Bad Indie Flicks

I watch a lot of indie features, and I've noticed a growing trend of movies that have the capacity to be really good and end up sucking. But, I can't figure out why.

The latest is Motherhood starring Uma Thurman. The dialogue/performances/cinematography/music/editing was all very good. I got the jokes and didn't laugh once. Never even cracked a smile. It's not because I didn't think the jokes were good, because they were. But, something was missing. I just don't know what it was.

In Bollywood flicks it's usually the editing that ruins the moments. When they should hold for a beat or two, they cut away. Or they forget what's important to the scene and don't show the person's expression that you're waiting to see. But, this is different.

If everything is done correctly, and fails miserably, what could be the cause?
 
Jokes (and movie scenes) often need good timing, delivery, chemistry and energy. Ever hear the same joke from a couple of people and thought that one person was funny and one wasn't? Maybe you told the same joke and no one laughed. I work with a guy like that. Everyone laughs at his most offensive jokes, but he's a jolly, fat guy with great delivery. I remember telling more than one of his jokes and people were just offended. :lol: This guy, you can just look at and laugh. I'm a jokester, at heart, but my look is too serious.

I've heard crappy dialogue that sounded great when a certain actor delivered. There's more to filmmaking than just putting a bunch of good pieces together. Not even Hollywood can plan a "good," well received movie. Some things work and some don't. There is no blueprint.
 
I agree. Some actors have the ability to do comedy while most don't. Comedy to me is especially difficult and notihng is more painful for the viewer than wathing something where the actors don't have it.
Uma may be a fine actress but maybe not in the comedy department.
 
I agree. Some actors have the ability to do comedy while most don't. Comedy to me is especially difficult and notihng is more painful for the viewer than wathing something where the actors don't have it.
Uma may be a fine actress but maybe not in the comedy department.

I believe that comedy can't be taught. You are either funnny, or you aren't. A person of average abilities can be trained to be a passable dramatic actor, but if you aren't funny (don't have the INATE timing) nobody can teach you how to be.
 
I fully agree with Gonzo, comedy is natural. It's either yes or no. Comedy is extremely difficult to do. It has to come from the right actor.

I'm like Scoopic. I like to joke, but it's hard for me to pass off comedy because of my look.

It's a persons look, tone of voice, and natural chemistry that makes it funny...not lessons.
 
I agree. Humor is such a hard thing, and I don't think it can be taught. One can write a great, funny script, but unless the actor or actress has timing down pat, it won't go off well.

I haven't seen Motherhood yet, and I'm an Uma fan. I don't know if I will either, the same reason I won't watch "My Super ex-girlfriend", she doesn't do humor really well IMO(we'll leave Batman and Robin out of this:lol:, because IMO she was the only one good in that film, and she looks great as a redhead Poison Ivy ;)). Thanks for the review on it, though. It's a pity because she gets these great roles sometimes in horrid movies(The Avengers also comes to mind).

Sometimes, you can do everything right, and the film just doesn't happen. Plus, films, indie or big budget, are at the whim of audiences, and they can be unpredictable in their choices. Making "humor" films today is even harder IMO, because we are a more cynical audience, and seem to like darker and more cynical humor than "slapstick"(kids still seem to like slapstick, though "gross humor" is probably more appropriate)
 
You know, I actually enjoyed My Super Ex-Girlfriend. I'm pretty easy to please.

I was watching Motherhood's special-features and the director was raving about how Uma was hilarious and hit all the right notes, and in a way I agree. But, it wasn't funny. I can literally picture people on the set holding back the laughter while filming, and then it completely loses it on screen. It's weird, because I've only seen movies like this within the past 5 years.
 
You are describing something 100% subjective - what does and does not make YOU laugh, not all audiences everywhere. Even if it's under 10% of people found it funny, that means they did something right for SOMEONE, just not you and most audiences.

Comedy is the single most subjective genre of film and thus the hardest to achieve because no matter how many people like it, there will be some people who don't find it funny. These are opinions and you cannot dictate to everyone what is and is not funny.
 
Comedy is the riskiest genre. I recall attending a screening of Ed Burns' She's The One where he did a Q&A afterward. The film got virtually no laughs and I felt horrible for Ed Burns. He was uncomfortable also. Several months later, I was channel surfing and came upon the film and found myself laughing quite a bit. A few months ago, I was killing some time and watched Strange Wilderness with Steve Zahn and laughed my butt off. I checked Rotten Tomatoes and the film didn't receive one positive critical revue. Not one. I think time and place may be as important as anything.
 
"You are describing something 100% subjective - what does and does not make YOU laugh, not all audiences everywhere."

well, we're a part of the audience when we watch something, so we share our opinions as viewers, don't you?
 
