I think we’ve all seen parodies that are funny or insightful while others are meh or cringe-worthy.
Please take “parody” as broadly construed. Humorous homages, satires, pastiches, lampoons, winks, references to others works or piss takes are included.
Also, I wouldn’t want the discussion to be limited to movies but that’s likely where most examples will come from. If you talk about something that isn’t well-known or would take many hours to get through, please describe it in detail so others know what you’re talking about.
It would be most informative if you could outline general principles as well as provide examples that illustrate them, whether they be positive or negative.
I’d say a bad parody is just an imitation of its subject. A good parody is something that understands its subject and is able to point out the premises and assumptions of its subject.
In addition to that, good parodies can stand on their own. They not only point out the humor in the thing parodies, but they have the structure of it. Onion parodies are real news stories on their own, that’s what makes them work.
The Friedberg and Seltzer movies of the past decade are the epitome of bad parody - just straightforwardly imitating scenes from other movies, with the only changes being random, lazy pop culture references thrown in with no real jokes behind their inclusion.
If the pop culture reference was some kind of verbal or visual pun on the original material it would at least qualify as a joke, and might even be clever, like how a lot of Weird Al’s parody songs don’t actually mock anything about the original song but are funny on their own (and don’t even require the listener to be familiar with the song being parodied). But the Friedberg and Seltzer movies are too lazy to even make an attempt at those - the fact that they also happen to be aggressively crude and tasteless while being unfunny is beside the point here, though it does make their success all the more depressing considering that they’re the form of “parody” young people would be most likely to be familiar with now.
I think that’s basically the answer. Something that demonstrates this would be a comparison of Tom Lehrer with the Capital Steps (though I don’t think either is, strictly speaking, parody). Tom Lehrer is brilliant and insightful–inhabiting a genre with original compositions, in order to make commentary on the ideological premises they often clothe. The Capital Steps, on the other hand, just come up with some sophomoric lyrics and because they’re set to the tune of a famous song, it’s supposed to be funny–really it’s just a textbook definition of lame.
90% of the joke is in the title and the remaining 10% is in the first sentence. And they aren’t real news stories, since the contents of each story fail to feed into the next news story. They undo established history.
I would disagree that the Onion is great parody. Rather, it’s parody that hits your personal politics/kinks/worldview.
I don’t understand your reasoning here. When does any news story, satirical or not, feed into the next? Are you talking about follow-up articles or updates? Parody doesn’t have to be factual. The Onion’s trying to be plausible for greater comedic effect. If they’re being satirical, why do they have to stick to continuity?
Any type of humor is subjective. I think Voyager meant that the Onion is a model of great parody, even if you don’t personally find it funny.
The reader also has to be familiar with the subject being parodied plus the cultural references that are used to parody the subject. Lacking an appreciation of those references can make one person’s brilliant parody into another man’s idiotic and incomprehensible ramble.
I’m thinking of Bored of the Rings in particular. I consider it brilliant, but I can relate to all the references to the 1960’s culture. My kids, and other younger readers of LOTR find it silly and confusing.
More generally,
In Sketches like The Argument Clinic or The Four Yorkshiremen as well as movies like The life of Brian or The Quest for the Holy Grail, Monty Python used parody/satire/piss taking. How did it do it well?
While I do consider Bored of the Rings a great parody (I managed to slog my way through Lord of the Rings by having a copy ready to be read when I was done), many of the jokes were just replacing character names with trademarks: Frito, Goodgulf, Spam, Arrowroot, Bromosel(tzer), Moxie, Pepsi, Serutan, etc. What makes is great is the humor (“5’9 is your height and 180’s your weight/You’ll cash in your chips around page 88.”) and the way it makes jokes about the flaws in the book.
And that’s what defines a good parody: it follows the form of the work while commenting on it, making jokes that point out plot flaws, character inconsistencies, and the like.
I think Mel Brooks is a master of parody, with a little lunacy thrown in. Young Frankenstein, Spaceballs, Men in Tights, Blazing Saddles, and who know what else I’m forgetting… Whether you know the movies they’re based on or not, they’re funny and well-written. Knowing their origins just adds a layer of richness.
There’s a certain intelligence under the silliness, too. I think that’s a mark of good parody - depth. In fact, the subtle undertones are like an extra reward for those who “get it” without robbing those who miss it. I’m not sure if I said that right, but maybe some of you will “get it.”
Huh? News stories in the paper don’t feed into each other, except when several stories cover one big topic. And news stories also have emphasis on the headline and the lead. So Onion parodies copy the form.
And those who disagree with the parody often think it is bad. Not a good metric either.
That may be an example of needing to care about something for the parody to work. I read Bored of the Rings in the '70s, knew all about '60s cultures, and read the books, but it didn’t do anything much for me since I don’t have the love of Lord of the Rings that lots of people have.
But I agree with your point - you really need to have seen Top Gun to appreciate Hot Shots.
These two requirements seem to be at odds. I wouldn’t make either one of them an absolute rule, but I would observe that, in many if not all successful parodies, the parody can be enjoyed and appreciated by someone with no knowledge of the original work being parodied, but familiarity with that original work allows a person to enjoy and appreciate the parody more than they otherwise would. As FairyChatMom said, “Knowing their origins just adds a layer of richness.”
To give a specific example, Scary Movie was a shitty parody because it lifted dialog and scenes from other movies and thought that in and of itself was funny. A real parody actually has jokes.
Lehrer’s parody is more of song forms than of specific works. Kind of the same way songs in “The Book of Mormon” parody standard Broadway show tunes, while being great songs in their own right.
But brilliance? Fight Fiercely Harvard, Lobachevsky (especially good because it is a song about plagiarized pretty much plagiarized from Danny Kaye,) We’ll All Go Together When we Go, and of course, Smut.
Mark Russell’s stuff was standard takes on the news of the day, and were stale two weeks after the events. We’re still listening to Lehrer over 60 years after he wrote the first set of songs. That says something.
To agree with some of the other comments: a bad parody is lazy. If it’s just the original work + one single idea (and not much cleverness or creativity in working out that idea), it’s a bad parody.
I dunno.* Airplane!* was substantially lifted directly from a straight movie and was pretty damn funny. And some of its funniest parts were the most literal.
Good parody should be intelligent, should slyly send up it’s subject and should have a great understanding of what it parodies.
And, as others have said; have funny jokes and work on their own.
If you watch “Airplane!” with a knowledge of disaster movies, or “Airport '77”, then you’ll recognize the characters they are sending up. But if you don’t get those frames of reference, the movie is still very funny.
And “The Onion” is probably the most consistently brilliant satire we’ve ever had - especially with their enormous output.
“Our Dumb World” is the gold standard for long-form parody.
