At the moment I'm half way through Graham Morecambe's book about M&W, and there was an interesting observation by probably one of the best agents ever in show business, Billy Marsh, who warned Morecambe and Wise: -
"If you're a comedian, you never want to analyse what makes you funny. If you begin doing that, you'll end up going mad. Tony Hancock started doing that, and look what happened!"
If you're solely a performer, then *maybe*, but if you're a writer then I think this is nonsense, everyone needs to recognise what works and what doesn't (even if they never quite understand why they're different).
That frog dissection thing is only just behind "dancing about architecture" as an unhelpful truism.
Quote: gappy @ 24th January 2025, 1:10 PMIf you're solely a performer, then *maybe*, but if you're a writer then I think this is nonsense, everyone needs to recognise what works and what doesn't (even if they never quite understand why they're different).
The man was a famous booking agent for live acts, there was no mention of writers in my post, so nonsense does not come into it
Hmm, bit of both I feel 🤔 hmm. There have been some seriously funny comedians who have also been quite analytical in their craft, Ken Dodd was famous for his study of joke telling, Bob Monkhouse another with huge knowledge of his craft, among a quite a few others in the business. But that's probably more for writing them than delivering them.
But I doubt Billy Connolly, famed for his natural delivery as much as his material has ever been that scientific about it, and we've all met naturally funny people who don't go home and sit at a desk working out how to do it, it's instinctive to them.
Quote: Hercules Grytpype Thynne @ 24th January 2025, 3:18 PMThe man was a famous booking agent for live acts, there was no mention of writers in my post, so nonsense does not come into it
I still think it's mostly nonsense, I'm afraid.
Old girlfriend from Japan in the late 90s liked to record Jo Brand's show on C4 then transcribe and read out the jokes and ask me to explain why a joke was funny . The best I could come up with was it's her delivery . Analysis is futile .
Quote: Jaicee @ 26th January 2025, 8:32 AMOld girlfriend from Japan in the late 90s liked to record Jo Brand's show on C4 then transcribe and read out the jokes and ask me to explain why a joke was funny . The best I could come up with was it's her delivery . Analysis is futile .
Isn't that itself analysis, though? That delivery rather than the material was what made it funny.
"It's the way I tell 'em!"
"And what is that?"
"I refuse to consider for even a second!"
Quote: chipolata @ 26th January 2025, 9:22 AMIsn't that itself analysis, though? That delivery rather than the material was what made it funny.
Probably . Smiley face .
If you read Herc;'s original post it's warning against trying to unravel why YOU are funny.
Completely different to analysing "What" is funny.
Thank you Lazzard, as the thread wandered off in other directions via knee jerk reactions, leaving me totally bemused so I gave up
It's a flawed argument, though, as of course you can analyse comedy, or why you specifically are funny, without going mad. While over-analysing and over-thinking can be counterproductive, if it's your job and career then I see no harm in understanding why you are funny.
Tony Hancock is a bad example because he had a shed load of other problems that contributed to how he was and his eventual demise.
But why bother if you are already funny? I think that might the point the agent was making. Surely if you're making people laugh, just go with it, it needs no scientific understanding or adjustment. Imagine Tommy Cooper trying to analyse his act, he just happened to make people laugh by being Tommy Cooper. I bet a hundred others couldn't make as many laugh doing his exact same act.