Why did they stop being funny?

Post Reply New Topic

Here's a topic that I think could do with a good working over, something that I have been trying to get my head around for years. What makes a person stop being funny? By that, I mean an actor, of course...

There have been some really tragic examples recently of this phenomenon. But some of the first I remember were most notably from the earliest shows of Saturday Night Live, a huge contributor of humor deprived comics. With few exceptions, most of their most popular comics have hit that slide into unfunny sooner or later, Chevy Chase, Dan Ackroyd, Dana Carvey, and to my considerable disappointment, one of the sharpest declines belongs to Mike Myers. I'm sure you all can name more. One wonders if John Belushi, Chris Farley, and Phil Hartman would have done the same. The one small consolation in their deaths is that we remember them always as funny. I don't think Hartman, having had some time away from the show, would have lost much. The other two were too young to say for sure.

Another outside of that is Leslie Nielson. He's an odd case, of course, having started his career as a dramatic actor and only in middle age finding that his deadpan delivery of silly lines was a perfect combination. And I know what happened in his case. He got too silly. Like Chevy Chase, he failed or apparently failed to realize that it was his dry delivery that made things so danged funny.

Leslie Nielsen:
Rumack: You'd better tell the Captain we've got to land as soon as we can. This woman has to be gotten to a hospital.
Elaine Dickinson: A hospital? What is it?
Rumack: It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.

Chevy Chase:
Alan Stanwyck: If you reject the proposition, you keep the thousand - and your mouth shut.
Fletch: Does this proposition entail my dressing up as Little Bo Peep?
Alan Stanwyck: It's nothing of a sexual nature, I assure you.
Fletch: Yeah, I assure you.
Alan Stanwyck: One thousand just to listen? I don't see how you can pass that up, Mr...?
Fletch: Nugent. Ted Nugent.

And then there's the strange cases... Eddie Murphy, for example, or Steve Martin. Men who started off the usual way, unique, carving out their own niches with work that was not for everyone and finally each becoming very popular with a lot of people. Eddie Murphy had his looks, some well chosen roles, and of course, his ability to make people laugh. And yet he turns around and stars in some of the most self-indulgent, silly tripe or just plain offensive, unfunny rubbish. I thought he was done for until I saw Meet Dave, which either showed how funny he could be (just seeing him mimicking the actions of people around him) or just seemed funnier because I watched it with a giggling 7-year-old... it's hard not to laugh when a kid that age is belly-laughing.

But Steve Martin... weird as he was at the beginning, he had come to prove his wit and intelligence, to show that he might not always pick a winner but still he could some back funny the next time, and sometimes played characters all at once so brilliant and funny (as in the film Roxanne) that I would gladly identify him as that person rather than see what he has become. To think that not only did he do that movie where he dressed in hip hop gear and act like a... well, there's a rude word or two for it, I'll just say doofus or bonehead, maybe demented old fart... But also now, the Pink Panther. What a mortifying thing, to see him so. Is he ill, has he run into financial difficulties, was I kidding myself that he was an intelligent comic? To try to remake a movie that was all about Peter Sellers and his talent... they might just as well have tried to remake the Marx Brothers. Some things can only be said once, by one person. Repeated by another, they are diminished.

Alright, I've ranted long enough. What's eating me is no more than the title... Why, what happened, are they not the career funny people? Shouldn't they know how? Dana Carvey, so funny in stand up, Mike Myers whose every word in interviews makes you snicker afresh, Chevy Chase who once seemed so cool and sharp... Why do so many of them go stale? There can't be just one answer that covers them all. If Bill Murray can stay funny for so long, why can't they? He's had a few bombs, but a lot more successes.

On closer inspection of his career, there has been a lot more garbage lately (Ghostusters III has been announced, for example, here's hoping for the best), but still, he got further than the others...

Anyway, discuss.

mm Bill Murray is sorta losing it, what was the last funny show he was in? but yeah, i take your point. I think it's the complacency that comes with success, or they get assimilated into the borg - same thing.

this made me think.. about movies but also various artistic pursuits "tied" to money & the media.. especially music & movies seem to be literally everywhere.. i think the "mass production" of such things, coupled with the lack of proper "encouragement" (people would rather watch MTV etc) is causing this.. at least in part.
the movie &music industries have become "well-oiled" machines, designed to "produce" rather "create"..
i think the desire to create, to be "original" is still there in many people & so too, the ability. but no real "demand" from the masses, thus no interest from the industry side of things & then unfortunately those who seek to "push the envelope" are often ignored in lieu of something "eye-catching", sensational &more often than not fairly shallow &devoid of "progression" or originality..
or maybe people just "lose" that gift, who knows?

the money is always better with newer, fresher, acts. tv comedies (even "improvs" like snl) and movies have comedy writers. studios assign the writers to where the money is. from time to time we get a person who can write enough of their own material that when the money moves elsewhere, they can still make money. robin williams doesn't need help. mike myers ran out of jokes 10 years ago. not saying anything bad about him, mind you, just that his own material doesn't have enough appeal anymore.

it's interesting to see what comedians like adam sandler do when this sets in. i use him as an example because his happy madison production team is full of excellent talent to the point that there are great comedies released (like grandma's boy) with all of his players but without actually featuring himself in a movie that will be seen as that "adult" (which is incredibly ironic for anyone who remembers his recordings).

