What Should I Watch Tonight?
Phillips, 2011
This movie has been generating a lot of controversy lately.
- It should be noted that it is extremely graphic, and not for those who, for some weird reason, don’t want to see naked transexual prostitutes.
But that’s not really what the controversy has been about, which is pretty impressive. No, the controversy has been about whether or not this movie is art, and, more importantly, whether it’s funny.
Oh, come on, there's a monkey! Of course it's funny!
I would advise that if you (somehow) haven’t seen the original, then you should not watch this movie. No, there’s no important plot that you’ll miss if you don’t watch the first, but the second movie relies a lot on the absurdity of certain events taking place…AGAIN! Basically, the second movie is high-budget fan fiction, and if you remember that I think there’s a good chance you’ll enjoy it. So, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that if you enjoyed the original, you should watch this, it’s worth $6 with a student discount (although I saw it for free, because some guy left his ticket in the machine, and when I tried to give it back he told me to keep it).
Completely unrelated
Now that that’s sorted, let’s get to the analysis so I can pretend this post isn’t just an excuse to link to pictures of Bradley Cooper and Zach Galifinakis. One reviewer wrote:
[as opposed to more traditional comedies] “The Hangover Part II” offers instead shrieking, squirming, beatings, panic, a severed finger and a facial tattoo. It’s like a “Saw”-style torture-porn movie with a laugh track, into which the shaved-headed (and autonomously funny) Zach Galifianakis has wandered, lost and bewildered and looking for the exit sign. (Sternbergh, New York Times)
I think that might be a bit rough, but really, the man has a point (the Saw analogy is especially apt, the two genres have a lot of similarity, really). His article goes on to expand his theory that, where the comedies of yesteryear (think Mel Brooks) relied on jokes, today’s comedies are more bros hanging out with bros. Before I go on, the article I’m referring to is “‘The Hangover’ and the Age of the Jokeless Comedy”
I'd be lying if I said I didn't wish Bradley Cooper was my bro
In these new comedies, the audience becomes wrapped up in the sexy, charismatic lives of Bradley Cooper or Paul Rudd, while Zach Galifinakis or Steve Carell stand around saying stupid things. Basically, you spend two hours feeling like your part of a funny, sexy group of friends, and miraculously, you’re not the idiot of the crew. That much I can get behind, I mean, I admit that I love the feeling these movies give you that you’re not actually sitting in a dark room, surrounded by boring people who aren’t funny, sexy, or rich. However, where I disagree with this particular review (as I understood it) is where he says that Mel Brooks style comedies are more absurdist, while Appatow or Phillips-style comedies are all within the limits of reality.
I take issue with this theory
Sure, for the most part the things that happen in The Hangover are technically possible, but does that really count as staying within the perimeters of reality? If you said yes, then I invite you to try and drunkenly kidnap a tiger from a boxing legend and tell me that again. No, I’d say The Hangover and it’s sequel are both very nearly as absurd as Blazing Saddles (Brooks, 1974), if not more so.
Practically neorealist
When I was a senior in high school, my AP lit teacher, Mr. Berzonsky, decided that we would spend about three weeks talking about comedy (this was, for no apparent reason, at the same time that we were reading Hamlet. Go figure). I don’t remember much about what he said, except thinking that it was stupid to try to define what makes something funny, and that he seemed to feel that the two main categories were:
1. Crossdressing
Downright Shakespearean
2. Puns
Pictured: wit
Maybe this is why I have, stemming from my late adolescence, an immense distate for anyone who tries to claim that something is, or is not, funny; let alone tries to define or categorize comedy. Hey, can’t we just accept that there is probably someone out there who thought Strange Wilderness (Wolf, 2008) was laugh out loud hilarious?
Is that so much to ask?
So, to summarize: yes, there is definitely a difference between Mel Brooks’ comedy, and The Hangover, but you should watch both, because statistically, you’ll probably enjoy both.
Also, I want to bro out with Bradley Cooper
Cinephobia 