A lot of what is considered intelligent comedy isn't actually hugely intelligent, I don't think. I'm thinking mainly of Python here, but the same goes for Eddie and other Pythonic spiritual successors. I'm not saying it's unintelligent, just that it isn't this massive intellectual behemoth. It's more that the creators aren't afraid to show that they know stuff.
When I was in middle school, knowing stuff suddenly became extremely uncool. You were supposed to play dumb. I was tormented extensively for once using the word "theoretically" (which I used because I meant "theoretically" - I know no other way to say it). The stuff you learned in class? You had to pretend you don't know it. Stuff you learned elsewhere? You had to pretend you never learned it. Five syllable words? Worth at least two sessions of locker-room harassment, even if most of the syllables were the morphemes necessary to create an adverb.
But this attitude seems to carry through into adult culture. People on TV going "Oh, this is just too complicated for me" when faced with simple arithmetic. Comedy based on the premise that we don't know stuff that we do of course know. (The real-life equivalent of Krusty the Clown going "Yellow pages and white pages? What's up with that?") This isn't ubiquitous, of course, but there's enough of it around that comedy gets defined as intelligent simply by virtue of the creators not being afraid to show to show that they've picked up a thing or two throughout their lifetime.
4 comments:
There is a book called "Monty Python and Philosophy: Nudge Nudge, Think Think!". Many, though not all Python sketches, have at their heart a philosophical conundrum or puzzle.
Think of the argument sketch, think of the peasant arguing with the King in the Holy Grail about what is sovereignty. "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!" Which I think captures all the arguments about the Divine Rights of Kings.
I like Ugly Betty.
I'm always suspicious of books like that, because they tend to focus more on what you can read into it rather than authorial intent. I know that in some places there is a deeper meaning (e.g. the Knights who say Ni, or the surprising historical accuracy of the French taunting scene), but regardless of what that kind of book might say about the deeper meaning of the Dead Parrot sketch, the Pythons are on record as saying that its origins are a slimy auto mechanic and a thesaurus.
Or to give another example, since we're talking about philosopy, the Bruces' Philosophers Song is often cited as an example of how the Pythons are intellectual, but it's really just a list of philosophers - no understanding of philosophy necessary.
I agree that at times they did use local and everyday inspiration for comedy. (e.g. Upper-class twit of the year competition)
But there is often in Python a strong sense of playing with ideas... my favourite for this is the argument sketch. Where at one point one of the characters tries to define what is an argument. And this is comdey?
Oh, no it isn't.
But in saying that, I did not buy the book. My reason: Python manage to illustrate their points and also prick their own pomposity. The book was not silly enough.
Post a Comment