Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site tellab1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!tellab1!barth
From: barth@tellab1.UUCP (Barth Richards)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Keaton, Sennett, etc.
Message-ID: <654@tellab1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 13:54:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: tellab1.654
Posted: Mon Oct 21 13:54:52 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 03:54:24 EDT
References: <695@decwrl.UUCP> <395@harvard.ARPA>
Reply-To: barth@tellab1.UUCP (Barth Richards)
Followup-To: net
Distribution: net
Organization: Tellabs, Inc., Lisle, IL
Lines: 52
Keywords: comedy

In article <395@harvard.ARPA> tomczak@harvard.UUCP (Bill tomczak) writes:

>One thing I thought of as I read this was that as I watched a bunch of
>Keaton films awhile back I found myself very slightly annoyed at one
>common theme that seemed to run through all his films.  The comedy in
>almost every single case (I actually think is was EVERY case, but I
>can't be sure) revolved around someone not saying something to somebody
>else or making assumptions based on a lack of communication between two
>or more people.  It also seemed to be presented as something that
>'decent' people just didn't do/say.  Several times it occurred to me
>that "if only he/she/they had said (whatever)" everything would be
>fine.  And also the funniness would be gone.  I've noticed this is many
>other films of the silent era and wondered how much of the comedy might
>be based on cultural conventions of the time (1920's). Perhaps the
>changes that have occurred in society since then are one reason for not
>being able to appreciate comedy from that era?  Has anyone else had
>this kind of experience??

I know I have. So have others. On a radio talk show, Douglas Adams (THE HITCH-
HIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY) said that when he was in school, he always looked
forward to taking a Shakespeare class, particularly for the comedies. When he
finally did read them, he was disappointed because they just weren't that
funny, and he realized that this was because most of the jokes had to be
explained to him. The subject matter of the jokes just wasn't easily grasped by
someone living in the 20th century.

Humor is a very fragile thing. If you have to explain a joke, it's no longer
as funny. The humor depends on both the performer and the audience having
similar expectations. So, differences in culture, even a handful of years
separation within the same culture, can confuse or even totally obscure the
point of a joke. Some jokes, of course, are more universal than others.

So, in this more enlightened age (well, we like to think it is), people are
not as reserved. There aren't nearly as many things that "you just don't say."
(If you don't believe me listen to or watch Dr. Ruth Westheimer's "Good Sex"
program. Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish! In 1925 you'd have been imprisoned for
life for saying stuff like that to your doctor. Now people call into radio talk
shows with this stuff!)

I have had similar thoughts about Keaton films (well, ok, film...I've only
seen one.) In THE GENERAL, Keaton is a young man in the South during the Civil
War. He is turned down when he volunteers for the Confederate Army due to his
slight build (as I remember) but his girl thinks he was too cowardly to join.
Keaton's character is too polite to object, because you were suppose to be
polite to the ladies.

Anyway, you are not alone.


				   Barth Richards
				   Tellabs, Inc.
				   Lisle, IL