Is it inevitable for comedians to get less funny as they get older?

[roger_thornhill]

@uglybeech

I also think it’s about surprise. If something isn’t surprising it simply *isn’t * funny. And comedians have certain takes on the world which are usually hilarious the first time you hear it and then increasingly stale. It’s just impossible for them to remain surprising over decades, and no amount of drugs or bipolar illness can change that. I think that also explains generational humor. Your parents comedy isn’t funny because you’ve heard it all your life.

Yes. And no.

There’s an element of comedy whereby the comedian can have their audience drooling in anticipation of his (sorry - but most women just don’t cut it - I blame periods, makes them too normal and down-to-earth) punchline. And that punchline is one they’ve heard a hundred times before. It’s like a drug, or a comforter - they want it so bad.

It’s like other basics of life, sex and food. We love it when it’s familiar and yet we like ro experiment a bit, and we like it to be edgy occasionally. Progress = change AND continuity, and all that.

[uglybeech]

@roger thornhill

There’s an element of comedy whereby the comedian can have their audience drooling in anticipation of his (sorry - but most women just don’t cut it - I blame periods, makes them too normal and down-to-earth) punchline. And that punchline is one they’ve heard a hundred times before. It’s like a drug, or a comforter - they want it so bad.

Eh. Those routines aren’t usually very “funny.” They may be amusing and “fun” and even delightful. But they’re no longer really “funny.” A live audience who roars at hearing “I’m a wild and crazy guy” for the billionth time isn’t finding it “funny” so much as cheering Steve Martin on.*

I still find Seinfeld and Monty Python *amusing * the second time, and watch them when I get the chance, but I don’t ever guffaw like I did the first time around unless I’ve forgotten the particular joke at hand.

As for women being (not) funny. Total agreement. I’m still working on a hypothesis. I think it has something to do with why Leslie Nielsen is funny without even doing anything. Sorry, but your period theory doesn’t cut it. As I consider some successful male comedians eternally on the rag.

*Except that the comedian can sometimes play with your expectations of the tag line because you’re so familiar with it and surprise you again by putting it in a slightly different place or saying it in a different way. But this is effective precisely because it’s repetion has created hardened expectations which allow for greater surprise when they’re broken.

[Marley23]

@roger thornhill

You go to an Eagles concert, you want to hear HC and Desperado. You go to a Monty Python show and you want to hear the dead parrot skecth and the lumberjack song. Try something new and you’re in danger of losing your following and your cash cow.

I don’t. This phenomenon definitely exists, but not all fans are like that. How stuck an artist gets creatively is related to what segments of the audience they decide to appeal to.

[roger_thornhill]

@uglybeech

As for women being (not) funny…your period theory doesn’t cut it. As I consider some successful male comedians eternally on the rag.

I don’t know what ‘on the rag’ means, but if it means what I think it means, ie they’re all stressed out, then you’re arguing with me not against me. I’m not referring to PMS, I’m referring to the fact (hypothesis) that women are more centred because they have to suffer this pain and leakage every month for 30-odd years. This makes them too down-to-earth, too practical, hence all the “multi-tasking”.

The problem with those women who try to become comedians is just that. They try.

*Except that the comedian can sometimes play with your expectations of the tag line because you’re so familiar with it and surprise you again by putting it in a slightly different place or saying it in a different way. But this is effective precisely because it’s repetion has created hardened expectations which allow for greater surprise when they’re broken.

But he’s hardly doing something new - it’s more like variations on a theme. We love the variations because we love the theme.

[Marley23]

@roger thornhill

I’m not referring to PMS, I’m referring to the fact (hypothesis) that women are more centred because they have to suffer this pain and leakage every month for 30-odd years. This makes them too down-to-earth, too practical, hence all the “multi-tasking”.

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Jerry Lewis seems to feel the same way, but when was the last time he made a good joke?

[Zoe]

I think that women comics are hysterical to other women. Some of my favorites over the years – Paula Poundstone, Ellen DeGeneres, Elaine Boosler, Rita Rudner, and Brett Butler. I’m able to enjoy male comics almost as much.

Women are used to living in a world that is predominately about men. Take a look at most movies. They are about men. That’s the way it was when we were growing up and we don’t make a big deal about it except a little wistfully.

Men, on the other hand, generally don’t want to see movies about women. There are exceptions, but overall, look at the main casting in the biggest blockbusters. Is there even a male equivalent for “click flick”? I heard a recent Randy Quaid movie described as a chick flick for guys. Huh?

