Is comedy considered a "lower" form of entertainment?

I've thought about this lately. How Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey for example both made audiences laugh through their absurd humor, yet the critics often thought of them as annoying, giving many films which are now considered classics or at least inspires nostalgic memories negative reviews. Sandler in particular struggled with this considering his films often follow a similar formula (Dopey outcast meets girl, some wacky friends support him along the way, wins her over in the end), plus he wasn't quite as respected comedically as Carrey. Even today he is one of the more polarizing comedic actors, though not quite as much as Seth Rogen.

However, when both went to prove everyone they had dramatic chops as well, Carrey coming out with The Truman Show, Man On The Moon and Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, then Sandler with Punch-Drunk-Love, Reign Over Me and Uncut Gems, they did more than just unlock some of their own potential, they finally gained widspread love from critics, something that was never really there before.

Look, I'm not gonna lie and say I don't love seeing them act in dramas (Reign Over Me is my favorite Sandler performance after all), but the fact that they could only be taken seriously from an artistic sense once they could do more than just make people laugh doesn't sit quite right with me, and is also inconsistent from a historical sense.

Look at Charlie Chaplin and Gene Wilder for example. These two are some of the most respected actors of all time. But although they do inject passion and heart into all their characters, they received widespread acclaim despite almost never having any straight-up dramatic roles. Wilder did star in two made-for-TV detective movies as Cash Carter, while Chaplin directed (But didn't star in) the romantic drama A Woman In Paris. However, these efforts are rarely brought up in conversation when their work is being discussed, despite diverging heavily for the norm. In other words they never needed to prove themselves, people and critics took them fully seriously as artists based on their comedic versality.

I even see this strangely separatist attitude when it comes to things that are widely adored. Curb Your Enthusiasm is considered a modern classic in terms of observational humor, yet I still see comments like "Larry David may not be much of an actor, but he's still funny". That doesn't really make sense considering it still takes charisma and talent in order to make a parody of yourself entertaining. Imagine the same premise, but the actor playing "themself" is stiff as a board and makes no attempt to make you care about who they are. People clearly adore the Larry character and it's thanks to David's flawless comedic timing they manage to laugh both at and with him, so what's with the elitist sentiment that he's not an actual actor? It's bloody mindboggling. Even less true considering he's had parts in other projects as well, such as Whatever Works, The Three Stooges (2012) and Sour Grapes.

Am I reading too much into it? Do we simply live in a different era where we demand more from actors, or is the reasoning much more complicated?

__________________

To answer your question, no, it isn’t.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Of entertainment? No.

Of art? Yes, but depends on the type of comedy.

Chaplin or Keaton aren't "lower", just like Moliere's comedies aren't.

But Sandler and Carrey starred in many cash-grab, artless money-grabbers, so there's that.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Is comedy considered a "lower" form of entertainment?

Yes by many people and by the Oscars (usually). Though good comic acting is harder for an actor to pull off than anger or rage, which is the easiest emotion for an actor to portray. Comic actors get dissed. Even in the mid 20th century when comic actors did get respect, they were still not considered on the same acting level as dramatic actors.

I think Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey are kind of known for populist and often stupid forms of humor, rather than humor that is more sophisticated and intelligent in nature, so I think that limits his appeal, and also the range of people who would appreciate what he does well. I think all of this does harm their reputation as actors in comedic roles. I think it's definitely true that some people do prize drama above comedy. I am not an expert on why, but I think that it partly may be because it's seen, I think, as more of an acting challenge to do drama well, and drama tends to be more emotive and encompass more variability in acting styles and performances and themes. Also, the stories that drama depicts are often probably easier for most people to relate to and enjoy, while with comedy, if you don't relate to the type of humor that is being performed, you may not like the show or performance, regardless of how skilled the comedian is. I find it's much more difficult for me to find a comedy that I enjoy watching than it is for me to find a drama show or movie. Additionally, a lot of comedians are quite bawdy in their humor, or risque, which a lot of people won't resonate with. Some comedians talk stereotypically about people and their race, which could offend some people. Some do political humor, and many may not like that the comedian's views don't align with theirs on these issues. Other comedians are known for bathroom type of humor or exaggerated physical comedy that some may find too over the top. I think the issue with Sandler and Carrey is more the type of humor that they do than that they are comedic actors. I actually think Jim Carrey has been strong in the dramatic roles he has done, and wish he would have done more of them.

I think the reason Larry David doesn't get more respect as an actor is that a lot of people feel, based on how he appears in interviews, which is quite similar to his character, that he is merely being himself on camera, and that he's not actually "acting" in the show. "Curbed" is also known for not having a script, so many likely see having a basic story framework and then riffing off of that spontaneously through conversations to be much less like acting and much more like a comedic performance, as the actors are not memorizing lines and interpreting them via performance but using the story as a jumping off point for improv. I'm a big fan of "Curb", but what they do is very different than what most actors typically do, which is memorize scripts, interpret the character, which is usually not a close variation of their own personality in real life, and say the lines. Also, Curb has a type of humor that not everyone will embrace. There is a lot of swearing, a lot of the scenarios are quite over the top, and there is also a lot of sexual humor that could turn people off from being a fan of the show. Some comedians are much more relatable and everyman than others, which makes them more popular. Think of Jerry Seinfeld compared to someone like Bill Maher or Ray Romano compared to someone like Adam Sandler. It's a different type of comedy which is often more accessible to more people.

