PDA

View Full Version : Pick Your Pony: The Coens, or the Farrellys?


RancidYakButterTeaParty
04-06-2005, 05:50 PM
Here is a link to the filmography of each:

Coens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coen_Brothers) Scroll down the page.

Farrellys (http://www.tribute.ca/DIRECTORS/bios/10905.htm)

Who do you think has made the better movies?

Do you think one pair is stylistically better than the other pair?

Pick your favorite movie from both and tell why it's your favorite, if you don't mind.

Scissorjack
04-06-2005, 05:54 PM
What, no Wachowskis? Bound was great.

NicePete
04-06-2005, 06:07 PM
I got nothing against the Farrelly bros, but they are not even in the same class as the Coens. This is kind of like asking "Mozart or Weird Al, which is better?"

Rufus Xavier
04-06-2005, 06:31 PM
I have seen every Coen brothers movie except for the most recent one, The Ladykillers. I have only seen two Farrelly brothers movies: Dumb and Dumber and There's Something About Mary. I watched some of Kingpin, but not all of it. I definitely prefer the Coen brothers, and I think that stylistically, the two pairs of directors we're talking about here are wildly different.

My favorite movie of theirs is Fargo, which I think is one of the greatest movies ever made. The script, acting, visuals and pacing of this film are A+ quality.

Since based on the above information, a reader could be forgiven if they assumed I can't enjoy a movie unless it is "art", I should also hasten to add that I did enjoy watching the two Farrelly brothers movies I have seen. However, I also would rate Blood Simple and Miller's Crossing higher than those, and four other Coen brothers movies at the same level, so I feel that overall, the Coen brothers are much better.

Now, since I have a spreadsheet that has box office statistics, I can tell you that, by and large, the "viewing public" vastly prefers the Farrellys. Check out these grosses:

Dumb and Dumber $127,175,374
Kingpin $24,958,270
There's Something About Mary $176,484,652
Me, Myself & Irene $90,567,722
Osmosis Jones $13,596,911
Shallow Hal $70,836,296
Stuck On You $33,828,318


Now, obviously they've had a few clunkers, and this doesn't account for the DVD/video rentals/sales, but their average gross of 76mil is 30 million more than what the Coen brothers' most successful (in theaters) movie, O Brother, Where Art Thou grossed. I draw no conclusions from these statistics. However, you may feel free to do so. :D

Danalan
04-06-2005, 06:44 PM
Here are the relevant filmography's for both, summarized:

Coens:
Blood Simple (1985)
Raising Arizona (1987)
Miller's Crossing (1990)
Barton Fink (1991)
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
Fargo (1996)
The Big Lebowski (1998)
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
Intolerable Cruelty (2003)
The Ladykillers (2004)

Farrellys:
Dumb & Dumber (1994)
Kingpin (1996)
There's Something About Mary (1998)
Outside Providence (1999) (Writers & Producers)
Me, Myself & Irene (2000)
Say It Isn't So (2001) (Producers)
Osmosis Jones (2001)
Shallow Hal (2002)
Stuck on You (2003)

While TSAM was genius, and the acting in D & D'r was amazing, there's no comparison.

The Coens trio of 'Fargo', 'The Big Lebowski', and 'O Brother' trump anything the Farrellys have done, or are likely to do.

Perhaps the Farrellys are more adept at marketing, and their sophmoric humor is better suited for mass audiences, but as far as film-making, they're not even in the same league.

Marley23
04-06-2005, 06:46 PM
Coens. Personally I can't stand the Farrellys.
This is kind of like asking "Mozart or Weird Al, which is better?"
Hear hear.

MovieMogul
04-06-2005, 07:32 PM
Another "Wha?" :confused: To apply the OP imagery, it's like comparing a champion thoroughbred with a merry-go-round horse. No comparison at all...

