So Mike's been writing for "Cracked" lately, and he's done this article about "snob comedies," and here's a link:
http://www.cracked.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1215The thing is, I like four out of five of these movies (haven't sat through "Diner" yet), and I don't consider myself a snob. One look through my DVD collection will definitively prove that my tastes don't run towards the snobbish, and yet I find all these movies funny... and don't really agree with Mike's vague criticisms of any of them. (I think, for instance, in "Annie Hall," that Mike's kind of missing the point that Alvy, the main character, hates all that icky 1970s stuff, too, and that Paul Simon and Tony Roberts' characters are supposed to be creepy. They're presented as NEGATIVE characters, not role models, and the movie is a condemnation of the 1970s and its values, not a celebration of them. Plus Mike makes some cheap "Soon Yi" cracks which really aren't fair since I believe in separating the artist from the work, and besides, Woody hadn't even MET Mia Farrow when he was making this movie. Does Chuck Berry's atrocious real-life behavior make his 1950s records any less great? I don't think so.) But there's no real way to respond to something like this because merely RESPONDING makes you a snob. It's like if I were to write an article called "Everybody Who Likes The Following Movies is a Big Stupid Doodyhead," and then just printed a list of movies I don't like. If anyone disagrees, I could just say, "Well, you're obviously a big stupid doodyhead" and then refer them back to the title of the article. Case closed.
I think there's a big problem of movies whose reputations are so over-hyped that critics can't resist taking shots at them. Once you get that awful label -- "classic" -- people immediately want to take you down a few pegs. If the films on Mike's list were sort of semi-known cult favorites instead of "official" award-winning, critically-praised classics, would he still feel the need to have written this article bashing them? Isn't it the hype he's reacting to rather than the movies? Besides, isn't this the same Mike Nelson who's always going after lowbrow comedies, like those starring Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey? So let's get this straight. We can't like lowbrow comedies. We can't like highbrow comedies. What's left, Mike? Middlebrow comedies? Nelson has declared himself a fan of the movie "Local Hero." Couldn't that film just as easily have been included on this list? And, heck, while he was head writer and then host of MST3K for a decade, he made only about 10 zillion references to "Annie Hall" and "Dr. Strangelove," usually just lifting jokes from them verbatim.
So, in short, I think this article is a bit on the hypocritical side, none too astute in its film criticism, and besides, the article itself isn't terribly funny. It's for CRACKED, after all, which is supposed to be a comedy magazine. But read it out loud and see if you even laugh once. Or even chuckle. No, the tone is sour and whiny -- how is that funny? Explain yourself, Nelson!
Topic: Mike's new Cracked article about "worst" comedy classics (Read 3934 times)
