this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
62 points (90.8% liked)
Star Wars
4883 readers
4 users here now
Discussion for all things Star Wars. Movies, books, games, TV shows and more are welcome.
1. Keep it civil.
2. Keep it Star Wars related.
3. No memeposts. Memes are great and everybody loves them, but there is already !starwarsmemes@lemmy.world for those.
Community icon art from DeviantArt user DavidDeb.
Banner art by Ralph McQuarrie.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I hope we're not to that point yet. The spoof genre reached its apotheosis in that period from '74 to '94, with Python doing Holy Grail and Life of Brian, Mel Brooks going from Blazing Saddles to Robin Hood Men in Tights, and the ZAZ run from Airplane! to The Naked Gun and Hot Shots movies. For ZAZ, Top Secret! is even better than Airplane! or TNG, IMHO.
Their successors forgot that however thin, the underlying movie has to be watchable, or you lose something. Maybe it's just generational (always have to allow for that at my age), but I kind of think that Scary Movie et al is stuff that is not nearly as timeless.
We are definitely well past that point. We are also passing the point where Star Wars nostalgia was fondly remembering watching Episode I as a kid and soon will be at the point where Star Wars nostalgia is fondly remembering watching The Force Awakens as a kid
That reminds me of one of the major keys to the success of the ZAZ movies, which was to hire a cast known for their serious, dramatic roles, a type which Nielsen epitomized. At no point could the actors indicate that the situations going on around them were funny, otherwise the illusion might be punctured.
Perhaps some of the later imitation films, like Scary Movie et al, kind of drifted away from that premise, I don't know.
Speaking of Blazing Saddles, I recall reading that the musicians and orchestra were told that they were producing music for a classic-style western, and when they ultimately learned that the movie was an intentional farce, they were *not* amused.
The ZAZ movies had a very specific style that relied on that. Every single character was the "straight man" and the bonkers shit was the universe. Mel Brooks was much more side-eye and poking at the fourth wall. In either case, I wanted Nick Rivers and Lone Starr and Sheriff Bart to succeed though. It wasn't complete anarchy or loosely connected sketches, and the juxtaposition of the absurd being hung on a pretty generic narrative structure makes it funnier, I think.
Laate reply, but very interesting comments that do make a lot of sense to me, particularly about the different mechanisms used in the ZAZ and Mel Brooks' movies.
Judging from more recent movies clearly built on the models above, I feel like in general, modern directors & producers try to broadcast more to the audience as to how and when to react. That is-- in this post-MTV age, it seems like they're more scared of potential dead air time, and want to avoid indulging too much in the deadpan, pregnant moments common in ZAZ films. Ones that made them so delicious, of course, tending to appeal to the thoughtful person.
By comparison, King of the Hill is maybe a rare case of a cartoon comedy that wasn't entirely concerned with whether the audience understood the full humor of the situations. Just popped in to my head anyway, so I thought I'd mention it.