RancidYakButterTeaParty
04-06-2005, 07:59 PM
Another "Wha?" :confused: To apply the OP imagery, it's like comparing a champion thoroughbred with a merry-go-round horse. No comparison at all...

My opinion would be the same, however, it is only my opinion.

The reason I asked this question, is that, as Rufus Xavier has already pointed out, the Farrellys are much more successfull at the box office. I'm not saying that this is the criterion one should use to pick the best pair of directors, but it made me wonder if I was in the minority in favoring the Coens.

I have only been subscribing to these boards for a short time, and haven't seen anything posted about either pair. I guess I have quickly learned that most of you will probably agree with my own opinion.

Let me add this, I own only 5 DVD's. 3 are the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and the other two are O Brother Where art Thou, and The Big Lebowski.

I would be interested to hear from anyone who actually does favor the Farrellys, there has to be someone out there.

Sam Stone
04-06-2005, 08:46 PM
I agree, the Coen brothers are in a different class. In fact, they rank right up near the top for ALL directors. They've made several of the best movies of the last 20 years.

A better comparison would be, "The Farrely Brothers or the Zucker Brothers?"

I'll take the Zuckers. The Farrely brothers have made some amusing movies, but none of them are classics. Perhaps "There's Something About Mary" will be remembered and watched 20 years from now, but that's about it.

Their new movie "Fever Pitch" with Jimmy Fallon and Drew Barrymore may be their best film to date, however. Hard as that is to believe. Both Ebert and Roper raved about it, comparing the chemistry between the two to Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan.

Ike Witt
04-06-2005, 08:54 PM
There is somebody on these boards who thinks that Shallow Hal is maybe the greatest movie ever. Of course we also had somebody here who thought that Showgirls was a masterpiece that was only understood by himself and Paul Verhoven.

I have to agree with everybody else- there is no contest. The Coens simply make movies that I want to see and the Farrellys simply make movies that I don't want to see.

Askia
04-06-2005, 09:28 PM
This thread is the perfect staging area for the humor snobs on this board.

I like 'em both, a lot. I've loved the Coens since BARTON FINK and the Farrellys since MARY.

I'd favor the Farrellys if I were picking a movie for the whole family, or was feeling glum and needed a quick pick me up, or needed a good first date movie, or needed a better class of scatological humor. The Farrellys are innovators, not imitators, in this regard.

The Farrellys are more successful financially because their humor is a blend of the cerebral and slapstick that appeals to a wider audience, while the Coens are mostly cerebral humorists. I rather like smart comedy but humor that massages the intellect while rarely evoking lowbrow humor elements just doesn't satisfy as much. I think this is true for many, many people besides me.

The horses comparison, as well as Mozart vs.Weird Al, are pretty elitist. Those of you who think they're apt should be reminded that patterning a good merry-go-round after a thoroughbred, or a good Weird Al composition based on Mozart, would require an appreciation and mastery of several different elements that appeals to a wider audience range than just sticking with the inbred breeding required to produce fine horses and fine music. Nothing wrong with the fine arts, per se, except the segregated ghetto of intellectualism tends to numb one's ability to enjoy a good fart joke.

Stylistically, I favor the cinematography of the Coens, with their storytelling choices, broad range of character actors, plotlines, allusions to unorthodox source material, appreciation of regional eccentricities, and dialgoue.

But the Farrellys have an inherent originality, fearlessness and brazeness to their humor I like as well, both with the targets of their disdain and their constant use of people with physical disabilities. There's a commonality to their work I find damned appealing.

Finally, let's not forget-- the Farrellys, hands down, have much better looking women in their films. I'm from the generation who'd go to the movies hoping to see some erect nip, and I'm much more likely to be satisfied with naked nipples from the lvely ladies in a Farrelly Bros. movie than a Coens movie (although the casino shot in the LADYKILLERS remake did bring unexpected quotient of Big Fat Jiggling Sister Ass.TM) And whatever the other merits of HUDSUCKER PROXY, I can't quite forgive the Coens for foisting Anna Nicole Smith on an unsuspecting world.

