How would you describe the humour of the Marx Bros?

David · #1 12-28-2005, 02:10 AM

I consider the Marx Brothers gag comedy, but I think comedic styles overlap continually in the great comedies in film (not usually true in theater comedy): so the Marxes contain slapstick & puns & gags visual & verbal & knockabout farce & yes I'll even grant them the exalted category of satire, despite what the great Fowler said: "A word that suggests the powers of an Aristophanes, a Juvenal, or a Swift, & an impulse of _saeva indignatio_ is prostituted when it is applied to mere snook-cockers of whom it has been said by one critic, jealous for the integrity of the word, that their only concern is to 'find someone who is doing something--no matter who, no matter what--& fling a few insults at him,' & by another that their conception of satire is 'a cannibal dance round the idea of authority.' "

In an important sense, that final phrase in Fowler almost perfectly sums up the Marx Brothers.

DownOnRodeo · #2 12-28-2005, 05:43 AM

I don't claim to know anything else said or written by Fowler, but having read the statment you quoted I'm curious as to how could such a humorless bore could identify something genuinely funny.

But I'm sure he's misrepresented by that quote.

DownOnRodeo · #3 12-28-2005, 07:28 AM

I think Alannis Morisette described the confusion best when she asked 'Isn't it ironic?', albeit without reply as nobody understood her question.

David · #4 12-28-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DownOnRodeo

I think Alannis Morisette described the confusion best when she asked 'Isn't it ironic?', albeit without reply as nobody understood her question.

Joe!! How's it going?

Serrart · #5 12-28-2005, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lux

That is true but the intellectualisation of comedy is never funny and is often tiring because ultimately you must question why something, such as irony, is funny on a level of technicalities and the brain's reaction to this, thus drawing any existing humour out of the scenario. I studied comedy in film and television one semester and I don't recall laughing much, and infact my favourite comedians are not particularly funny when interviewed, most of it lies in the technicalities of the script.

I think they're not very funny because to make other people laugh is a hard job that can leaves you drained. Besides, I don't think everything is in the script: many comedians especially in silent movies and till the 50's worked as during Commedia dell'arte, improvising on a sketched situation, interacting with characters that were simply masks. I have the deepest respect for them, because they can make the world better even if only for the time of a scene. As Fellini said a truly comedian should be treated like a saint.

About what Fowler said, I don't agree. They're not cannibals, they're the funniest policemen who ever tried to bring a more inspiring and serene order in a depressingly conventional, violent and too schemed society. Unfortunately they failed, but at least they have been able to become for us an oasis.

Romy

SteveMacD · #6 12-28-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DownOnRodeo

I think Alannis Morisette described the confusion best when she asked 'Isn't it ironic?', albeit without reply as nobody understood her question.

Especially, as her song lacked irony. For example, the dude in the plane crash. It's not ironic that he died in a plane crash. It would have been ironic if he landed safely, but was killed in the taxi ride to the hotel.

DownOnRodeo · #7 12-29-2005, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lux

My point was that comedy is not just a barrel of laughs (except perhaps the end product and even then it rarely is), it's a very intellectualised and technical process.....unless you're Billy Connolly

Or if you're Shaun Micallef pretending to be Billy Connolly!

"Just look at this bridge! It's f#ckin marvellous! With the two ends and the thing joining them so people and cars can pass over from one side to another.. just f#ckin brilliant!"

amber · #8 12-29-2005, 05:07 AM

God. Lord. For Christ's Sake. Christ on a Crutch.

Well, I suppose I have to take my hat off to David, Francesca, and Luxor, because I could not possibly discuss comedy in the terms that it's been discussed here, but apparently it's a valid way to discuss it, and I have learned something, I guess.
There are so many more possible (yet loathsome) ways to discuss comedy than I ever imagined, or wanted to imagine.
I do so hate the intellectualizing of that-which-should-be-visceral.
What's my point?