The tough thing about this question is that the answer is probably different theoretically than functionally.

That is to say, comedy doesn't have to be a lower form of art or entertainment, but it usually is. Most forms of it are. The threshold of amusing someone is much lower than the threshold of moving them. I would not say that makes drama (or action, or whatever else) superior, it's that it's generally operating at a higher degree of difficulty.

That said, I do think even accounting for this that comedy gets the short end of the stick, critically, beyond what's really defensible.

I don't know anyone who has ever mentioned 'Adam Sandler' in a positive way.


I think it's the greatest art, but I don't see it in movies. It's in stand-up, and the funniest movies/moments are hardly ever listed as 'comedies'.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

I am almost offended by your topic title. Comedy is in fact the most difficult and harrowing and trialing of the film arts. Much respect to successful comedians that were singed and cindered and still prevailed. But things being as they are, comedy is nowhere in sight and for good reason.

Do you mean offended by the mere suggestion that it would be or did you assume that's my own position? I disagree with it being a lower form of art, I wanted to examine why it seems like some people think so.

His movies are (for the most part anyway) not getting a theatrical release any more, so I think that's something positive?

You haven't been around me much in that case.

Can a person be “almost offended”? I think you either are or you’re not.

The condition is rare, like the rarity of the condition of having your vocabulary edited.

In a sense comedy is the highest form of entertainment. Effective comedy is very difficult, and there are many fewer good comics than there are serious drama actors.

Very few dramatic actors can be effective in comedy, yet many comedians are deft at drama. Good comedians are oftentimes themselves funny people: their presence, their expressiveness, their timing, their sense of the absurd, and the like.

IMO there are few good comics working today, either in standup or film. What sometimes passes for comedy is simply the use of gutter language. In those cases it is a form of lower entertainment. Comedy is tough, and those who are good at it, either in performance or in writing, really earn their money.

I think it depends on the type of comedy that is being performed. Although I can't really watch anything he's done now, Bill Cosby was pretty well respected as a comedian and was known for doing smarter, cleaner, more relatable forms of comedy that did not rely on crude language. How does that compare to drama, and is a dramatic actor more respected? I think that also probably depends on who we are talking about and the kind of acting or comedy they are doing. I think these distinctions also likely apply to drama as well. A prestige drama will be more highly regarded than another type of dramatic film, and different types of dramatic performances will likely be judged differently depending on the perceived difficulty of the performance.

Back to comedy. Adam Sandler has fans, but is not as well respected as Bill Cosby. Is what Bill Cosby did well harder to do, and a higher form of comedy, than what Adam Sandler does? I think it is, and also more broadly appealing, but I'm sure you can find people who prefer Adam Sandler's brand of comedy. You can say those people have poor taste perhaps, but that's a matter of opinion!

Comedy is an extremely high art form. And arguably the most important. But, when it comes to film, it's value is rarely given the high level cinematic accompaniment it deserves. It's treated as low art by those who produce it and, as a result, comedy films are more frequently than not, total garbage...even if the comedy in them is itself great.


I don't think there are many better examples of this than The Marx Brothers. They are easily one of the high water marks of comedy, ever, and yet the films they were in are often pretty worthless as 'films'. They are just the medium that is being used to transmit their brilliance. Now thank god they exist, because the world is a better place with Duck Soup and Horse Feather et al...but it is just unfortunate that the way they were conceptualized as films was mostly just point and shoot and let these guys be great. There was little thought put into how to make them more as movies.


So I think this general approach has given a lot of people the idea that comedy itself is somehow low art. Because most performers who are great at comedy aren't necessarily great at movies. There are, after all, only so many Chaplin's, Tati's, Keaton's, Zuckers', Guest's and even Jerry Lewis' (in the case of something like The Bellboy, which is actually also good as a film)


And then to add insult to injury, it also doesn't help, as many have already mentioned, that a lot of popular comedy is bad. The inevitable result of people having generally lousy ideas of what well executed comedy is. As is also the case with most things because, as much as people don't like to hear it, most people have lousy, uninformed, uninspired and incurious taste. It just gets double worse when it's comedy were talking about.

It is really common to see people dismiss the comedic work of, say, Robin Williams, Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler (to name a few) while praising their dramatic work as if it was of a "higher" level. I'm not saying that it is or isn't, but the blanket dismissal is there.

__________________

I was just telling someone the other day that my idea of hell would be being forced to watch a Marx Brothers movie.

I'm assuming you're a Margaret Dumont stan?

Not including Williams' stand up career (which was brilliant), both him and Sandler actually are considerably better as dramatic actors. Most of the comedy films they were involved in have rightfully been considered crap.


Not a popular opinion, but Carrey is different in that I think he has mostly been a better comedic actor. Most of those comedies he's in also aren't very good, but he's good in them. At least the early ones. I personally have mostly found his dramatic work to be at best adequate. I don't know if I've ever actually been knocked out by any of his acting in those movies. He still mugs. It's just a quieter, less effective, kind of mugging