NicePete
04-06-2005, 09:52 PM
The horses comparison, as well as Mozart vs.Weird Al, are pretty elitist. Those of you who think they're apt should be reminded that patterning a good merry-go-round after a thoroughbred, or a good Weird Al composition based on Mozart, would require an appreciation and mastery of several different elements that appeals to a wider audience range than just sticking with the inbred breeding required to produce fine horses and fine music. Nothing wrong with the fine arts, per se, except the segregated ghetto of intellectualism tends to numb one's ability to enjoy a good fart joke.

I disagree that this comparison is elitist. It certainly wasn't intended to be. The Farrelly Brothers are very good at what they do, which is something very different than what the Coen Brothers do. To put it very broadly, the Coens are making high art, the Farrelly's low art. Both are worthy creations and both sets of brothers are good at what they do.

Let's put it this way: I put the Farelly's in much the same category as Mel Brooks. Brooks is one of my comedy gods. The Farrelly's are no Mel Brooks. And Mel Brooks does not compare to the Coen Brothers in terms of pure directorial ability.

There's Something About Mary was a funny movie and I enjoyed it when I saw it. I don't have any urge to go rent it or buy the DVD. Raising Arizona, on the other hand, I own and I will watch whenever I run across it on TV. I'd probably choose Airplane over any Farrelly's movie as well.

And I love Blazing Saddles, so that blows your whole "fart joke" theory away.

Thudlow Boink
04-06-2005, 09:56 PM
The Coens are far more versatile than the Farrellys. The Farrellys' movies are more the same kind of thing as each other than the Coens' are.

NoCoolUserName
04-06-2005, 10:27 PM
To echo Mr/Ms. Wext

Fargo=top 10 (all movies)
Blazing Saddles=top 1 (comedy)
Farrelly bros=huh?

Askia
04-06-2005, 10:27 PM
If championship thoroughbreds and Mozart weren't meant to be elitist comparisons, then either one of us is being disingenuous or I need to re-adjust my thinking regarding standards of excellence. Don't you see the inherent elitism in calling humor as high art or low art?

Well, yeah. The Coens are more versatile in filmmaking -- but just not the humor they use when they film. Given their rather broad filmmaking interests, I'd expect so. They were probably the coarsest in THE LADYKILLERS and a lot of their fans hated it.

I agree the Farrellys are more like Zucker Brothers or Mel Brooks (I'd add the Wayanses, Woody Allen, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Dave Chapelle, SNL and the Daily Show) However to call them creators of low art ignores their sociological insights and wide palatte of humor they draw from -- slapstick, gallows humor, farce, parody, satire, etc. The humor in their movies is smarter than it seems. They occupy a middle ground that uses both high minded humor and coarser elements.

Low humor are Carrot Top movies, 90% of television sitcoms and anything starring Steve Allen, Jim Belushi, Martin Lawrence, early Jim Carrey, most Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider and family-movie Eddie Murphy.

NicePete
04-06-2005, 10:52 PM
OK. I can agree with pretty much everything you've said in this one. Again, I like the Farrellys. I just like the Coens a lot more.

Low humor are Carrot Top movies, 90% of television sitcoms and anything starring Steve Allen, Jim Belushi, Martin Lawrence, early Jim Carrey, most Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider and family-movie Eddie Murphy.

Steve Allen? Tonight Show, Meeting of the Minds, liked to say "fern" a lot, played the piano Steve Allen? Or did you mean Tim Allen?

Askia
04-06-2005, 11:36 PM
I meant Tim Allen. Thanks for catching that, fern.

Sublight
04-07-2005, 03:32 AM
Well, I've only seen TSAM and MM&I by the Farrellys, but I've seen everything except Miller's Crossing by the Coens, so my vote's probably a bit skewed.

