 |
| I have never once heard a horse say "neigh." |
Misch talks about how much of comedy is based on pattern recognition and disruption. We are set up to expect one thing, but then we are presented with something else. He also argues that Steve Martin and Andy Kaufman took the ideas of postmodernity into the world of comedy by offering jokes without punchlines, which invited audiences to laugh whenever they felt it necessary to release the tension that these comedians created through the absurdity of their routines. In many ways, these bits that they are performing are parodies of the very idea of comedy. Think of it as meta-comedy. They are riffing on audience expectations of what performative comedy is supposed to be. This is where they find the incongruity that informs their humor.
In chapter nineteen, Misch discusses the idea of conveying emotion by withholding it, which he refers to as "addition by subtraction." Through deadpan expressions and characters who seemingly aren't in on the joke, the audience engages with the material in a way that they wouldn't if the comedy was spoon-fed to them. Watch this clip of Steven Wright's stand-up as an example. He doesn't tell his audience when to laugh; he gives them enough credit to make the connections on their own. Compare that to this clip of The Big Bang Theory with the laugh track taken out. Without that auditory indication of where the jokes are, they're suddenly a lot harder to find. Comedy, of course, is all in the mind.
All of the films that we have examined so far this semester have aimed to challenge the way that audiences look at the cultures of which they are a part. On week one, we saw how Sullivan's Travels led its audiences to recognize the suffering of the poor and the social value of comedy. The movies that we watched on week two engaged in the discourse of defining our nation in a global context, both in the present as well as in the future. In a similar respect, the films on week three entered into some of the various debates that were going on at the times of their production. The documentaries that we then watched on week four aimed to illustrate some of the ridiculousness that exists within our reality, and the political comedies that we viewed on week five reflected that reality with just enough exaggeration to render it absurd. On weeks six and seven, we watched parodies that challenged genre conventions and self-reflexive comedies that turned a critical lens on the filmmaking process. In every one of these instances, audiences were presented with an alternate reality that served to make various points about our actual reality and where there was perceived to be room for improvement.
 |
| Good old incongruity... |
Romantic comedies, however, are a different animal. Whereas satires, parodies and documentaries (which account for all of the movies we have watched so far) look outward, romantic comedies turn their lenses upon interpersonal relationships and the inner workings of the human psyche. As we will see, they tend to follow a very specific formula that serves to substantiate certain beliefs that the audience likely has going into the film. In this way, movies such as this effectively reinforce the status quo by prescribing that which is already believed to be true. Some scholars have even argued that romantic comedies aim to alleviate social tensions through their superficial reconciliation of differences. As I will explain in more detail shortly, the argument is that with their obligatory happy endings, these films reinforce existing social hierarchies. That said, romantic comedies aren't usually overtly political; rather, they're personal. In other words, in this type of movie, the world or our perception of it typically doesn't change, but the people within that world do.
Back on week four, we discussed the standard plot template for American films. I would now like to fine tune this somewhat to illustrate the basic mechanics of romantic comedies. Ask yourself if this basically describes just about every romantic comedy you have ever seen:
1. In the first sequence, the audience sees why the protagonist needs love in his or her life, and we are led to believe that this will solve everything. The thematic question is generally something to the effect of "Will I ever have true love?" The protagonist is typically characterized as a good person who deserves to be happy but currently is not. This sequence ends with the inciting incident, which is when the two (eventual) lovers meet.
2. At first, there is a chemistry between them and it looks like this could go somewhere. Thus, the dramatic goal is established, which (in most cases) is for these two people to get together by the end of the movie. As the most important convention of this particular mode of film comedy, this is what the audience is paying to see: two good people who should be together and eventually will be, thus reinforcing the audience's belief in the intricate wheels of destiny. Meanwhile, all other primary characters are introduced in this sequence, and we have a pretty good sense of the direction that this movie is going to take. This part typically ends with an insurmountable obstacle arising between these potential lovers. There is suddenly something that prevents them from being together. At this point, the audience knows that they are perfect for each other, if only this thing didn't stand in the way. That thing is the antagonistic force. The audience is now emotionally invested in the narrative. We know that the dramatic goal will be achieved (based on our knowledge of the genre), the question is how.
3. This marks the beginning of act two. This is when the characters begin to grow. Not only are they growing as individuals, but they are planting the seeds that will allow them to grow together as the story progresses. They generally develop a different kind of dynamic at this point; they may be more or less antagonistic toward one another, depending on if the insurmountable obstacle is something within themselves or not. This sequence usually ends with the stakes being raised in some capacity. For example, there may be another suitor who shows an interest in one of the central characters, or we may learn that to pursue this relationship is going to require some profound degree of sacrifice that the characters are not yet willing to make.