My point is:
Did you ever notice how most old timey humor isn't as funny now? There are exceptions, such as Some Like It Hot, and others that I can't think of right now, but why did our humor evolve in such a short time? And are people who laugh at Punk'd the equivelant of fourties and fifties people who laughed at the Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges?
That is what interests me. I mean, it's only been fifty years, but comedy has changed so much. Fascinating.

On a personal note, I don't usually go for physical comedy as much. Sometimes. But I go for superclevernesswithwords.
Also, with the Marx brothers, it's hard to analyze that which doesn't make me laugh. But then, intellectualizing visceral things pisses me off, so maybe that's my problem...

Because...if you're thinking about it, then you're not laughing.

SuzeQuze · #9 12-29-2005, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Especially, as her song lacked irony. For example, the dude in the plane crash. It's not ironic that he died in a plane crash. It would have been ironic if he landed safely, but was killed in the taxi ride to the hotel.

So having avoided flying out of fear of a crash your whole life and then finally getting the courage to fly and dying is not ironic? According to this definition from m-w.com it is, "3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result", because normally one would expect to land safely on a flight.

I think to intellectualize comedy is murderous. Playing by using trial and error is better. The answer to "is this funny?" lies in whether people have laughed in response to what's been said, written, or acted. Perhaps parts of comedy could be empirically proven such as, "give a one second pause after delivering a punch line to allow your audience to process what they've heard to illicit the largest belly laugh". One could use a half second, three second, one second, etc pause to find the best length of time. But this is not funny. Over analyzing comedy kills it.

Serrart · #10 12-29-2005, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

God. Lord. For Christ's Sake. Christ on a Crutch.

Well, I suppose I have to take my hat off to David, Francesca, and Luxor, because I could not possibly discuss comedy in the terms that it's been discussed here, but apparently it's a valid way to discuss it, and I have learned something, I guess.
There are so many more possible (yet loathsome) ways to discuss comedy than I ever imagined, or wanted to imagine.
I do so hate the intellectualizing of that-which-should-be-visceral.
What's my point?

My point is:
Did you ever notice how most old timey humor isn't as funny now? There are exceptions, such as Some Like It Hot, and others that I can't think of right now, but why did our humor evolve in such a short time? And are people who laugh at Punk'd the equivelant of fourties and fifties people who laughed at the Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges?
That is what interests me. I mean, it's only been fifty years, but comedy has changed so much. Fascinating.

On a personal note, I don't usually go for physical comedy as much. Sometimes. But I go for superclevernesswithwords.
Also, with the Marx brothers, it's hard to analyze that which doesn't make me laugh. But then, intellectualizing visceral things pisses me off, so maybe that's my problem...

Because...if you're thinking about it, then you're not laughing.

I think it's possible to enjoy comedy and then see how it works without losing the pleasure of fun, like for every other visceral aspect of life. IMO they are just two parallel levels. I agree usually you don't laugh when you analize it, but I also find fascinating to know why someone laughs at certain things and doesn't at others or how comedy could be violent, used as a political tool or a way to reflect certain aspects of society. For me it's just a plus to the enjoyment of a great comedy and comes in a second moment. It doesn't do much harm, really.

Romy

SuzeQuze · #11 12-30-2005, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serrart

I think it's possible to enjoy comedy and then see how it works without losing the pleasure of fun, like for every other visceral aspect of life. IMO they are just two parallel levels. I agree usually you don't laugh when you analize it, but I also find fascinating to know why someone laughs at certain things and doesn't at others or how comedy could be violent, used as a political tool or a way to reflect certain aspects of society. For me it's just a plus to the enjoyment of a great comedy and comes in a second moment. It doesn't do much harm, really.

Romy

That's a good point. Maybe there's a time to analyze comedy just out of intellectual curiosity. I think most comics just find out what's funny through trial and error. If no one laughs then its not funny. But I guess studying it could be interesting.