But anyway, while I've enjoyed the Farrelly movies I've seen, they were "see once, return to video store, and forget" movies. Nothing about them stuck out as really memorable or (perhaps more important) really different from any other comedy. The lines and stories in Coen movies are things you could only picture being in a Coen movie. That can be a plus or a minus, but it works for me.

My favorite of all is Raising Arizona, while my wife prefers The Big Lebowski.

Mauvaise
04-07-2005, 09:56 AM
I got nothing against the Farrelly bros, but they are not even in the same class as the Coens. This is kind of like asking "Mozart or Weird Al, which is better?"


Ditto that, except I do have something against the Farrelly brothers: I don't like 99% of their movies. The only one that I could tolerate was Shallow Hal. I thought Dumb & Dumber was the stupidest movie I've ever seen in my entire life (and that list includes Halloween III: The Season of the Witch).

And it has nothing to do with my being elitist or not liking a good fart joke because I'm not, and I do!

Trunk
04-07-2005, 09:57 AM
I don't think that saying it's like Werid Al vs. Mozart is necessarily fair. I like both.

In broad strokes:

The Coen brothers make movies.

The Farrely brothers make comedies.

For me, that's what it boils down to. I think the Farrely's do pull off some nice writing and good characterization. They're probably closer to the Coens than they are to the Zuckers.

The Farrely's comedies do have heart, well-defined (if sometimes absurd) characters, and better stories. Zucker's movies are just 90 minutes of gags. Good gags, to be sure, but they're baerly movies.

Coen brothers, collectively, are in my top 3 directors (them, Tarantino and Scorsese). But, I think the Farrely's have hit some great notes with the comedies. Dumb & Dumber has some great moments. The innocence of the characters isn't easy to create.

The relationship between the brothers in Stuck on You was very sweet and touching. They're not afraid to go truly sentimental in a comedy, and then elevates them about the Zuckers, a bit.

In D&D, Stuck, and Shallow Hal, they really do have tender moments between the male leads, not played for laughs, that give the movies a little more depth.

Doesn't necessarily make them funnier than the Zuckers, but they shouldn't be thrown that low, either.

tdn
04-07-2005, 10:57 AM
There is somebody on these boards who thinks that Shallow Hal is maybe the greatest movie ever.

That would not be me, but don't underestimate Hal. The second time I watched it, I was awestruck at how smart and clever and sensitive it was. I got things out of it that I hadn't on the first watching. And I maintain that it has the funniest line of any movie ever made. Far better even than "Franks and beans", "R.U.N.N.O.F.T", and "Don't call me Shirley."

MovieMogul
04-07-2005, 10:57 AM
Well, my comparison in horses wasn't meant to reflect a high- vs. lowbrow preference as much as simply a funny vs. not-funny opinion. I don't think the Farrelly movies are very funny. Mary's the best of the lot, but even that can't compare to the Coen's A-game. For me, the Farrelly's are one-trick ponies. The Coens make lots of different types of films, the Farrelly's only one, and while some are fans of that one type, me? Not so much. And while one can always identify a Coen brothers "style", their movies (even the not-so-successful ones) are always ambitious, unpredictable, and full of elements you won't find in most other American filmmakers. The Farrellys may be better at their type of film than others, but very little (even the "audacious" stuff) surprises me, and there's very little outside the obvious that is there to hold my interest.

Again, not even in the same league.

Trunk
04-07-2005, 11:04 AM
The second time I watched it, I was awestruck at how smart and clever and sensitive it was.
That's true of TSAM, SOY, D&D and Shallow Hal.

I can't say I really liked "Me, Myself & Irene" as much, but it's easy to underestimate the Farrelly's or miss the nice touches amongst all the retards and testicles.

I'm not sure what line you're referring to, though. Although, one of my favorites is (roughly) "what are you doing, building a parachute?"

tdn
04-07-2005, 11:34 AM
That's true of TSAM, SOY, D&D and Shallow Hal.

