Older Movies / shows / books that are STILL funny

Cafe Society
101

I have to disagree here. It’s not all, or even mostly novelty. It bothers my wife that I can re-read some Dave Barry book that 've read a hundred times already, and still shake the bed when I laugh. I’m clearly not laughing because it’s unexpected or new, even if it’s not quite the thrill I got the first time.

Not all comedy is like that, of course. But I still get a kick out of watching movies or TV shows I’ve seen many times before, or re-reading books. If your theory were correct, there would be no point in re-watching or re-reading after I’d essentially memorized the thing.

102

I’ve always wondered if when Karloff played it on stage, he was made up in full Frankenstein’s monster makeup. That would have been hilarious (and worth it to license the image from Universal).

103

OTOH, the “novelty and surprise” element can hold up well in theater, where two productions might offer noticeably different takes on the same script. (In The Importance of Being Earnest, mentioned upthread, there are famously any number of ways for Lady Bracknell to say “A hand-bag?”)

104

I seriously doubt it. Putting on the makeup, at least in the early days, was a long and grueling process involving fuller’s earth and other obscure things. By the late 19402 they had started using latex appliances (they show you one in the additional material for Abbott and Costello Met Frankenstein DVD), but I don’t think they had that yet when Karloff played Brewster onstage. And it wasn’t really necessary – the point is that Karloff already looked much of the way there. They could have put a few collodion scars on him and some artful greasepaint, but it really wasn’t needed. Especially not if it involved a lot of time in makeup. If you’re playing The Elephant Man or The Phantom of the Opera you need makeup, but not for Jonathan Brewster.

105

Yeah, my statement “NO comedy” was likely SLIGHTLY overstated. I probably shoulda said, “practically no comedy holds up well.” Tho personally, I’m not sure I can come up with an example.

No, novelty and surprise is not the ONLY ingredient needed to find something funny. But it is a significant element, and fosters a particular type of reaction that does not occur upon subsequent encounters. Sure, there are works that you fondly revisit - like seeing an old friend. But for me, that kind of warm feeling is qualitatively very different than when one first encounters something.

I recently gave away a boxed set of Monty Python - which I had thought of as my gold standard. Unwatchable. Tried Dick Van Dyke - but, he WAS a dick, and Laura and Sally were really shat on. And Ritchie shoulda been tied in a sack and tossed in a river. Shows I remembered so fondly - Barney Miller, KRP, Sanford and Son, and many more - I’d think, “Hmm, must have hit on a bum episode. Whaddya know - 2-3 bum eps in a row. Maybe it wasn’t as funny as I remember.” The Honeymooners - he really is such a shit towards Alice. Same for Mel Brooks, the Marx Bros… I wonder about maybe rewatching Freaks and Geeks - remember it VERY fondly and saw it on a streaming service the other day…

All of these and more have GREAT lines which I remember fondly (and quote WAY too often for my friends/family’s preference!) But for me, at least, when I revisit them and KNOW the funny lines are coming - when they come, they do not hit as hard as before, and the stuff in between just seems flat.

Reading books - if I KNOW the main characters, and I know how they are going to act/react and how the story is going to resolve, rereading can be a pleasant way to spend some time, but I cannot recall laughing out loud on a second read. And, for me at least, a large part of my enjoyment of a book is the novelty. I had never encountered characters like Jeeves and Bertie. Or Dortmunder’s gang. Or some of Thomas Perry’s goofy criminals… On rereading, yeah, it is like encountering an old friend. I generally think, “Well, it amusing enough. But why did I think it was THAT great?” Others - like Dickens - I mainly think, “He WAS obviously getting paid by the word, huh? Coulda used a good editor to tighten that up.”

Having said all of this, I must suggest there is a difference between people who ENJOY rewatching/reading, and folk like me who don’t so much. Some people love to repeatedly rewatch and almost study certain shows. That is fine for them, but not for me. There are a very few movies/TV shows I will enjoy revisiting - and generally only after somewhat lengthy gaps. There are so many books to read and so many things to watch, that I generally look for new material, rather than trying to recapture remembered flames. Especially since, IME, I have so often been disappointed. I generally prefer to live with my memory of something as exceptional, rather than revisit it and, instead, find myself focusing on the warts and questioning my previous judgment.

Re: theater - I remember a showing of “Noises Off” as being the funniest thing I ever saw in a theater. That was some 40 years ago. I think there is a movie version available, and the play periodically comes around… I remember the first time I saw The Nerd, laughing nonstop (at least through the first act.) Had the misfortune of seeing it a second time and expecting to laugh as much…

106

I also don’t find Monty Python nearly as funny nowadays, but I think that speaks more to how my tastes have changed. I don’t find clever, word-based humour (like the Argument Sketch or the Dead Parrot Sketch) as funny as I used to.

There are plenty of things that make me laugh every time I even think of them, but Monty Python sketches aren’t among them.

107

He could be long-winded, but he wasn’t that canny a businessman.

