Barry Lyndon is a funny film, so are The Wrestler and Black Swan. Actually, Pi and Requiem for a dream are amusing at times too. To try to answer the question, I can’t remember Tarkovsky cracking a joke in any of his interviews or films. Is this really such a problem though?
There are moments of humour … no more or less than most other films on average I’d say, but it’s how that humour is communicated to the audience. You’re using directors who rely on extreme emotion. Should we lump in Von Trier as well? The humour is present, no matter how droll and formulaic it may be.
And yes, Barry Lyndon did have quite a bit of humour in it. Sure, it isn’t The Draughtsman’s Contract, but in a drier way, it wasn’t afraid to be subversive.
The audience I watched BLACK SWAN with had a blast, intentionally so, I presumed, and were thoroughly entertained and grossed-out, and thrilled, etc, etc, etc, though I sure can’t think of a lick of humor in THE FOUNTAIN. Perhaps appropriate given the content, but life is funny, at least sometimes, so if you’re going to fashion a universe that differs that distinctly from reality in that regard, you’d better keep viewers engaged by your drama lest they notice how imbalanced your creation is.
I think Guy Pearce’s relationship with Joey Pants is pretty light in MEMENTO, and maybe Bowie’s performance in THE PRESTIGE, but that’s about all I can think of in Nolan’s entire body of work, to a point of distraction and to his movies’ detriment (I’d include in this the empty concessions to joking in the Batman movies and INCEPTION). Was there anything in his remake of INSOMNIA? I seem to remember the original’s wickedly cruel brand of humor also getting scrubbed clean from Nolan’s take.
The thing about Nolan’s Batman movies is that they have comic book moral philosophy and take it really fucking seriously.
Should we lump in Von Trier as well?
“I believe I owe you all an explanation. All this time your boss has told you these decisions have come from me, the Boss of It All. I acknowledge that I have had to order the boss to do these things that you do not like. However, I didn’t want to tell you…”
“What?”
“Y’see, the thing is…”
“…Yeah?”
“The orders came from my boss.”
“Oh… so you mean?”
“Yes. The Boss of the Boss of It All.”
“OOOooohhh how relieving!”
I can’t remember Tarkovsky cracking a joke in any of his interviews or films.
You saw the dwarf in Solaris right?
—PolarisDiB
After watching Your Highness I would be tempted to add David Gordon Green to the list.
I think Requiem for a Dream took itself too seriously. Whether that constitutes a lack of humor, I don’t know. I cannot cite examples because I did not enjoy it at all, and so I put it out of mind.
I think Kubrick’s “sense of humor” was a detriment. In A Clockwork Orange , the dentures joke towards the beginning and the Benny Hill style half-naked-nurse joke (getting it on with Doctor at the end) seemed arbitrary. (Why not a fart joke?) The humor made the film seem glib, rather then insightful.
Lancelot of the Lake on the other hand, was hilarious! I kept waiting for the Knights Who Say Nih! to come in for a cameo. That Bresson! What a jokester.
This is all just very silly.
“The thing about Nolan’s Batman movies is that they have comic book moral philosophy and take it really fucking seriously.”
Yeah, but after you have this
and this
(without even mentioning the Schumacher version)
were additional layers of camp and irony really called for?
Point taken, Matt. But were Nolan’s addtional layers of bogus Humorless Solemnity really called for either? There are levels of energy and sheer life in the examples you show that are absent from Nolan’s Gloomfests, except when Heath Ledger is onscreen.
>>The thing about Nolan’s Batman movies is that they have comic book moral philosophy and take it really fucking seriously.<<
I’m not sure if you’re saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I think that is exactly what makes Nolan’s entries the best in the series by far. Batman is one of the darker figures in popular culture and camping him up is the wrong move.
Superman films, on the other hand, should be lighthearted. Looks like they’re trying to go dark in the next film, which won’t work because it doesn’t match the character.
Oh, Nolan’s Batman films are certainly better than the older Batman films and the TV show, and it’s not even close. But I’m saying he needs to do one of two things:
1) Work more depth into his moral philosophy
or
2) Stop acting like his moral philosophy has depth
Yeah, I don’t disagree with that, but there was an obviously unexploited angle (in film/TV) on the character, and Nolan’s methodical humorlessness is a perfect analog to Batman’s methodical humorless in that interpretation of the character. Not a fan of Dark Knight at all, though.
I’ve always thought Olivier didn’t really get Shakespeare’s sense of humor.
Matt, that’s interesting. Could you say more about Olivier not getting Shakespeare’s sense of humor?
What I’m saying though is that Dark Knight’s morality is the same morality of Superman, X Men, older Batman films, etc, only the film has an attitude like it’s penetrating deeply into the human condition and asking serious ethical questions.
The style of the film is what works really well, it’s just got plotting issues.
Tarkovsky and Bresson aren’t exactly comedians.
I would say Bergman but he did make Smiles of a Summer Night, and I’ve spoken to a few people from Sweden who have told me that there is an underlying sense of humor that gets lost in the translation from Swedish to English.
People have a tendency to forget about what Batman is really about. It’s about an emotionally disturbed man who dresses up to fight crime. He’s mentally ill and people can’t seem to figure that out. He’s a fascinating character, especially now that people are more willing to talk about such things.
