Author's Note:
This is a little different, this review, or should I say, these reviews. I've decided to experiment a little, providing myself the opportunity to compare and contrast the three above films, as well as attempt a half-assed insight into the world of cenematic comedy, plus explore the question, are comedies what they used to be?
P.S. I don't really know if this'll work out like I want it to (nothing ever does) so just bear with me please.
In the realm of films there are 3 categories that apply to all genres: the major motion picture; the independent; and the low-budget independent.
In comedies, the major motion picture represents big name stars, traditionally television stars or stand-up comedians, with major studio financing, distribution and promotion. These are the comidies that we always see at the theatre. Some are good, most are not. These comedies tend to be focussed at teens, college students, and the immature, and rarely have any social or even mature substance to them.
The independent comedy is either financed by a major studio subsidiary, like Mirimax, or else is financed wholly by the filmmakers and is distributed in limited release and on the festival circuit by a major studio subsidiary. These films tend to have more substance than just fart and ass jokes. Whereas major movies are usually situational or scenereo comedies, the independent is usually a satirical examanation of pretty much anything. These films often have some big name stars in minor roles, which is beneficial to both the actor - who can escape typecasting or mundane roles - and to the filmmaker who can use them as a draw for their film. Independents are often casting grounds for future writer, director, and producer talents, but the actors are rarely ever seen again.
Finally, there's the full-blown low-budget independent. More often than not, these films are made by film school students and are only ever seen when those students, or actors within the film, hit the big time. Most of this stuff is crap, but the odd film, like Clerks, will garner the recognition it deserves.
Each of the films above fall into one of these categories, and while in some ways these films deviate from the norm, they mostly are what they represent.
Cannibal: The Musical is, surprisingly, best placed in the last category. You've likely never heard of the film, and you may not recognize the names involved, but if I say "From the makers of South Park", you will instantly know what to expect... or so you think.
Cannibal:The Musical was co-written and directed by Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park, and as co-producer, he managed to shoot this semi-factuall retelling of the story of Alferd Packer, for only $90,000 (Alferd Packer, by the way, was the only man to ever be convicted of cannibalism in the US). Parker, also co-songwriter, lyricist, and vocalist, stars as Packer, as he joins a group of five men on their journey to find gold (and to find Packer's lost love, his horse) in Colorado. Along their way, the boys run into a raging river, a group of rather unpleasant trappers (lead by Frenchy, the name an homage to Grease), a tribe of oriental indians, and a lot of snow, but they're singing all the way.
Told through a sequence of flashbacks, as Packer sits in jail telling his story to a nosey reporter, Cannibal: the Musical (inspired by Oklahoma), is funny like nothing I have ever seen. It's a lot like a parody of Westerns and Musicals in the tradition of Airplane and Naked Gun, but it's not a stupid comedy. It's well produced, looking as good as a multi-million dollar movie, and it's well acted and sang (and that's not for an low-budget film, that's for any film), and, while Parker's direction is somewhat on the rough side, it still captures the full beauty of it's environment and the full nature of it's characters (including a sex crazed teenager, a perpetually happy miner, a surly wannabe butcher, the geek with the lisp (played by Parker's South Park partner, Matt Stone), and the obligatory man-of-god-who-goes-nuts).
The comedy is great, in your face at times, and subtle at others. If anything Parker proves that the bawdyness of South Park and Baseketball is not his only comedic talet, he's a natural all around funny guy. And the songs are absolutely terriffic (including Spadoinkle, Let's Build A Snowman, and Hang The Bastard) and so catchy I had them stuck in my head for days after. I've never been so impressed with a film as I have with this, an instant cult classic in the style of the Rocky Horror Picture Show (just you wait and see).
On a totally opposite scale to Cannibal: The Musical is the major cinematic release of Senseless, starring t.v. comedy celebs Marlon Wayans and David Spade. This is a total formulaic film, most remeniscent of Eddy Murphy's Nutty Professor, in which Wayans, as Darryl Witherspoon, takes a secret drug which enhances his senses and advace him in life. But, like the Nutty Professor, Witherspoon's advantage begins to backfire on him and he soon has to prove himself on his own merits (which he does and happy endings all around).
There's nothing about senseless that hasn't been seen before, from the eccentric doctor who creats the formula (played by typecast mad-doctor Brad Dourif), to the misunderstanding between the main character and the girl he's after. Most of the comedy is sight/sound gags of the bodily function persuasion, and the concept of the film takes second string to the main character. In fact, that las part is something that has radically changed since the studio releases of the 80's. Back then the concept was the film, and the characterization was secondary, or even tertiary to the main conflict. But the 90's comedy focus on their character, which are much more dramatic than they used to be, and the concept of the film is the comedy... that's in this case, anyway.
Not that that's bad, though. Wayans does a good job at developing Witherspoon into a sympathetic character, and you're glad when he gets an edge over his rich-boy competition (Spade) for a prestigious job. The secondary characters are also well developed, but the usually surly and hilarious Spade is sorely underused, but Matthew Lillard as Tim Laflour, Witherspoons' insanely pierced and hockey-mad roommate is a welcomed source of comedy.
Again, Senseless is not a bad film, and it's not a bad comedy, but it's not a good comedy either. The humour is there, but not in much abundance, and that abundance of laughs is the only reason people see comedies, they don't care as much about character.
Finally, there's The Search For One-Eyed Jimmy, an eccentric, slice-of-Americana, whimsical film, produced independantly and starring a huge cast of big-name actors and underused talent. One-Eyed Jimmy was written and directed by Sam Henry Cass, who puts together not hugely uproarious film but rather a quiet, but immensly funny, comedy.
The basic premise has Les (played by Holt McCallony), a film school student, making a documentary of his home turf in New York. While talking with one of the neighbourhood losers, Joe Head (the name given because of his huge head, played by the normally bit-part actor Michael Badalucco), Les' documentary takes an unsuspecting turn towards greatness as local car thief Junior (played by Nick Turturro) informs the men about the disappearance of One-Eyed Jimmy Hoyt. Les, Joe Head, and Junior run around the neighbourhood visiting one eccentric dweller after another, including the Hoyt family who hire a sketch artist (Jennifer Beals) to draw Jimmy for their posters; Ed Hoyt (Steve Buscemi) who's business is to take pictures on people with a cut out of "wrestling great" Hunk Harrigan for 5 bucks; Col. Ron (Sam Jackson), the Nam veteran who's crazier than the cheshire cat, Disco Bean (John Turturro) as a disco-crazed dancer who retells the story of how Jimmy lost the eye; the Snake, nee the Whale, a local loan shark who fancies himself a mob boss; and a whole slew of other oddities. The characters, the whereabouts of Jimmy, and the ending of the film (accounting for what happens to Les' documentary) are all solidly crafted, and this is one of the best comedies I've never heard of.
Well, there you have it. 3 movies acting as examples of where cinema is taking it's comedies. While it seems that major Hollywood studios become more and more incapable of producing fresh comedy, it's to the independent cinema that they must turn to for future hits. When you look at the comedies of, say, the past two years (from mid 96 to 98), try to think of three major comedy releases that really stick in your mind as being fresh and original. I bet it's easier to name three independents.