Agreed.

SH goes from dumb slapstick to sensitive tearjerker when we find out what the little girl really looks like. Gets me every time. *sniff*

I like SOY because the opening scenes take place in my favorite vacation spot, but were actually filmed 90 miles away -- in my second favorite vacation spot. Funnily enough, you'd never see a burger joint like that in either place!

I'm not sure what line you're referring to, though. Although, one of my favorites is (roughly) "what are you doing, building a parachute?"

"These women are ugly!"
"According to who?"
"Bausch. And. Lomb!"

Of course, Jason Alexander's delivery accounts for half of the laugh.

Trunk
04-07-2005, 12:25 PM
I think "Stuck on You" has a lot of great stuff.

As a guy with a brother who I didn't always get along with, things in it resonate.

The movie got written off as a series of gags about conjoined twins. And, they certainly played every angle in that -- hilariously. But the movie is good because it really treats seriously how you would go about living your life with that.

E.g. the masturbation scene isn't just played for laughs.

Sure, it's funny how Greg Kinnear sits next to that statue on the bench, but it's also sincere. Each brother reacts to being attached a bit differently, and they realistically portray how they're both comfortable with it, but still self-conscious about it in certain situations.

I'm not going to go into some "Showgirls" type treatise here. I'm just saying that the Farrelly Bros. have more going on in their movies than a lot of people give them credit for.

Kingpin is probably weakest in this regard.

Shallow Hal's heart got overlooked because it was on the heels of TSAM. I think SOY got a little more respect, and Fever Pitch is probably going to go even further because I don't think it has any gross out gags at all.

vl_mungo
04-07-2005, 12:34 PM
Another thumbs up for the Coens and a thumbs down for The Farrelly's.

You can't judge quality by sheer gross revenue, otherwise you would have to say that Celene Dion (to name one example) is one of the all time greatest musicians.

tdn
04-07-2005, 12:56 PM
Another thumbs up for the Coens and a thumbs down for The Farrelly's.

You can't judge quality by sheer gross revenue, otherwise you would have to say that Celene Dion (to name one example) is one of the all time greatest musicians.

But I don't think most people here are going by box office -- it's really only been brought up once. Most of us are going by content.

Askia
04-07-2005, 01:11 PM
Well, my comparison in horses wasn't meant to reflect a high- vs. lowbrow preference as much as simply a funny vs. not-funny opinion. I don't think the Farrelly movies are very funny.

As I have observed in other threads, most humor snobs don't find lowbrow comedy funny or appealing at all and their preference for more cerebral humor manifests itself in a blanket condemnation of low humor no matter the performer or context. Even if you don't care for the Farrelys, I have grave doubts you'd care for the Wayanses, classic Cheech and Chong, or Mike Judge's movies, either. Your complaint about the lack of novelty in their humor is a common one. Yeah, getting bonked on the head or kicked in the balls or unwittingly using other people's bodily fluids as something to inhale, imbibe, ingest or smear on isn't exactly original, but it can still be funny as shit when successfully executed. Hell, I don't find anything novel in my family's retelling the same stories EVERY Thanksgiving and Christmas but I enjoy them just the same; or rather, I infectiously enjoy their enjoyment of them. I find there is often a great comfort and satisfaction in the familiar. I wonder sometimes if this need for novelty isn't a defining characteristic in humor snobbery in general.

Oh, and as for the two posters who claim they aren't humor snobs and like fart jokes just fine and I'm dead wrong in my theory, I require more than just your lame assertions to be convinced. Describe the set-up of a fart joke in a movie which you found the FART JOKE ITSELF funny: maybe then I'll reconsider.

vl_mungo. So far only Marley23, adam yax and you have said that you hated Farrely Brother's films. Most everyone else here expressed some degree of enjoyment.

vl_mungo
04-07-2005, 02:15 PM
<snip>
Oh, and as for the two posters who claim they aren't humor snobs and like fart jokes just fine and I'm dead wrong in my theory, I require more than just your lame assertions to be convinced. Describe the set-up of a fart joke in a movie which you found the FART JOKE ITSELF funny: maybe then I'll reconsider.

vl_mungo. So far only Marley23, adam yax and you have said that you hated Farrely Brother's films. Most everyone else here expressed some degree of enjoyment.

