, there's no universal definition of what constitutes a good comedy.

There's also the matter of what separates a merely good comedy from one that deserves an Oscar. I love Friday. But I wouldn't consider it award material by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, I wouldn't argue against nominations for Thank You For Smoking or Up In The Air (which did get nominated).

Setting up a separate category for comedy might have its good and bad sides. On the one hand, it might help deal with the issue presented in the article. On the other hand, ghettoizing movies by genre may create more problems. How long until we see an Academy Award category for "best Popcorn Movie" and the nominees include Transformers V Bigger Louder And Less Brains?

I don't think it makes sense. There's so many films overloooked by the the Academy for a variety of reasons and so few comedies deserve consideration that I don't particularly care about this issue.

But even if I did, what's a comedy/what's a great comedy? Does Toy Story 3 get a nomination? The Hangover? Can you imagine how dated best comedy film Oscars would become? Again, I do think on occasion a deserving comedy is slighted, but I'm just not that fired up about it.

Apatow should talk. He made one of the most unfunny, unendurable pieces of trash in recent movie history (Funny People). The sporadic laughs in Virgin and Knocked Up shouldn't give him the right to make such a statement.

Of Apatow's films I liked The 40 Year Old Virgin. But Funny People and Knocked up came off to me as afterschool specials with dick jokes. Apatow always seemed to me like a safer, more mainstream Kevin Smith.

Agreed. These movies are just modern-day versions of the likes of "Caddyshack" and "Stripes." Granted, Apatow and Smith DO put a little more emphasis on character than those movies ever did, but it's still basically the same, very broad style of comedy: slapstick alongside dick/tit/fart/jack-off/bodily fluid jokes. That was fine when I was still in my early teens, but I've mostly outgrown that stuff now. What makes me laugh now is dryer, edgier, and more pointed humor. So, yes, comedy is subjective and that's why it seldom wins Hollywood hardware. And James has already pointed this out to us in several of his ReelThoughts writings.

Every Judd Apatow movie is worse than the last. Funny People is his worst film. But it won't be, after he releases his next film.

I'm the same way. They're good for a few yucks, but they're too understated for my taste. It's like they're trying for a big laugh, but they hold back a little too much. I did like Pineapple Express very much, but Apatow only produced that and I saw it in the theater (everyone knows that laughter is contagious).

At least he ushered in the era of the raunchy R rated comedy, which is something to be thankful for. Not every movie is cursed to be PG13 to cater to the Twilight and the Transformers crowd.

Still, every once in a while a movie like Borat comes along, that is not only a very funny and very popular comedy, it's intelligent and well made enough that it should have been able to compete with the big boys. To be fair, it was nominated for best screenplay, but that's usually what every successful comedy gets. Cohen should have gotten an Oscar nod...he was so convincing that it is impossible to believe that he's really a mild mannered Brit.

Don't know about "ushered in"...that could arguably go to the American Pie team or the Farrelly brothers. Those kinds of movies were very prevelant in the 80's, then kind of fell by the wayside in the 90's until American Pie came along. You had things like Dumb and Dumber, Kingpin and There's Something About Mary first, but those were a bit more broad and aimed at a slightly older audience. American Pie was hailed at the time as a return to that R-rated mainstream teen sex comedy that had been missing for 10+ years.

For me a "Best Comedy" wouldn't work as the diving line between comedy and drama is often obscured somewhat.

A good drama will often also be funny as f*ck in places.

Yep, I agree: comedy is very subjective. What is tasteless for one person, is hilarious for another. There is high brow and low brow and everything in between. There are plenty of movies based upon, or including, one central theme which I simply don't like: a loser tries to get a babe way out of his league, going from one embarrassing situation to another. I don't know what's so funny about that. I really don't. Seems like millions of people love that kind of "comedy".

I myself love what I call elaborate nonsense. Of course the Monty Python members were pioneers in this kind of comedy. Doesn't seem to work for all audiences.

I also don't like it when a comedy goes to straight romantic drama near the end. It happens way too often. I don't want to leave the theater with a warm and fuzzy feeling when I just saw a comedy - I want to go out laughing my butt off all the way home.

...just my usual random input.

I'm not a big fan of "Jackass" type humor, in other words, being gross just for the sake of being gross. I'm fine with comedies becoming more serious and heartwarming towards the end, it worked pretty well for Click Though i'll admit sometimes it can feel forced and out of place, Hall Pass being one example, while it was pretty funny for the most part, that part towards the end where

There is certainly a pretty large element of gross out humor to Jackass, but I think to dismiss it as being nothing but gross out humor is a bit off. A lot of the stunts those guys pull are things you wouldn't see the most daring of Hollywood stunt men doing. I'm not going to call anything they do high art, but they gladly put their bodies through the fucking ringer time and time again, and manage to give the whole ordeal an exuberant spirit. They might be idiots, or masochists, but they do have a unique talent. The shit they regularly do, despite it looking like anyone could pull it off, isn't shit anyone could pull off. Those guys are/were entertaining as hell.

I wasn't refering to Jackass in general, I was just using it as an example for when other films try and do gross-out stuff just for the sake of being gross, like the shit-eating scene in Year One, the people involved with that film apparently thought that the mere presence of shit-eating itself would be hilarious and it's not, you can't just show people doing gross stuff and expect it to be funny, you actually have to go beyond that and provide some context as to why it's funny, sorry if that sounds confusing.

I'm happy with you guys. I was all ready to be the antagonist on this thread, but instead we're largely in agreement. I don't want a movie like Sideways to get relegated to a Best Comedy ghetto when it's perfectly capable of snagging a Best Picture nod.

Yeah I liked Sideways.

I felt it captured the feeling of excitement and discomfort that meeting an old friend from your past can bring.

The relationship between the two male leads seemed pretty true to life. Giamatti liked his old friend and the things he had them do together - the adventures - but on another level also despaired of him messing up his life. The part were Giamatti tells his ladyfriend that Cole was "just his old roomate from college" was a sad but true reflection of how people drift apart and become annexed to a time or place in your memory, rather than a continuing part of your life.

I actually feel that way about at least 6 people.

It was good, but not particularly funny. Most comedies are measured by how funny they are, and no matter what happens, the academy will never adopt that mindset. Films like Duck Soup and Bringing Up Baby will never be considered masterful except in hindsight.

I don't know. If you allow yourself to laugh at life's little tragedies then it is pretty funny. Giamatti's character is a tragi-comic creation. Trapped in a combination of circumstances and his own cowardice. I liked the film because it accurately, and funnily, depicted adult relations that are actually based on childhood and adolescent friendships, instead of the here and now. When I meet up with people I 'used to know' it nearly allways ends up facedown on abar somewhere. Meetings that inspire confusing feelings of loyalty to old friends, or a time or place, and not really giving a shit if you see them again all things considered. In a way Sideways is a sad film because I don't believe the characters are really friends, but rather exploit each other for a good time.

But like I said earlier, the lines between comedy and drama are often too obscured to pigeonhole or ghettoise (thanks James) them either way.

Vexer



Watching Year One is what I imagine taking a fresh one directly into the mouth to be like.

Yeah i'd imaigne it's pretty close, how did Harold Ramis go from Groundhog Day to that piece of shit film? It's tough to decide which film is worse, Year One or Your Highness.