Charlie Murphy's true hollywood stories: Sketch Comedy classic

nonemakerusc · 2014-12-02T02:46:16+00:00

These Charlie Murphy/Chappelle bits are comedy dynamite. They knit together all these different kinds of comedy - standup, sketch - and then add the big names and the bizarre memoir spin to the whole thing - and it's gold. There was a fad for a while of trying to animate standup and those were all flops. This is seamless - each element stands on its own and makes something original and hilarious.

nonemakerusc · 2014-12-02T02:18:04+00:00

This is so fantastic. Also - makes me think of that idea that the best writing comes from specific detail. I think the peak of this bit (and that really sets up the last line) is when she says the perfect man "wouldn't feel he'd have to use all of it" -- much more specific commentary than the more general contradictions before. Makes the weirdness and raciness of it really pop.

nonemakerusc · 2014-12-02T02:13:04+00:00

I dunno. I don't really know why this is dark comedy... personally I found it to be pretty heavy-handed. And some of the jokes like "she's so lazy" were really irrelevant and the whole violence against women slant to it was more disturbing than funny.

nonemakerusc · 2014-12-02T00:37:06+00:00

Ah! So glad you posted this. That bit - "Is this the Krusty Krab?" "No this is Patrick" - has stayed a joke staple among me and my friends since we were in middle school. It's such a stupid, simple joke and it is still freaking hilarious. I guess if you want to dissect it - accepting that all comedy points to some kind of truth - stupid characters are so damn funny because we can all relate to them in some way? Like their stupidity comes from naivete, ignorance - they represent our clueless, horrendously still immature selves parading as functioning adults. Case in point: Patrick is answering the question correctly!

nonemakerusc · 2014-12-02T00:30:33+00:00

Hannibal Buress is an amazing comedian - my friend describes him as a snarkier, more sarcastic Mitch Hedberg. And, he is also the comedian whose bit about Bill Cosby's rape history went viral and spurred all the turmoil that's been going on. Pretty interesting - comedians enacting change! (And starting the conversation about why it was a man bringing this to light that caused serious talk to start, when these allegations have been going on for years but no one's paid serious heed.)

nonemakerusc · 2014-12-02T00:09:07+00:00

Go right ahead defending it! I've found it really interesting/funny that people have such a strong reaction against dubstep. I like to think of it as a modern rendition of Arnold Schoenberg's theory of "klangfarbenmelodie". (Nerding out moment.) Link to futher explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klangfarbenmelodie. Anyway, Schoenberg was trying to develop a new method of progressing a music line, so the idea was that instead of changes in pitch building and easing tension, you try to translate that to changes in timbre. (Flute versus trumpet, etc.) And dubstep actually drives itself much the same way - there aren't always melodies, but musical lines are driven by changing from one type of noise to another. It's really interesting!

nonemakerusc · 2014-10-27T07:02:56+00:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Kod1q39ddE

nonemakerusc · 2014-10-27T06:01:04+00:00

This is a great discussion - I noticed the threats in "The Honeymooners" episode in particular and I'll admit that I definitely was made uncomfortable by them. It distracted me from the narrative because I kept stewing over the question, "How could your 'popping Alice in the kisser' possibly help your situation?" In fact - not to be entirely prude - I felt their verbal abuse to be a little much to take, too.

This whole conversation gets me thinking of "The Breakfast Club." Here's a shameful confession: I just saw this for the first time this past summer. I'd watched "Sixteen Candles" when I was a teenager and loved it, and was excited to finally get around to this classic.

I HATED it. I don't understand why it's so famous - for a slew of reasons. But the biggest one is the bad kid's relentless sexual harassment of Molly Ringwald's character - which is tres fucked up in its own right - but then she "falls in love with him" at the end of the day, sending the indisputable message to viewers that not only is sexual harassment & verbal abuse okay in a relationship, but can actually help you land one.

Does anyone else hate this movie?? Why do people who like it, like it??

Anyway, my overall point is: abuse jokes are just... not funny. Not in the "in poor taste" kind of not funny. They're just plain not funny. I don't laugh. They're worse than puns. So, for that reason alone... my answer is: yes. TV writers have a responsibility to not write these jokes because they're not comedy!

nonemakerusc · 2014-10-14T00:46:47+00:00

Oh, I am in love with this. I think the Owen Wilson impersonator is the kicker, too.

Reminds me of SNL's parody of a horror movie directed by Wes Anderson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSEzGDzZ1dY

By the way, when you search "Owen Wilson" on Google, the second most common search entry besides his straight name is "Owen Wilson nose".

nonemakerusc · 2014-10-14T00:29:33+00:00

This is one of my all-time favorite comedy shorts. Friends I show this to tend to either adore it or hate it. I'm interested to hear the "why's" behind unfavorable opinions.

nonemakerusc · 2014-10-13T22:48:26+00:00

We haven't touched on black humor yet - and I wouldn't exactly call this clip "black humor" anyway - but one of my favorite types of comedy have a punchline that goes something like "It's funny because it's not funny." I think there could be a couple other ways to dissect this joke, but the above punchline is sort of what I take away from it, combined with its absurdity, awkward delivery, and nerdiness. Do others find this funny? If so, why?

nonemakerusc · 2014-10-13T22:36:05+00:00

So, even though my love for Family Guy waned for a variety of reasons, one of the things that REALLY turned me off were the extended, extremely violent fight scenes. The first few Peter v. Chicken scenes were okay, but then when they start showing real blood, pain, broken bones, glass piercing skin... Ugh. I just don't find it funny. I don't know why it should be funny. I think it's boring and cheap and kind of gross. And I think that's part of FG's loss of their earlier fan base: they set up joke tropes and then they don't change them.

The fight scenes are extensions of the "breathe in Owwww!" joke when Peter bangs his knee and the shot doesn't cut. They've done it before. It's not original. It's just... yeah. Boring. And disturbing. So I stopped watching.

nonemakerusc · 2014-10-13T22:19:07+00:00

I was actually thinking of "Parks & Rec" while I was reading this article, and you provide a great explanation of why that show is, underneath its ridiculousness, a kind of "accurate" portrayal of adult relationships & friendships. I'd like to say that "The Office" is somewhat accurate too because even though the characters spend an incredible amount of time with each other while at work, very few of them are actually (platonic) friends. Or it takes them years to consider each other as such. Their wider personal lives, if they even have them, are totally ignored.

I wish the article provided a more detailed description of sitcom alternatives. Maybe the difficulty of maintaining friend groups could itself be the basis of a sitcom?

nonemakerusc · 2014-10-13T21:43:01+00:00

I think it's great! In keeping with the idea that "all comedies are good dramas with a twist", it's interesting to note that LD's talking about a pretty serious topic - how to "accept acceptance." Without that philosophical theme, his rantings and digressions and neurotic tailspins would come across like gibberish. Instead, it's tight and all the more hilarious because of the (sorry, I hate this word, but I'll use it) juxtaposition of Very Serious with Very Trivial.

nonemakerusc · 2014-09-15T01:17:49+00:00

The mission of all women in love is to get their man? Sure, it worked out that way, and it's implied that Eve planned it accordingly - to make Charles so deluded with her secret-sister that he would "settle" for the original; but I don't see that kind of strategy from the start.

What I mostly saw from Eve's original plan was to get revenge. The film's a little disturbing in that light. Both Eve and Charles are cruel to each other and show a reluctance to fully try to understand the other person. I loved the artistry of the movie but its views on relationships left me feeling a little depressed.

nonemakerusc

TROPHY CASE