|
Author
|
Topic: Should new criteria be used to signify what is deemed a "Classic"?
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted March 24, 2012 12:53 PM
I had recently acquired a super 8 feature print of "Nothing Sacred".
Now, this film is stated to be a "screwball comedy", a designation which is used to determine a certain wacky style of humor, different from "dark humor" for instance.
Being a fond lover of comedy, I chose to buy this, as this film is literally given the top rating in every film ratings book; 4 out of 4 or 5 out of 5. With that kind of rating, I felt that I couldn't go wrong.
Well, I felt I was let down.
Now don't get me wrong, the film wasn't a total loss. It had a few good comedic moments as far as I was concerned, but when I think of screwball, I'm thinking of Marx Brothers (which one could easily give the description of "Manic"), or perhaps Laurel and Hardy, which isn't really manic but certainly up there with the Marx Brothers ...
But this film, while a decent storyline, was NOT screwy, to be sure. For comparision, a comedy which has been called "screwball" and certainly earns the title is the 1971 comedy, "What's Up Doc?" starring Barbera Streisand and Ryan O Neal., All film listing books says that it is a "homage" to the screwball comedies of the 30's, but doesn't rise to the same level. I highly dis-agree, as "What's Up Doc" is over-flowing with excellent comedic dialogue and extremely well paced and timed gags.
I think that perhaps, the 30's are placed at such a lofty level by film historians that most things produced during this period are considered classic or the highpoint of a genre, without really taking into account the overall quality of the picture.
Now, granted ... film sensibilities are different today than they were in the thirties, but I have always considered myself a "connesiuer" (yeah, I know I mis-spelled that), appreciating all humor, except for "potty humor" (except in rare occasions where it is done masterfully, such as Mel Brooks), so I appreciate well written comedy.
Perhaps the Marx Brothers do so well because they're humor has aged quite well, incredibly well, as has Laurel and Hardy, both teams having a universal appeal. It is the overall writing of the material. This is also true of "What's Up Doc" which has aged very well and stands up to Mel Brooks (in a different comedic vein, however), as one of the top comedies of the 70's and even up to this day.
What do you folks feel? Should a classic be rated more on how well it ages, or upon other criteria? Your thoughts ...
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