I'd say it's a combination of said actors simply wanting to get their money at the end of the day, and the declining quality of writing as good scripts get pushed aside in favour of the next iteration of big franchises and films designed simply to push merchandise.

Also, all of the actors you mention have been in the business for a long time. If you are going to create a movie you generally want some relatively fresh faces, younger upcoming stars rather than ones that are past their prime. You want people that your target demographic can relate to, which for most films generally is aged from the teens to late 20s.

Well I guess one might say that some become grumpy older gentelmen, as many of the older comedians are realy starting to show their age and their charm wears off. It isn't so charming for older people to continue some of their old material, and if this come off as harsh, I have seen a lot of American stand up comedy is about sex and drugs, and no one wants to see a 50 year old talk about sex and drugs. Also their is some point of some trying to branch out, for example Jim Carrey did a bunch of more serious movies, while his key strength is comedy.

Jim Carrey gave his best performance on film ever in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; I far prefer watching him in that than in any of the comedies he has starred in.

i do not really follow comedians because i do not find many funny, but i do find some amusing.

in australia, there was a comedy character called "norman gunston" and i used to laugh at his humor, but as time wore on, his pool of creativity dried up, and he looked stupid and hollow.

i think some comedians have a unique blend of characteristics and a bounty of creative energy to invest in their characters, but they think of all the funniest things early in their careers, and they use up the possibilities stored in their imaginations for their characters.

i think it is like having a gift for seeing new words ("words" being analogous to "jokes" in this example) in a 10x10 (or whatever size) grid of random letters .
at first they can be reeled off but as all the best ones are used, then it becomes harder and harder until they can see no more new words in that grid.
the "grid" is their pool of creative potential for their character in this example.

i liked "fawlty towers" very much and i liked "john cleeses" manic exaggeration of manner.
the scripts had many comedic cliffhangers and was very well thought out.
but it had only one season because i think they knew that they would be just rehashing variants of earlier ideas if they continued to write new scripts all the time and the flavor would go stale.

also, times change rapidly, and comedians are very much designed for their era.
what was funny in the 1960's is not now, and what was funny in the 1980's seems daggy now etc. shakespearean humor is quite ineffective these days.

i think a lot of comedians make humerous observations about the current world they live in, so a comedian who saw the funny side of the 1980's and wrote very witty ideas about it, may not be able to see the funny side of the 1990's in a similarly funny way so their style of humor becomes outdated. so they try to move on, but 90's style humor is not their forte because their comic brains were wired into the 80's for example.

also, their energy levels and enthusiasm and sense of novelty become jaded over the years with age.

barry humphries is not as good as he was in the 1980's. his sense of "shock" was well suited to the 70's and 80's, but now, he is just rolling out shows that have nothing new, and he seems hackneyed.

i think the same can be said for musical genius.
kate bush wrote some fantastic songs but her last songs were nothing that captured me.
same with billy joel. his last good album was 52nd street in my opinion. "glass houses" was devoid of the creative genius of his earlier compositions.
same with elton john and supertramp and all those people.

maybe the rolling stones may still perform their old hits. but i doubt they could write any completely new melodies that are catchy and fresh.

i think that the brightest of stars burn their fuel very quickly and that is why their material is so condensed with genius in all parts of every song.

another mental analogy is like burning a cotton ball. it all goes up in one rapid huff, and then burns steadily and slowly for a few minutes as the flames die out and the fuel is exhausted. (i know it is similar to the last analogy but i like analogies because they help me think)

there would be many more reasons, but i think those i said are some of them.

There's some very interesting ideas here... The comparison to musical output is spot on, I think. The Beatles for example, though they parted ways, still had good musical ideas for some time. But come the 80's, those that remained that had songwriting ability were losing their momentum. Hence the image burned into my memory of George Harrison in that Miami Vice outfit. He was wearing what they all wore, not setting trends. His music wasn't much fresher than his look.

I named a lot of older comics, however, not because I'm expecting them to be funny now, but because it was necessary to mention older comics because they've had time to run the cycle I described. Steve Martin, Bill Murray, and Eddie Murphy are the only older ones who actually are still hanging on. I guess I had just figured, with Steve Martin especially, that a comic who had done as well as they had would have gotten to another level by now, perhaps bowing out of appearing on screen and instead lending their talents to other work or finding other media, but above all, not cheapening their past work by doing sub-standard or even horribly embarrassing films. I'm talking movies that any ten-year-old could tell you were bad ideas... The Love Guru, Norbit, etc. (Actually, ten-year-olds are probably the ones who like these) Or movies that seek to take something that was considered a masterpiece or at least something unique and fascinating back in its original form, like The Pink Panther or The Nutty Professor.