4. A little bit of soul-searching leads the protagonist to commit more wholeheartedly to the dramatic goal. He or she now has to prove why it is that they are worthy of this character's love. What makes this person better than his or her rival, if there is one? And how willing is the protagonist to pursue this relationship, despite the overwhelming odds stacked against the idea of them ever living happily ever after? As with just about any kind of movie, this sequence ends with a point-of-no-return, where the main character has to risk everything in order to move forward toward the dramatic goal.
5. In this sequence, the protagonist often verbally acknowledges his or her feelings for the other character, either to this person or in conversation with another character. The lovers are almost united at this point, but then we are reminded again of this thing that stands between them. In most romantic comedies, this is where they almost kiss but then something interrupts them. This sequence usually adds another dimension of why they can't be together that had not been considered before (but which also seems impossible to overcome), and it generally ends with a scene in which the audience sees that these people clearly want to be together but they just can't be. It's just not going to work out.
6. Here, the lovers become separated, either physically or emotionally. That is, they are either in different places or no longer seem to like each other, or both. One or both of them has likely moved on. This is a low point for the protagonist. It looks as though these lovers were ultimately not meant to be together. The thematic question is answered with a negative response. The thing that stands between them is just too big, and maybe they just aren't right for each other after all. In fact, maybe there's no such thing as true love at all. That idea that the audience has paid eight and a half bucks to see proven by the machinery of narrative might not be. Of course, now they really want to know what happens next...
7. In the third and final act, the central characters come to terms with their true feelings for one another. They are finally together, and we are reminded that love is more powerful than any obstacle. This is usually where they kiss and/or make love for the first time. Not only are they perfectly happy in each other's company, but their lives seem complete now. The overwhelming obstacle has been eclipsed by their unconditional love for one another, thus proving that love can overcome just about anything. The audience's beliefs are thereby validated. (On a sidenote, as I hope you can see, movies provide an interesting lens into exactly which beliefs people are willing to pay to have confirmed.)
8. If the movie ends with a wedding (and a lot of romantic comedies do) this is where it happens. One way or another, whatever differences that existed between these characters have been swept under the rug. The conflict that existed throughout the second act has been defused and all subplots have been resolved. For example, if class or ethnicity was the thing that came between them, then it no longer is made to seem like a big deal. Where this becomes problematic is if it is interpreted to mean that broader social divides that exist in the real world are just as permeable and are therefore also relatively insignificant. As mentioned earlier, this is how romantic comedies are thought to help maintain existing social hierarchies: by making them appear benign. Considering that virtually all films of this nature are built on the premise that love overcomes all obstacles, these movies effectively minimize the social significance of those obstacles, which in some cases can in fact speak to much broader issues within the public discourse, thereby rendering the personal political. Before the final credits roll, secondary characters often find love, too, because these films like to remind us that there's somebody out there for everybody...
 |
| Don't tell me what this is. I've almost got it. |
Basically, in act one, the lovers meet, then they encounter some insurmountable obstacle that prevents them from being together. In the second act, they face this challenge, learning important details about each other (and themselves) in the process. Then in the third act, they overcome the obstacle together and everybody lives happily ever after.
This is the standard template for American romantic comedies, and it goes all the way back to Frank Capra's 1934 film It Happened One Night. This was a movie that studio executives did not expect to do well commercially or critically, but which turned out to be so successful that it generated an entire subgenre of film that maintains an immense popularity today, despite having changed very little over the years. Not only is this movie the quintessential romantic comedy, but it's also responsible for countless malnourished rabbits over the past eighty years. I'll explain...
In the movie It Happened One Night, there is a scene in which Clark Gable is standing at the side of the road, leaning on a fence, eating raw carrots. When Bugs Bunny was created a few years after this movie came out, the animators gave him this same stance and affinity for carrots, which has been explicitly credited as a nod to this scene. For this reason, children (and adults) maintain this belief that rabbits subsist on a steady diet of carrots, when in fact they do not. The fact is that a rabbit would much rather eat the leafy parts at the top of a carrot, rather than the roots, which is, of course, what we eat. That said, if you give a rabbit nothing but the orange parts, the rabbit will eventually die of malnutrition. So you can feel free to use that if you ever want to get out of watching a romantic comedy. Repeat after me: "I'd like to, but this type of movie is responsible for the deaths of too many pet rabbits."
