|
|
Post by anonlytwin on Nov 9, 2006 11:07:08 GMT
I am currently writing about Shane. My thesis is dealing with laughter as an oppositional tool- the dichotomy between laughter and despair.. basically how laughter heals. Shane has, it seems to me, embraced it as a very very powerful representational device. Shanes films really do summarise the relationship between laughter and despair .... how the two co-exist almost out of necessity... myself and everyone i've watched meadows with all share the same reaction to his humour.. we laugh and then we think... Shit are we meant to be laughing? Is Morrel (e.g.) meant to be this damn funny? and if so, why? what does everyone reckon to this? what examples do people hold particularly close to them of shane's uses of laughter and despair? Would love to read some other perspectives ... oh, and while I'm at it... how many other people see shane's films working on two different levels of experience? are they/ can they be, both a personal and a group experience and which experience induces the most laughter (if any) ?? basically, how do people like to watch these films ?
jesus, this is one poorly constructed post... hope you get what i'm trying to ask? if not, just say! Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by fatself on Nov 9, 2006 12:13:55 GMT
I hate such bromidic questioning...the sort that really tries my patience and forces my eyelids to surrender.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonlytwin on Nov 9, 2006 12:59:24 GMT
to quote dylan: 'i was older then but i'm younger than that now.'
sure... to say that we laugh because otherwise we would cry does border on being mere platitude... i'll rephrase the question especially for you... (1) whats the funniest meadows scene?(2) does the funniest meadows scene differ depending on whether or not you are in a group situation whilst watching? cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by anonlytwin on Nov 9, 2006 13:42:36 GMT
should also say... 'bromidic' good word! will steal that for sure (sounds nasty and is nasty, good combination)
|
|
|
|
Post by RichK on Nov 9, 2006 16:25:04 GMT
Nice one twin, don't think fatself was having a go at you per se, its just that those film studies boffins do sometimes get bogged down with analysis! I find that I laugh less when watching Shane's stuff in a group than when watching on my own, whereas usually its the other way round.
|
|
|
|
Post by RichK on Nov 9, 2006 16:37:26 GMT
As for actually answering the question, its a bit of a tricky one really. Rarely do entire scenes exist specifically for their comic effect, its just little snippets.
Sonny: That's proper army edition that.
Herbie: Yeah but he's in the army isn't he?
Dek: I'm a civilian!
****SPOILER (TINY ONE) ****
Gadget: I feel like I've gone down in the ranks..
All three examples are of characters facing what they consider to be a bleaker future than the one they currently find themselves in. As for why that's funny.. pass. I think its maybe because as a viewer you can almost see the cogs of the character's brains ticking - there's so many things these characters could say that you might be able to second guess..
Sonny: That's proper army edition that
Herbie: Great
or
Herbie: I wish we had more bullets
or
Herbie: Is it enough to stop him though?
The actual line just tells us so much about Herbie's train of thought, its on a completely different level to what we're expecting, impossible to second guess, and that's why we laugh. I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by jtrodreigez on Nov 9, 2006 16:43:06 GMT
it doesnt really bother me whether in a group or not it is the stuff that rings a bell with me personally that cracks me up, for example the conversation with tuff and soz bout porno and there stupid dancing with the mask and frying pan is very slapstick but i have friends and am a bit like that myself when under the influence. It is like that with all aspects of shanes films, as in the violence is harder hitting because i can connect it to personal situations and the mentality of some of his characters are so close to people i have known you'd have to think shane had met the same person. Overall i think it is the realistic approach that shane has mastered and he seems to find the fine balance between comedy and tragedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatself on Nov 9, 2006 18:50:46 GMT
nuh, I wern't having a go ...
|
|
|
|
Post by fatself on Nov 9, 2006 18:51:33 GMT
P.s. You a Peter Cook fan, twin?
|
|
|
|
Post by shanemeadows on Nov 9, 2006 20:54:57 GMT
There never seemed to be laughter without pain or pain without laughter growing up in Uttoxeter, I think it left a pretty big stain on my braincake!
|
|
|
|
Post by anonlytwin on Nov 10, 2006 13:44:44 GMT
certainly am fatself. hard not to be. whats not funny about record breaking bogeys and being the worlds number one *beep* kicker inner? well in the hands of cook at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatself on Nov 10, 2006 16:27:27 GMT
Ive always been fond of his Sir Arthur Streeb Greebling character...specially when interviewed by Chris Morris.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonlytwin on Nov 11, 2006 15:25:21 GMT
too my shame i have never listened to it. love chris morris as well though. often think back to that jam sketch where the character jumped off the first floor of a building 50 (sic) times and then eventually dies... he wanted to commit suicide but wanted to allow for a change of mind during the process... there's a microcosm of life somewhere in there. bought brass eye on dvd for about a fiver. whats all that about? its a work of art. not that i should complain too much. same when i purchased '...midlands' for about 2.99... anyone of the shorts on the extras is worth that amount alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonlytwin on Nov 11, 2006 15:25:50 GMT
anyway... funniest all time meadows moment??
|
|