Well, I for one, take umbrage with the assertation that my taste in humour runs more towards the droll than into the realms of the madcap and/or uncouth. Humour snob, me? Bosh! Flimshaw! I enjoy the shenannigans of Harpo just as much as I love the verbal virtuosity of Groucho. As for Blazing Saddles... the "one false move and the n*gger gets it" scene is one of the all time best comedy bits ever. Is that highbrow humour? The problem with the Farrelly's, IMHO, isn't that lowbrow humour isn't funny, but the unfortunate actuality that they aren't funny. Poke me in the eye and kick me in the posterior if I'm wrong. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Askia
04-07-2005, 02:45 PM
Re: BLAZING SADDLES "hostage" bit being highbrow. The "Excuse me while I whip this out" part wasn't highbrow (it is funny, though) but the notion that he avoided getting lynched by taking himself hostage was a brilliant bit of inverted satire with a dash of surrealist absurdity elegantly married to, ironically, a pitch-perfect parody of lowbrow coonery. If Stepin Fetchit played Bart that bit couldn't have been done better. It's on par with Richard Pryor getting a sympathetic Klan to push the bus out the mud in BUSTIN' LOOSE and the little old white lady in AIRPLANE speaking Jive.

Mauvaise
04-07-2005, 04:43 PM
As I have observed in other threads, most humor snobs don't find lowbrow comedy funny or appealing at all and their preference for more cerebral humor manifests itself in a blanket condemnation of low humor no matter the performer or context. Even if you don't care for the Farrelys, I have grave doubts you'd care for the Wayanses, classic Cheech and Chong, or Mike Judge's movies, either.

As one of those you've accused of being a humour snob, merely because I do not like the Farrelly brothers, I am not sure who Mike Judge is, but I love classic Cheech and Chong. I've also loved most of Adam Sandler's movies (except for Punch Drunk Love) and he's not what anyone would call "high-brow".

Oh, and as for the two posters who claim they aren't humor snobs and like fart jokes just fine and I'm dead wrong in my theory, I require more than just your lame assertions to be convinced. Describe the set-up of a fart joke in a movie which you found the FART JOKE ITSELF funny: maybe then I'll reconsider.

I don't remember the exact set-up, but while watching the first Scooby Doo movie there was a scene where Shaggy and Scooby went on a fart spree. My friend and I laughed quite a bit at that. The second Scooby movie which I watched over the weekend (which pretty much sucked) did have one fart scene (which I can't remember the context) which was about the only scene in the movie where I did laugh.

Oh, and while this wasn't a movie when watching the Surreal Life, Chris Knight let out a fart at the most opportune moment I've ever witnessed and I laughed my ass off (pardon any unintentional puns). I've also "threatened" my best friend with farts - and executed them, and been "threatened" in return. You'll just have to take my word for that as I have no proof.

Is that enough for you?

vl_mungo. So far only Marley23, adam yax and you have said that you hated Farrely Brother's films. Most everyone else here expressed some degree of enjoyment.

I may not have used the word "hate", but I certainly also stated my distaste for 99% of their movies. I don't think it's because I'm a humour snob - because I still assert that I am not. I just don't find their idea of comedy very comical.

Thudlow Boink
04-07-2005, 05:38 PM
So, Mauvaise, are you a big fan of Terrence and Phillip?

(Pssst. Mike Judge is the creator of Beavis & Butthead, King of the Hill, and the classic movie Office Space. That and Beavis & Butthead Do America are the only two movies of his I'm aware of.)