108

Our Hospitality, his other train movie, is also a must see. His ride from old New York to his Southern ancestral home on the antique stagecoach type train is very funny.

109

Not all comedy depends on novelty and surprise. There’s also the comedy of the expected. A lot of character-based comedy is like this. When a mugger said to Jack Benny, “Your money or your life,” it elicited a laugh before Benny even responded.

There’s also the question of what “still funny” means in the context of this thread. Does it mean “still funny even though you’ve seen it before,” or does it mean “still funny by today’s standards despite the fact that it’s old.” I’d say this thread is mainly about the latter. So, for instance, would someone watching “Arsenic and Old Lace” for the first time today be likely to find it funny (as opposed to, say, someone watching “Cocaine Bear” for the third time).

110

Yeah, I was going to point out that there are two different senses of “still funny” or “still holds up,” and we seem to have been discussing both of them in this thread without being careful to distinguish between them.

111

Perhaps try watching/hearing them old comedy bits after becoming herbalized. From an altered state perspective, familiar things seem to look and feel different, almost new and hence, hilarity may be re-born. I’m willing to try most anything these dark days to be humored and entertained! :grimacing:

112

Yes, although Freaks and Geeks has only a single glorious season, its TOTALLY worth a re-watch.I recently got the whole series on DVD from my local library & loved EVERY minute of it. Linda Cardellini, James Franco, Seth Rogen, Jason Segel & Martin Starr b4 they were famous. Plus how you can NOT dig a show that has Joan Jett’s ‘‘Bad Reputation’’ for its theme song and multiple killer songs by such groups as Rush, Cheap Trick, the Grateful Dead, Styx, The Moody Blues, Billy Joel, The Who and Van Halen scattered throughout the 18 episodes Paul Feig and Judd Apatow created. I think only Shout Factory’s DVDs have the original soundtrack & that lends so much to the show’s atmosphere. Highly recommended!

113

One I rarely see mentioned but is wonderful and very funny is Blithe Spirit (1945).

Based on a Noel Coward play it is about a man (Rex Harrison) who manages to get the spirit of his dead wife (Kay Hammond) to re-appear but only to him. He tries to convince others (particulary his current wife (Constance Cummings)) but she doesn’t believe him. His dead wife is snarky as she comments on the goings-on causing the husband no end of frustration. He hires a medium (Margaret Rutherford who is excellent) to exorcise his wife (well, she was in before and may have been the one who brought her back in the first place).

Hi-jinks ensue. Such a fun movie.

114

Not a [scripted] comedy per say, but an exception, I believe are funny slip and fall videos—provided they are real and the person who falls doesn’t get hurt. In fact, I think people throughout time and across cultures universally find humans falling down funny. And most people can watch these videos over and over, and still find them funny. Not sure what that says about human society, but there you have it.

Silly dog and cat videos seem to be universally funny, too.

115

So…

  • Buster Keaton
  • Charlie Chaplin
  • Keystone Cops
  • Three Stooges

Stuff like that?

116

Technically (the best type of correct to be!), the last line is “…And just like that, he’s gone.”

Upthread, someone mentioned Life of Brian as one of those films that still hold up. It was during the convo about rape jokes (though I don’t remember if the post I’m referring to specifically mentions rape jokes, but the post was in that timeframe somewhere). And Life of Brian does contain at least one:

When Brian’s mother tells him that his father was a Roman, he says “you mean you were raped?”

His mother answers, “at first, yes.”

117

Well, yes and no. Those classic performers—Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, the Keystone Cops, and the Three Stooges—are masters of the scripted pratfall, and they’re undeniably hilarious. However, I’m talking about the real, unscripted slip-and-fall moments you’ll see on TikTok and its ilk. There’s something extra funny about genuine mishaps because of the surprise factor: we instinctively laugh at the shock and silliness, even if we feel a little guilty afterward. It’s also relatable—we’ve all taken our own spills—so it becomes this universal (across time and culture) human comedy that’s entertaining to watch. The sheer spontaneity just kicks the humor up a notch, tapping into that “thank goodness that’s not me” reflex, and making it weirdly addicting to watch and re-watch.

118

This may make me an outlier, but I don’t find slip-and-fall videos to be remotely funny. My reaction (especially with animal videos) is “hey, you, the jerk who’s filming this! Put the camera down and help them.”

119

Another play from the same era that still gets produced fairly often, and holds up amazingly well, is Francis Beaumont’s The Knight of the Burning Pestle. As you’d expect from a play written in 1607, there are some specific jokes that don’t land – e.g., Beaumont assumes you know barbers are also surgeons and you’d go to one to get your syphilis treated – but the basic premise is still hilarious (two naive theatergoers go to a play and demand that the actors change it up to suit their tastes, leading to all sorts of hasty improv and a Don Quixote-like plot with a knight romping through what was supposed to be a contemporary urban rom-com).

120

I still find the biblical story of Elijah’s fire from heaven challenge with the prophets of Ba’al. He taunts them, saying Ba’al might be on vacation, or sitting on the pot.