1/ My son & I are discussing why humor columns generally have meh endings. This is a known problem: Bugs Bunny, Marx Bros., Monty Python, Dave Barry etc - all didn't know how to end a column/sketch
My theory is that a good ending usually requires an actual thesis statement
My theory is that a good ending usually requires an actual thesis statement
2/ Good humor - especially the anarchic type in Bugs, Groucho & Python - doesn't have progression, character development, or a reason to tell the story outside of making you laugh though Applied Zaniness
3/ An ending needs structure, a thesis, a beginning-middle leading to the end.
It's quite possible that imposing structure on these high quality humor artists would have significantly detracted from their quality
Take the example of the Marx Brothers
It's quite possible that imposing structure on these high quality humor artists would have significantly detracted from their quality
Take the example of the Marx Brothers
4/ They're top films - Coconuts, Animal Crackers, Horse Feathers, Duck Soup - had bare plots but no character development.
The movies usually ended with all 3 brothers chasing a woman in order to commit a hilarious act of buffoonish harassment (oy, they didn't age well)
The movies usually ended with all 3 brothers chasing a woman in order to commit a hilarious act of buffoonish harassment (oy, they didn't age well)
5/ Their most professional story/film, Night at the Opera, ended with the best possible option for Applied Zany movies: a callback.
I'd posit (now I have to go back to the primary sources, heh) that the Callback may be the only decent, albeit compromise, ending for this genre
I'd posit (now I have to go back to the primary sources, heh) that the Callback may be the only decent, albeit compromise, ending for this genre
@threadreaderapp please unroll