I think that tendency not to identify carries over into their inability to grok to commediennes.

[roger_thornhill]

@Zoe

Women are used to living in a world that is predominately about men. Take a look at most movies. They are about men. That’s the way it was when we were growing up and we don’t make a big deal about it except a little wistfully.

Men, on the other hand, generally don’t want to see movies about women. There are exceptions, but overall, look at the main casting in the biggest blockbusters. Is there even a male equivalent for “click flick”? I heard a recent Randy Quaid movie described as a chick flick for guys. Huh?

I think that tendency not to identify carries over into their inability to grok to commediennes.

But the “tendency” you introduce in the final paragraph doesn’t seem to follow from what you write in the previous paragraphs. “Don’t want to see movies about women” does not equal “can’t (or won’t) identify” (with women?). And to suggest that men’s dislike of women comedians is some kind of inability is strange. Speaking personally, it’s a taste (like I prefer bitter to lager), not a capability that I have worked on one way or the other. I love laughing, I love being entertained. It’s not a political statement: “I refuse to let women make me laugh”. Indeed, women do make me laugh, but there seems to be a dearth of top-class female comedians.

And don’t the majority of women want to see movies about men too? After all, they comprise around 50.5% of the population and go to the cinema and rent lots of DVDs.

Most chick flicks, eg Thelma and Loiuse (does that count?) or Bridget Jones’s Diary, are pretty mediocre. Why wouls we want more of these, or indeed more “lad lit” type films, like About A Boy (not seen).

[Marley23]

@roger thornhill

And don’t the majority of women want to see movies about men too? After all, they comprise around 50.5% of the population and go to the cinema and rent lots of DVDs.

I’m not sure how the moviegoing public breaks down, but in part I think they’re just seeing the only things out there.

[Marley23]

@roger thornhill

Most chick flicks, eg Thelma and Loiuse (does that count?) or Bridget Jones’s Diary, are pretty mediocre. Why wouls we want more of these, or indeed more “lad lit” type films, like About A Boy (not seen).

Most flicks are pretty mediocre. The things that might qualify as ‘guy flicks’ are pretty damned stupid. I don’t think there’s anything particularly bad about them. They’re formulaic, but what isn’t?

[SparrowHawk]

@Zoe

I think that women comics are hysterical to other women. Some of my favorites over the years – Paula Poundstone, Ellen DeGeneres, Elaine Boosler, Rita Rudner, and Brett Butler.

Fran Liebowitz, Gilda Radner, Lily Tomlin, Carol Burnett…

Is there even a male equivalent for “click flick”? I heard a recent Randy Quaid movie described as a chick flick for guys. Huh?

That’d be a “dick flick,” wouldn’t it?

[commasense]

@NDP

Buster Keaton was burned out by the time he was in his 40’s

I’m a little surprised no one has challenged this statement. Keaton’s career faded, but not because his talent dried up. In 1928 he made the tragic mistake of signing with MGM, thus giving up control of his films to unimaginative studio heads. Unable to create films up to his own standards of quality, and forced to take a backseat to the likes of Red Skelton, he fell into alcoholism and other personal problems from which it took him decades to recover.

Unfortunately, his last feature film appearance, in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, doesn’t do much to restore his reputation. But if you’ve ever seen an appearance he made on Candid Camera in the late '50s or early '60s, you know he was as hilarious in his 60s as he was in his 20s.

The setup was so simple only a genius of Keaton’s magnitude could have made it work. He sat at a lunch counter and, while the people next to him looked on (not knowing who he was, of course), fumbled with his utensils and the salt and pepper shakers in ways that, while I can’t do them justice, were, trust me, hysterical. At one point, his toupee falls into his soup, and he picks it up, wrings it out, and puts it back on his head. The people next to him thought they were seeing some poor bumbling fool and could barely keep a straight face. It’s been years, perhaps decades, since I’ve seen this clip, but my memory of its brilliance is still clear.

The last film he directed was a short called The Railrodder, made in 1965, just a year before he died. It is a little gem and, IMHO, further proof that Buster Keaton was, like Groucho, Fields, Burns, and others mentioned previously, a worthy counterexample to the OP. Sadly, there just isn’t as much evidence of the fact as in the other cases.

[commasense]

Before someone calls me on it, the director of record on The Railrodder was Gerald Potterton, but Keeton is cited by IMDb as an uncredited writer and director.