I agree with Jirin in the sense that Nolan doesn’t handle the moral issues in the Dark Knight film very well. My sense is that this happens partly because he’s juggling too many balls in the air, so to speak. Not only is he trying to develop the characters and create this effective action film (which is a handful on its own), but he introduces at least two moral issues. First, there’s the problem of copycat vigilantes. If Batman can fight crime, why can’t other people do the same? But then the film seems to forget about this issue. Later, we have the problem of dealing with an amoral mad genius and the lengths one should go through to stop him. I don’t think the film handles this issue very well, either. There are other moral related questions the film raises, but I can’t think of them right now.
“People have a tendency to forget about what Batman is really about. It’s about an emotionally disturbed man who dresses up to fight crime. He’s mentally ill and people can’t seem to figure that out.”
Ben, I sure as hell got that. But the movie really aggressively sidesteps Wayne’s issues. Among the stranger things about Nolan’s films is the way that Michael Caine’s Alfred and Morgan Freeman’s Lucius are so hell-bent on keeping Bale’s Bruce Wayne as crazy as they can, with lectures on What Batman Means and techno knowhow. Surely anyone really looking out for Wayne’s welfare would have suggested psychotherapy and prozac, if not flat-out confinement to a straitjacket.
I know some people do but quite a few don’t.
People who are close to Bruce Wayne know he has problems but refuse to acknowledge them. Bruce Wayne doesn’t strike me as someone who would go to therapy or take medication.
The great myth is that Bruce Wayne dresses up as Batman but in reality it’s the other way around.
But Nolan’s Batman films aren’t so simple because look at the hellhole that is Gotham City. The “sane” establishment is helpless in the face of overwhelming crime, so there may be an argument for an mentally ill vigilante whose methods seem to work, but where is the line to be drawn?
^ WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE FUCKING FILM.
I think we’re on the same page, Ben, but I’m trying to figure out what the detractors are looking for that’s not there.
Batman has always been about action in the face of apathy or indifference. Regardless of one’s political ideology if a true threat appears someone has to do something. Conservatives misjudge this and Leftists refuse to acknowledge it. He isn’t about Fascism or Ayn Randian justice. The moral philosophy of Batman is far, far more important than petty political disputes.
Right, point taken about vigilante justice, and all that, but the films never really seem to be questioning where lines should be drawn — Batman’s activities are fullout endorsed in every possible way, regardless of whether or not they are within the law. Only Freeman’s Lucius raises any real objection, during the final section of DARK KNIGHT involving surveillance of every citizen of Gotham, and it comes off as frankly hypocritical coming from the guy who has been one of Batman’s chief Accessories before during and after the fact, helping Batman violate international law by kidnapping a foreign national to get that little accountant guy back to Gotham. That may of course be the point, but it never comes off, to me at least, as the point.
The thing I’m most looking for, as I think I’ve made clear, is for Nolan’s Batman films, and in fact all of his films, to not sink under their own ponderous over-serious high solemn weight.
I think part of it has to due with denial and ahem, money. Alfred won’t acknowledge it and Lucius Fox is being paid well. I think that’s enough reasoning to dismiss the possibility that my employer is mentally ill. I’m fairly certain that people knew what was happening on Wall Street was wrong but didn’t care because money was coming in. Alfred and Lucius are enablers, not horribly unaware boobs who only appear to make jokes.
“Ben, I sure as hell got that. But the movie really aggressively sidesteps Wayne’s issues. Among the stranger things about Nolan’s films is the way that Michael Caine’s Alfred and Morgan Freeman’s Lucius are so hell-bent on keeping Bale’s Bruce Wayne as crazy as they can, with lectures on What Batman Means and techno knowhow. "
I would go as far as to say that The Dark Knight actually endorses Batman’s particularly pathology, or at least comes damned close to it . . . even if it manages an occasional moment of queasiness about this endorsement.
“The “sane” establishment is helpless in the face of overwhelming crime, so there may be an argument for an mentally ill vigilante whose methods seem to work, but where is the line to be drawn?”
Right, this is really the moral dilemma of the Batman thing, that he has to on some level become what he’s fighting in order to fight it. It’s a Nietzchean Superman problem (which, ironically, the comic book Superman doesn’t really face): “Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you.”
@ Roscoe
I think that two of the Shakespeare film that Olivier adapted—Hamlet and Richard III—actually have a lot of biting comedy woven into them, but, while, he gets the tragic elements more or less right, he seems oddly flat when it comes to some of the verbal barbs in these films. I wish I could pull out specifics to illustrate what I mean . . . maybe I’ll try to do this when I have a bit more time.
They are also part of The Dark Knight’s slippery slope of morality in which almost all the chracter reveal different levels of darkness:
Boat People – selfishness
Alfred – lying (hides the note)
Lucius – hypocrisy (preaches justice, while enabling)
Gordon – deception (faking his own death)
Batman – lawlessness
Two Face – nihilism (if law has no meaning, we have no moral compass, but dumb luck)
Joker – Anarchy (nihilism taken to its logical conclusion – evil)
“Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted. " – Franz Kafka
The film is a critique of the Bush administrations war propaganda. The film portrays a scenario that is beyond black and white.
I would substitute Anarchy with chaos.
Matt Parks
Have you reading Selby? I always took that film as trying to visually approximate Selby syntactical and typographical eccentricities (along with the perceptual bending of the drug thing).