Why do Comedies Insist on having "very special moment" acts?

[gorfias]

Why do Comedies Insist on having "very special moment" acts?

OK, a "Special Moment" may be required in a comedy to set up the next scene and give the movie cohesion, but entire acts?

I just saw, "Bridesmaids" and most of it was very, very funny. I see no reason for it to have stopped being funny and then devote an entire act to serious melodrama. I was there to laugh but for about 25-33% of the movie, the film centered on a self inflicted self destructive shame spiral its main character goes through.

That should not be a spoiler for anyone, as most comedies seem to be doing this these days. I Love You Man, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Knocked Up, 40 Year Old Virgin. (To it's credit, a teary eyed Jim Carrey spoofs this convention in Dumb and Dumber).

I doubt Groucho Marks ever made a movie with such acts.

Other examples? Why do you think they do this? Best recent example of a non-stop funny movie that had no such melodrama?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Best recent example of a non-stop funny movie that had no such melodrama?

It can be used to great effect though.


Tell me that's not powerful DUE to the comedy.

 

[DustyDrB]

Comedy works better when the characters are more real. It becomes more easy to relate to them. I think it is a good convention. However, Judd Apatow (and I do love his movies to death) and movies featuring his regulars often stretch out this part of the movie too long. Funny People was the worst I've seen in this regard, though to be fair that movie was meant to be more dramatic than usual anyway. But the last third of it was just so slow. You listed a good bit of Apatow movies.

 

[Nickolai77]

It's just a convention, like how for instance how the Simpson or Family Guy episodes tend to have have closed endings so normality is restored, or how in rock music there is often space for a guitar solo.

I guess with this convention, it means that the comedy can become more dramatic- the more emotions a performance can create in an audience the better, generally.

 

[Alex Tollitt]

comedies want to hit the biggest target audience they can get being quite hard as there are many types of comedy filmsand lots of people preffering one to another so they add romantic, sombre or straight up depressing parts in films to reel as many people in as they can. The reason they do not add comedy into this is because most of the time it would look like they were taking the piss and would be slaughtered by critics for being so desperate for laughs that they took a dump on the only part of the film that had any depth, reducing it to a childish excuse for a film and if they don't have any they critics will describe how inhuman the whole experience was . but i do agree with what you are saying no comedy should have that amount of serious acts.

 

[Avaholic03]

Perhaps to avoid the label of "dumb comedy". It's okay to just throw a bunch of jokes at an audience...that's how stand up comedy works. But if you want to have more of a lasting effect, you're going to need to have some range.

I'm not sure why you even say "I doubt Groucho Marks ever made a movie with such acts.". I would hope that comedy has developed just a little bit as an art form since then.

 

[gorfias]

Comedy works better when the characters are more real. It becomes more easy to relate to them. I think it is a good convention. However, Judd Apatow (and I do love his movies to death) and movies featuring his regulars often stretch out this part of the movie too long. Funny People was the worst I've seen in this regard, though to be fair that movie was meant to be more dramatic than usual anyway. But the last third of it was just so slow. You listed a good bit of Apatow movies.

That's probably my biggest complaint with him and the people he is working with. (And, I think he has been the best force in big screen comedy for about 10 years. Him and Seth Rogen of "Observe and Report".)

Even Observe and Report had relatively serious scenes and moments, but they just weren't the entire act that was in Bridesmaids. The movie was so good except for that.

...if they don't have any (melodrama scenes) they critics will describe how inhuman the whole experience was .

Comedy is hard. Critics are often unfair. But I think audiences will respond to a movie that is funny and largely stays funny.

1) Perhaps to avoid the label of "dumb comedy". It's okay to just throw a bunch of jokes at an audience...that's how stand up comedy works.

2) But if you want to have more of a lasting effect, you're going to need to have some range.

3) I'm not sure why you even say "I doubt Groucho Marks ever made a movie with such acts.". I would hope that comedy has developed just a little bit as an art form since then.

1) And movies like Airplane.
2) I recently watched, and loved again, "Blazing Sadles". It is amazing how well the movie still plays. And the "dramatic" scenes are played for laughs.
3) True, I typically have to be in "appreciation mode" to enjoy most pre 1990s movies. All film has come a long way since its invention. But just as Indianna Jones is meant to bring up to current standards the serials of old, I think comedy films, at their best should be able to update the best of the past which I don't think devoted entire acts to serious downers. Groucho, 3 Stooges, Mel Brooks, etc. are still good stuff to emulate.