Of course, as a film instructor, I am professionally obligated to point out that you should never judge a film by its genre. I can also attest to the notion that there are a lot of really good romantic comedies out there (including It Happened One Night), and I hope that if you do have any prejudices against this particular mode of comedy, that you reconsider this bias after watching this week's movies. Despite the pejorative term of "chick flick" that is often attached to this type of movie, I think that these films, as well as many more out there, can hold equal appeal regardless of gender. Personally, I enjoyed all three. They are Punchdrunk Love (2002), When Harry Met Sally (1989), and Harold and Maude (1971). As you will see, while all of these films adhere to to many of the aforementioned conventions of romantic comedies, they also challenge some of these conventions as well.
As we have discussed, formulaic doesn't necessarily mean bad; it merely means that an audience's most basic expectations are being met. After all, as I mentioned on week three, music theory is also highly formulaic, even mathematical, but it can aptly be used to explain why we prefer some types of music over others. Our senses of taste are often built around certain conventions. We like music that follows familiar patterns (in terms of style, tempo and key), and we also tend to develop tastes for movies that contain similar narrative elements. That said, I encourage you to keep an open mind, because otherwise, you might be missing out on some really good stuff.
Considering that the week after this is spring break, and because I want you to engage the creative parts of your brain from time to time as well (especially if you are considering making a short film for your final project, which I encourage you to start thinking about), this week's screening question prompt is a little different. Rather than having you write between three hundred and five hundred words, for this week's assignment, since you'll have two full weeks to do it, I want you to write no less than sixty thousand words about the existential dilemma of the modern nation-state as represented in the comedy films of former Soviet republics.
Sometimes the worst part about teaching an online class is not getting to see your faces, which is to say that I'm totally kidding about that last part. It's due next week. And I actually want you to write a title and three sentences -- no more, no less. This is to be an original "pitch" for a romantic comedy of your own design. Just to give you an idea of what I'm looking for, here are some examples that I wrote in reference to the movies that we are watching this week:
Harold and Maude is a dark romantic comedy about a young man who is obsessed with death. He engages in a relationship with a much older woman who teaches him to see the beauty in the world. By loving her, he learns to love life itself.
When Harry Met Sally is a romantic comedy about a man and a woman who maintain a platonic relationship over the course of many years. As the story progresses, they come to realize that maybe there is more to this relationship than they initially thought. Ultimately, they learn that the best romances are those that begin as friendships.
Punchdrunk Love is a dark romantic comedy about a socially inept man named Barry who has issues with anger management. One day he meets an equally awkward woman named Lena who likes him for who he is, but both of their lives are put in danger by a man who tries to extort money out of Barry as part of an embarrassing scam. In the end, Barry learns to love himself because for the first time in his life, somebody else loves him, too.
So that's kind of what I'm looking for, except instead of describing existing movies, I want you to make something up. Keeping this week's lecture in mind, as well this week's reading (King, chapter one, second half: pg. 50-62), come up with an idea for a romantic comedy of your own creation. Again, your pitch should only consist of a title and a three-sentence synopsis of what it is about. It should give your reader a sense of character (who?), plot (what/how?), and theme (why?), and the title should suggest that this is a romantic comedy and be designed to appeal to your target audience.
Sound easy? Good luck. I think you'll find that sometimes it's harder to write less than it is to write more, but I also think that good writing is the ability to say more with fewer words (I say as I write the two thousand, nine hundred and sixty-sixth word of this lecture). These are due by next Sunday, March 6 at 6:00 pm, after which point, for the purposes of this class, you will officially be on spring break. Due to the brevity of the assignment, there will be no extra credit available on this prompt, but I would like to post all of them on the class blog so that everybody can share what they came up with. In any case, have fun with this. You will get full credit if you fulfill the criteria that I have outlined above. As always, feel free to email me with questions if any of my instructions are unclear.
The following students, however, are exempt from this week's screening question prompt, as they are assigned blog posts, which actually are due on the Sunday at the end of spring break (March 13):
Melanie Cross - Biography (John Landis)
Thomas Cyphert - Biography (Sasha Baron Cohen)
Isaac Fletcher - Biography (The Farrelly Brothers)
Mike Piacente - Review of Reviews (There's Something About Mary)
Just to be clear: movie pitches due on the 6th, blog posts due on the 13th. Have a safe and enjoyable spring break. Don't get any tattoos that you can't imagine having to explain to your in-laws someday.
No comments:
Post a Comment