But with the other older comics, yeah, they're long gone. I'm just trying to figure out when it went bad. Not making a movie because you're not in demand I understand. Running out of fresh material, sure. But choosing, in lieu of moving on, to film something really awful... Well, yeah, money is the most likely culprit for that.

Oh, and Jim Carrey, like Adam Sandler, is a different story. I always found Jim Carrey comedies to be too much. I liked him in dramas, where his exuberance poked through his impressive performance to give color to his characters. The Truman Show is a personal favorite, and The Majestic was also good. I saw some of Man in the Moon, also very good stuff. I've hesitated about seeing Yes Man, the reviews weren't great but it didn't look as hyper as others. Adam Sandler... now him I hated when he was on Saturday Night Live. The stupid voices and embarrassing giggling in the middle of his own comedy made me want to strangle him. Movies were the best thing that could have happened to him, specifically the ability to cut and edit. Suddenly he was actually kind of likable! Downright human. His surly, often angry humor really appealed! Not in every film, mind you, but I could finally see a warmth that his idiotic live joking covered. In fact, I found him very pleasant as Mr Deeds... unfortunately they still ruined the story. One entire side of the plot was ripped away in favor of a cheaper, less moving one. And don't get me started on the foot. Bedtime Stories could have been better, but it was great when he exploited plot convenience and even rubbed it in the face of the audience.

But as I said, different category for those two just in my case since I never found either of them to be brilliant. Capable, but that's it, until they started actually acting. Then they each in their own way won me over. Could Sandler have been sweeter in The Wedding Singer? Who knew?

Adam Sandler was relatively funny on SNL but his movies aren't funny to me at all. Acting like an immature, obnoxious idiot isn't funny.

Only funny thing I remember him doing on SNL was a Jeopardy skit. As I recall it, his main line was, "Who are the ad wizards who came up with this one?"

I've watched this with dismay too. It saddens me to watch the crash and burn of Mike Myers, among others. He had been my favorite for awhile. His plummet seemed to happen in the middle of the Austin Powers movies. Now he's fallen so far that merely hearing the plot of one of his movies makes me cringe- Love Guru, anyone? My new favorite is Ben Stiller. But then there was the recent Goodbye Girl which looked like his first step off the cliff. I'm bummed because I like him. But it seems inevitable.

Like you said, it happens with musicians too. David Bowie. Broke my heart.

Lots of posters have offered plausible theories. Food for thought.

It's worth noting that although this happens with comedians, it's far less likely to happen to dramatic actors. And it rarely happens to writers. (Except Ann Rice. What the Hell???! !! !)


And it also happens to physicists and mathematicians. They get their most ground-breaking theories in youth and then spend the rest of their lives fiddling with those theories but never breaking any more new ground. Or they take a left turn into Whuuuuu???? like Isaac Newton and alchemy. People compare young Isaac Newton to old Isaac Newton and shake their heads in dismay. So he has that in common with Mike Myers.

Maybe twas good thing Bruce Lee died so early cuz let's face it : the Hollywood films Jackie Chan gets aren't always that good

Murphys new movie appearantly flopped.....

Well, I think the common thread is a desire to be seen 'as a serious actor'. They think that they can do some serious stuff (some actually pull it off), and people get 'confused' about ...'where's the punch line?'

Part of it is the idea that talent is just another commodity, like the popcorn in the theatre. Use them up, cast them aside, and see the next new one. I kinda miss Stephen Wright, and a woman whos' name (I think) was Rudi....

That's one my least favourite movies of his. (too arty-farty) The Truman Show is infinitely better.

That having been said, however, I can certainly see where you're coming from. A lot of his more serious scenes can be really great and sometimes even poignant. For example, I watch the Mask not for the green-faced scenes but rather for some of when he is being Ipkiss instead.
===================================

I think the comedians who can "survive" into more serious roles, and have that diversity, tend to be the ones who were funnier to begin with!

...Or they have the desire to be seen as serious actors, they MAKE it (even to the point of Oscar nomination) and then... Norbit happens (Why, Eddie Murphy, why?). Maybe when you get to see the serious side of the clown, you can't laugh at his jokes anymore. They should just do like Will Smith: if you get from comedy actor to serious actor and make it, stick with it, or choose one side. If you choose to do them both, you must be a genius to pull them both off.

Or they get petulant and get all "arty-farty" because nothing is good enough for them now. Or they simply get too much into the Hollywood lifestyle, so they rather make bad movies for the paycheck, or just to say they're "hip", than have some artistic integrity left.