Quote: chipolata @ July 7 2009, 10:36 AM BSTI'm afraid I'm with Edmund Blackadder on Chaplin. Stop.
Buster Keaton on the other hand was funny. And an artist.
Why is comedy looked down upon? Page 4
Plus Chaplin had a thing for underage girls which is obviously quite reprehensible (except on Thursdays). Laurel and Hardy were great, as were the Three Stooges and the Marx Brothers. Not sure how funny Harold Loyd was, but his stunt work was out of this world (especially in Safety Last).
Quote: Tim Walker @ July 7 2009, 10:34 AM BSTThis is especially true amongst acting awards. Great comedy acting is in some respects harder than straight acting. However, great comedy actors will likely only win an Oscar with a straight performance.
Though curiously 'great' straight actors will be lauded for comic performances, no matter how dreadful - Dustin Hoffman won an Oscar for Tootsie FFS.
Quote: Timbo @ July 7 2009, 10:41 AM BSTThough curiously 'great' straight actors will be lauded for comic performances, no matter how dreadful - Dustin Hoffman won an Oscar for Tootsie FFS.
Tootsie was great. And had Bill Murray in (although not playing a shyster lawtyer in a fake neckbrace).
Dudley Moore and John Gielgud should have won Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor for Arthur, respectively. (Arthur 2 was obviously shit.)
Thing for me about those stars of the silent era is they'll never make films like that again. Health and Safety and Insurance companies would never stand for such dangerous stunts. When you look at the stuff Buster Keyton it's not only awe inspiringly skilled, but bat shit insane in it's dangerousness.
For me though there's something in Laurel and Hardy and the Marx Brothers that just scratches an itch like nothing else.
Quote: sootyj @ July 7 2009, 10:49 AM BSTFor me though there's something in Laurel and Hardy and the Marx Brothers that just scratches an itch like nothing else.
So much good comedy owes some dues to L&H! The only thing with some of the Marx Brothers films is that you have to sit through a good few reels of whimsy and bad drama to get to the funny.
Quote: Tim Walker @ July 7 2009, 10:47 AM BSTDudley Moore and John Gielgud should have won Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor for Arthur, respectively. (Arthur 2 was obviously shit.)
Gielgud won the best supporting actor for that role.
And the whimsy gives you time to make a cup of teas. Albeit the radio stuff is whimsy/filler free and could kick the ass of most of todays sketch shows.
Quote: sootyj @ July 7 2009, 10:55 AM BSTGielgud won the best supporting actor for that role.
Did he? Oh, dearie me, fair enough then. But Dud's performance was up there with anything else that year.
*goes to check who won the Best Actor Oscar that year*
Quote: Tim Walker @ July 7 2009, 10:34 AM BSTChaplin is never looked down on by the industry, though little of the comment about what a genius he was is ever about his comedy. (For good reason, some may say.)
I was on a date recently, and I mentioned my interest in comedy, and this girl began enthusing about Chaplin. And circus clowns. The evening kind of dragged after that...
Chaplin was a skilled performer he was just in such awful sentimental films. No one ate a shoe or played with bread rolls better than him.
Albeit alot of performers like Johnny Depp and Abe Simpson seem to be able to copy his best stuff with little effort.
Quote: Timbo @ July 7 2009, 10:41 AM BSTDustin Hoffman won an Oscar for Tootsie FFS.
Um, no he didn't.
Quote: Tim Walker @ July 7 2009, 10:58 AM BST*goes to check who won the Best Actor Oscar that year*
Henry Fonda in On Golden Pond. OK, all very nice and everything. But only probably given because he was dead.
Whereas Dud delivered the line, "I'm going to have another drink. Would you like another fish?" without corpsing, which makes him Best Actor in my book.
It's a pity Dud didn't get to appear in more good films, his talent was wasted in Hollywood.
Quote: sexy girl @ July 7 2009, 11:03 AM BSTUm, no he didn't.
My apology, only nominated. But he was still f**king terrible.