Askia
04-07-2005, 05:42 PM
You watched the Scooby-Doo movies? The live action ones? WILLINGLY? You defy my categorization.

I should have included you with Marley23 and the rest. Not liking any Farrelly Brothers movies is not definitive proof you're a humor snob, but they are a good litmus test and a damning indicator you just might be. With performers as diverse and talented as Jim Carrey, Cameron Diaz, Ben Stiller, Markie Post, Keith David, Matt Dillion, Chris Elliot, Greg Kinnear, Matt Damon, Jack Black, Jason Alexander, Meryl Streep, Gwenyth Paltrow-- I just don't see how you can fail to be amused by all of that talent.

Mike Judge did Office Space, Beavis and Butthead and the TV series King Of The Hill. (I see on preview Thudlow Boink took care of this.) What's your opinion those and on the Wayans clan-- Keenan, Damon, Shawn and Marlon?

Mauvaise
04-07-2005, 05:45 PM
So, Mauvaise, are you a big fan of Terrence and Phillip?

I loved the very first short - the christmas episode with Jesus and Santa and that figure skater dude. And I've watched and enjoyed a few episodes here and there, but I never got really into it - don't know why exactly - too much else to watch on TV that I enjoy.

(Pssst. Mike Judge is the creator of Beavis & Butthead, King of the Hill, and the classic movie Office Space. That and Beavis & Butthead Do America are the only two movies of his I'm aware of.)

Ohhh, Beavis & Butthead. Eh, I didn't find them particularly funny, but I love King of the Hill, even though I don't watch it all that much (other shows conflict) and I loved Office Space.

MovieMogul
04-07-2005, 05:46 PM
As I have observed in other threads, most humor snobs don't find lowbrow comedy funny or appealing at all and their preference for more cerebral humor manifests itself in a blanket condemnation of low humor no matter the performer or context. Even if you don't care for the Farrelys, I have grave doubts you'd care for the Wayanses, classic Cheech and Chong, or Mike Judge's movies, either. Well, In Living Color was brilliant, and I do like just about everything I've seen by Mike Judge. C&C can be funny, as are the Keystone Kops and Inspector Clouseau, but the Stooges aren't. Monty Python could be incredibly lowbrow, and they were often funnier then than in some of the tediuos wordplay. No blanket statements here. Everything's case-by-case.Your complaint about the lack of novelty in their humor is a common one. Yeah, getting bonked on the head or kicked in the balls or unwittingly using other people's bodily fluids as something to inhale, imbibe, ingest or smear on isn't exactly original, but it can still be funny as shit when successfully executed. Agreed. And there are the occasional laughs in the Farrelly films. But (for me) not many. I also am not a big fan of their saccherine sensibilities, which I find either disingenuous, clumsy, or both, depending on the film.I find there is often a great comfort and satisfaction in the familiar.Yeah, I agree. I assume at this point you're just making a case to somebody else, 'cause none of this applies to me... I wonder sometimes if this need for novelty isn't a defining characteristic in humor snobbery in general.This is like saying a food snob is someone who won't eat pizza every day, or a TV snob is someone who can't veg out in front of Aaron Spelling shows 24/7, or a literary snob is someone who isn't content with Jacqueline Susann novels as their only reading pleasure. :rolleyes:

Mauvaise
04-07-2005, 05:49 PM
You watched the Scooby-Doo movies? The live action ones? WILLINGLY? You defy my categorization.

My love for SMG and Linda Cardelini (?sp) knows no bounds! ;)

Please the actor that played Shaggy was amazing! :D

I should have included you with Marley23 and the rest. Not liking any Farrelly Brothers movies is not definitive proof you're a humor snob, but they are a good litmus test and a damning indicator you just might be. With performers as diverse and talented as Jim Carrey, Cameron Diaz, Ben Stiller, Markie Post, Keith David, Matt Dillion, Chris Elliot, Greg Kinnear, Matt Damon, Jack Black, Jason Alexander, Meryl Streep, Gwenyth Paltrow-- I just don't see how you can fail to be amused by all of that talent.

