Reversal of expectations. You expect the man depicted above to read a pilot’s manual. Instead, he reads a Playboy. In Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, Peter Sellers portrays three of the principal characters. In each of his three roles, he either downplays the character’s tics, or exaggerates them, forcing his character’s actions to transition from plausibility into absurdity. Men fidget in their seats. They pretend to walk one way, and instead hurry in another. A trapdoor hits a man on his head as he disappears into a plane’s hull. Fools work well for physical and visual comedy, but these are military men; these are political figures. They aren’t fools, right? Kubrick thinks otherwise. The actors portraying these men think otherwise. We, as the audience, think otherwise.

dr-strangelove-4-e1411042743902

When the credits rolled on Dr. Strangelove, I felt conflicted. On the one hand, the movie’s dated. It’s black and white, it stars Peter Sellers (at the top of his game), and it satirizes the Cold War, yet many of its jokes, most obviously the Playboy reveal, seem straight out of a Will Ferrell movie, right down to the crazy facial expressions, background gags, and the way the characters carry themselves, much of which stems from the actors playing the characters as seriously as possible. The characters in the film don’t think they look ridiculous. This helps the comedy.

It’s also what helps remind me of Anchorman. Adam McKay and Will Ferrell satirize the 1970s’ news teams and workplaces by mixing absurdity and (near) fact, just like Kubrick and Sellers. All that’s left to make a visual satire successful is the audience.

ron-burgundy

It doesn’t take much for us as the audience to understand a visual joke as long as there’s context. Both movies I mentioned provide this in their titles. All we know is the films are comedies, and that one is about the nuclear power and Cold War relations, and the other is about old-fashioned news anchors. These movies are exactly 40 years apart and yet they employ the same kinds of jokes.

I wonder why nothing’s changed. Jokes driven by dialogue have changed. Pace has quickened. There’s arguably more clever wordplay. I think it’s because visuals don’t have a syntax. They are what they are. Reversal of expectations are simple. We understand a person’s job, and what that job entails, so when they do something that’s incongruous with their job, it’s funny.

I certainly don’t think Dr. Strangelove perfected visual comedy, although I’m sure some would argue it did; nor do I think Anchorman perfected it. Perfection is unattainable, especially for something as subjective as comedy, but there are general parameters, and these creators play around them.

This is just a simple, short case study; a topic on which I wanted to comment.

On the one hand, I don’t believe visual comedy has evolved. On the other, I wonder why it should.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s