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

-snip-

I think Root of all evil there worded it just right. A comedy can be a comedy straight through without any "special" or "moving" scenes. However, in order to work up to the biggest laughs and greatest moments of triumphs, an ebb and flow of emotion must be established. Think of it as a roller coaster: going up and down is fun, but you can't go too far in either direction if you don't go WAY up or WAY down for a bit.

Walt Disney worded this roller coaster effect best: "For every laugh, there should be a tear." In Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the scene where the dwarfs were crying over believing Snow White to be dead was a monumental moment in the history of animation. It was the first time anyone had ever seen mere drawings express that much emotion, and make that step from just being producers of laughter to being a true, living characters. Characters that think and feel.

And the reason that moment was so impactful is because you are seeing the dwarfs--these characters that were to happy and made you laugh before--in mourning. The laughter has stopped. The jokes are over.

But then at the very end, you see them happy again. And even though they are happy just as they were throughout most of the movie, it's different. The happiness has taken on a whole new meaning. The point is driven home that they are happy because they are truly glad, not because that's just their natural state of being.

I think the Muppet Christmas Carol illustrates this, as well. It's the Muppets, of course, so the movie is filled to the brim with jokes and gags. But in the third act, when Scrooge meets the ghost of Christmas yet to come, things get serious. At first, Scrooge welcomes the spirit, desiring to learn more about what he can do to mend his ways. There's still some humor, but it takes on a more sour and dark tone. Slowly, Scrooge gets more and more distressed. Even though he is feeling happier and more generous, that newfound happiness is paralleled against the dark outlook of his death and what occurs after that.

The last straw comes when Scrooge learns that his actions have lead to the death of Tiny Tim. He falls to his knees sobbing before the spirit, begging for mercy and forgiveness. Remember, this is the Muppets we're talking about here. But they hold nothing back in that scene, letting loose the horrors of Scrooge's greed. There's no sugar coating, or comic relief to comfort you along the way. It's all grit and darkness.

And then, the dream ends. He's back. And then it dawns on him! He still has time! He can change everything! The day is his for the taking! And the finale kicks off with a bang. The hard transition from dark cemetery to Christmas morning is jarring, but it just serves to enhance the rejoice and relief you feel. Then you float on that high all the way to the triumphant ending. All of the jokes that come in this time, even the basic slapsticks, seem funnier than any in the rest of the movie because you're floating on that emotional high. In a way, you've rediscovered just how much you love those characters. You've been reminded why you loved them so much in the first place.

They never could have achieved that glorious end had they not dipped that far down into the macabre. If you look, you'll find the movies with the happiest endings have very sad moments. It is a quite magical formula for storytelling, but as with all formulas, it can spell disaster as well. When done wrong, the serious scenes just feel out of place, dull, and even superficial. I think lately, Hollywood has somehow managed to unlearn the roller coaster concept, leading to all of those movies you listed. They just can't do it right anymore. They think they know too much to learn, and they think Walt Disney and Charlie Chaplin are too old to be taking tips from. You should look up a movie called Frank and Ollie. It's sort of a documentary that has two men who were with Disney from the start, discussing what they did and how they did it. It go into things like pathos, which is exactly what you are talking about here. It is a great movie :3

 

[gorfias]

in order to work up to the biggest laughs and greatest moments of triumphs, an ebb and flow of emotion must be established. Think of it as a roller coaster: going up and down is fun, but you can't go too far in either direction if ....
Walt Disney worded this roller coaster effect best: "For every laugh, there should be a tear." In Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, ....

I think the formula Disney was using was not for straight up genre comedy. A lot of movies, especially then, mixed humor in with non-comedy films. For instance, I recall there being a fun, silly character in the movie version of Dorian Gray. Casablanca, the top cop was pretty durn funny.

I think you are correct that a serious moment can be like the windup before a pitch in a comedy. Again, that scene in Dumb and Dumber when a teary eyed Jim Carey speak of his loneliness, it sets up the next moment for some over the top bawling and hugging. But this is a far cry from the full act (about 25% to 33% of the movie) that was a total bummer in the middle of what had been a riot.

More recently, in "Clueless", the main character has to reassess her entire outlook on life. That pace, as I recall, lasts only about 10 min. and was still, in its own way, amusing. It didn't cast a pall over the rest of the movie.

EDIT: Another one. Get Him to the Greek. The scene where they pat the carpeted walls made this movie almost an instant classic. I was in pain I was laughing so hard. Then it took a turn so serious I thought about putting my head in an oven. An audience member that goes to your movie to laugh shouldn't find him/herself feeling like that.