Well, I don't like Jim Carey in anything. I've tried and his presence even ruined most of the enjoyment of Bruce Almighty for me. But aside from him, it's not the talen (or lack thereof) that makes me not enjoy the Farrelly brothers - it's that I don't find their movies funny. I've seen several, and the only one I remotely liked was Shallow Hal (and I was surprised as hell that I didn't hate it).

Mike Judge did Office Space, Beavis and Butthead and the TV series King Of The Hill. (I see on preview Thudlow Boink took care of this.) What's your opinion those and on the Wayans clan-- Keenan, Damon, Shawn and Marlon?

I liked Undercover Brother - but I don't remember if that was a Wayans clan or not.

Askia
04-07-2005, 06:07 PM
This is like saying a food snob is someone who won't eat pizza every day, or a TV snob is someone who can't veg out in front of Aaron Spelling shows 24/7, or a literary snob is someone who isn't content with Jacqueline Susann novels as their only reading pleasure. :rolleyes: When have I advocated doing anything 24/7, every day, or advocated exclusivity or limited choices? Snobs do tend to do that sometimes, be they geeks or social elitists, but that's not what i'm saying at all. A happier remedy is "Everything in moderation."

Indygrrl
04-07-2005, 06:39 PM
I'm a bit of an elitist when it comes to movies, so I definitely prefer the Coens.

The only Farrelly movie I liked was Me, Myself, and Irene. The few others I watched were just not funny. I thought Something About Mary was horrible, but everyone else seemed to find it hilarious. I just don't find jokes about semen as hair gel funny, call me snob if you will. Bodily function humor doesn't appeal to me, but I don't look down on those who laugh at it.

The Big Lebowski is one of my favorites of all time, so is Fargo. And Raising Arizona is also a classic. I just think they have more substance, and are funnier and more intelligent.

But then, I also laugh at Friends and think Mama's Family was comedic brilliance, so what do I know? :D

MovieMogul
04-07-2005, 07:04 PM
When have I advocated doing anything 24/7, every day, or advocated exclusivity or limited choices? You didn't, but you did say: "I wonder sometimes if this need for novelty isn't a defining characteristic in humor snobbery in general." This suggestion that "need for novelty" = "snobbery" implies that people should be willing to find sufficiency in a singular style/type/form or else run the risk of being elitist. A happier remedy is "Everything in moderation."Everything, eh? Sounds like someone may need a little novelty. Could that someone be...a snob? :D

Askia
04-07-2005, 07:29 PM
Ah. On the contrary, not a singular form, but maybe a willingness to try more sophomoric forms of humor and learn to distinguish between good executions of physical comedy and not just witticisms, snappy dialogue, bon mots, puns, wordplay, regional eccentricities and Anglophilic comedies that are supposed to be funny just 'cuz they're British. Most comedies aren't cerebral and people who insist they're happier with those kinds limit themselves. I will say, most cerebral humor is inherently novel because the humor frequently juxtaposes new and/or unfamiliar ideas. But not all comedy has to be about -- to borrow from Indygrrl -- substance and intelligence. That said, I don't expect anyone here to wallow in teen sex comedies, National Lampoon flicks, Saturday Night Live alumni movies and Jim Varley movies ad nauseum either. I suppose the only thing worse than a humor snob is a frathouse filmgoer. All profanity, sex, violence, drugs, body fluids, slapstick and crudeness isn't good for the funnybone either, either. This is the problem I have with most Martin Lawrence movies.

Indygrrl
04-07-2005, 07:45 PM
But not all comedy has to be about -- to borrow from Indygrrl -- substance and intelligence.

Hey, I said I love Mama's Family, but then, it is substantially intelligent.




Not. :D

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.