[WhyNot]

@Zoe

Is there even a male equivalent for “click flick”?

“movie”

no, seriously. “Summer Blockbuster”, “Action Flick” “Movie where things blow up a lot.” “Buddy Comedy”

Not only are there labels for movies marketed to a male audience, there are multiple and refined labels for movies marketed to a male audience.

The real difference is that women watch them too - far more often than men watch “chick flicks,” at least according to industry numbers. Which is exactly why they’re marketed to men and also why there are more of them made. Men marketed movies earn two ticket sales, chick flicks only one. It’s a rare chick flick that’s a box office leader for more than a weekend or two (Titanic aside), whereas a good Bruce Willis testosterone fest or leather clad scifi goofest could ride a ticket wave for weeks.

I think the same may be true of female comics - women like them, men tend not to. Women also like male comics. So promoting a male comic is easier and more cost effective. Fewer agents/promoters/managers are willing to work with female talent because the return on investment is lower. So fewer women are given the support they need to make a career work within the existing system.

@SparrowHawk

That’d be a “dick flick,” wouldn’t it?

:eek: Now wait a minute! That sounds fun… purr

[Martin_Hyde]

The only female comic I really like is Sara Silverman, and I like her quite a lot.

She’s basically a male comic in a female body though.

[kingpengvin]

I’ll add my two cents for Canadian talent.

Eugene Levy, now there is a comedian who is getting funier with each passing year. He is a genius.

John Candy was always funny but was in some pretty uneven projects. Had he lived I think he still would have had that same spark which made him as good as he was.

[Rilchiam]

@uglybeech

Eh. Those routines aren’t usually very “funny.” They may be amusing and “fun” and even delightful. But they’re no longer really “funny.” A live audience who roars at hearing “I’m a wild and crazy guy” for the billionth time isn’t finding it “funny” so much as cheering Steve Martin on.*

*Except that the comedian can sometimes play with your expectations of the tag line because you’re so familiar with it and surprise you again by putting it in a slightly different place or saying it in a different way. But this is effective precisely because it’s repetion has created hardened expectations which allow for greater surprise when they’re broken.

The ultimate example of this would be a live performance of fhe Parrot Sketch (sorry, can’t remember where or when).

With the lights down, audience recognizes the set for the Parrot Sketch and starts oooooohhhhhhhing in anticipation. Lights go up and Cleese takes his position behind the counter. Audience yelps briefly, then settles down in breath-held tension as Palin walks through door.

Palin: This parrot is dead.

Cleese: Well, I’d better give you a refund then.

Fade to black.

[Marley23]

@uglybeech

Except that the comedian can sometimes play with your expectations of the tag line because you’re so familiar with it and surprise you again by putting it in a slightly different place or saying it in a different way. But this is effective precisely because it’s repetion has created hardened expectations which allow for greater surprise when they’re broken.

I think Cleese also gets particularly tired of doing the same thing over and over. If you’ve seen him do the Dead Parrot Sketch on SNL (was it about ten years ago), he said a lot of lines differently and I don’t think he did the same voice. [As I remember it he also seemed kind of bored reprising the thing.] His performance at the Hollywood Bowl was a little different from the original too. Not that the explanations in this thread are unsatisfactory, but I think he may be turned off by the idea of being the same comic personality for the same people for ages and ages.

[Scissorjack]

@WhyNot

The real difference is that women watch them too - far more often than men watch “chick flicks,” at least according to industry numbers. Which is exactly why they’re marketed to men and also why there are more of them made. Men marketed movies earn two ticket sales, chick flicks only one. It’s a rare chick flick that’s a box office leader for more than a weekend or two (Titanic aside), whereas a good Bruce Willis testosterone fest or leather clad scifi goofest could ride a ticket wave for weeks.

Which is why male actors {the popular ones, at least} earn more than actresses: it isn’t sexism, at least on the part of the studios, just economics - there are plenty of actors who can “open” a movie {“Let’s go see the new Brad Pitt/George Clooney/Johnny Depp/Keanu Reeves… movie”}, whereas there are relatively few actresses who can do the same - maybe Julia Roberts and whoever the skinny blonde chick du jour is. In the music business, by contrast, female artists have just as much selling power as men, and consequently get paid as much.

As to why women can’t usually open movies - I dunno: maybe it’s a demographic thing - guys just refuse to see chick flicks {I know I do}, whereas women don’t mind being dragged along to Pirates Of the Caribbean if it has Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom in it.