First, Ed Burns' material is really dry and sometimes boring. He is not a comic actor. Like me, his face is too serious. He's excellent in dramas, though.


As for "tricky" I don't see writing comedy that way, at least in movies. I think it requires certain actors, but the foundations of comedy has been well laid - Chaplin, The 3 Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, Peter Sellers, Benny Hill, Steve Martin, and on and on... As a writer, you can research and call upon useful examples.

Pain, embarrassment, shocked reactions, exaggerations, etc. are funny. Obviously, you don't want to see a kid in pain, so you write a character that is maybe a bit despicable, mean, egotistic or is durable and clumsy - you know, like the guys that the HOME ALONE kid beats up.

Ben Stiller zipping up his private parts sounds cruel, but reactions from everyone who see it - the dad, the cop, the fireman - make it funny. If you want to lead your audience towards how you want them to think, you use the reactions of other characters, an odd sound, or funny sounding music, etc.

Mr. Creosote is so fat and scares all the talking fish, when he enters the restaurant. He starts barfing all over the place. Well this could be just plain gross, except that the waiter (John Cleese) keeps a straight face, while serving this guy. It elevates, when a cleaning lady comes in wipe up the floor and Creosote starts barfing on her back. That would be cruel to do to an actress, but the lady is a guy in drag! The situation is so exaggerated that you start to laugh at the great lengths this scene goes to.


Again, the right chemistry or actor/actress is key to making comedy work. Often, it is people who are good with exaggerated expressions (Kramer from SEINFELD or Jim Carrey) or pronounced facial features, like Marty Feldman and those big eyes. Hollywood has often made the wrong casting choices. Remember them considering Steve McQueen for SUPERMAN, which fortunately went to Christopher Reeve. Imagine MY COUSIN VINNY, if Joe Pesci wasn't in it??? Imagine if BACK TO THE FUTURE kept Eric Stoltz in the part, instead of finng him and going for Michael J. Fox?


Now, what is hard, is subtle dialogue. This does not translate well to other countries, so if you're that kind of writer, you're probably screwed, unless you get a sitcom. On the other hand, the French love the clumsy antics of Jerry Lewis and his ilk.

I've made quite a few comedy shorts and they were usually gag based, such as two guys trying to get a dragon out of their garage. When they try to intimidate the monster, it breathes fire and burns their clothes off. One guys big baseball bat is little burning stick. All this time, you haven't seen the dragon, just his POV, looking at these guys. When you finally do see it, it's just a little lizard held in front of the camera, like this:

Dragon.jpg



Now this was on Super 8mm, so no After Effects; the dragon really is just being held in front of the camera. People were laughing so loud, you couldn't hear what the character was saying. A lot of why that worked, was the anticipation of whether we would actually see it or not - kind of like Ben Stiller's zipper, when they actually defy your expectations and show it. It's ridiculous looking. That's what timing is about.


BTW, I also liked MY SUPER EX-GIRLFRIEND. It had a lot of gag comedy and I'm a sucker for that. Uma played the part pretty serious and in that case the absurdity of the gags or situation took center stage.

Do you have an actor who is good at impersonating the President or another political figure. Pick any bad guy in the world and make him look foolish, whether it was Sadaam in HOT SHOTS: PART DEUX or Kim Jong-Il in TEAM AMERICA - good for laughs if you have a good actor or puppet!



Lastly, I remember going to see the movie AIRPLANE! at the theater. My whole family was not laughing, as they had never seen that kind of humor, before. However, a group of people, in the back of the theater, kept laughing, hysterically. Half way through the movie, we were all laughing. Laughter is contagious. I hope theaters never go away, because the audience experience can make a movie. I've seen movies multiple times and it really depends on what audience shows up. Reactions differ from show to show.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm....sounds like I'll to give Ex-girlfriend a shot....oh well, another excuse to see Uma :D

Going back to comedy in general, perhaps it is everything just hitting the right notes. I can agree though, that humor is very subjective-when comedies are made, they are made with a certain type of humor in mind, be it cynical, slapstick, satire, dark, ect. I don't know many movies that have tried to combine different types of humor into one film, or at least done it successfully.

For example, last time I laughed out loud in a theatre was the Joker's "Disappearing Pencil"(I also noted I was the only one who laughed:blush:). But I like dark humor, it goes with my cynical nature ;). I don't watch many comedies because most of them(to me) comes across as formualtic-but that's my taste-milage may vary. Oddly, though, I laugh and quote "A Christmas Story" word for word-probably because of the narration aspect.

I can't write humor, and and only funny when I don't try to be:lol:. I guess whatever you write, be sure you know what audience you're aiming for, rather than trying to make a comedy blockbuster(anyone know what the last comedy that was a "blockbuster"?)

You either you "get" a type of humor, or you don't-that's what(IMO) makes it hard to write.
 
I like when good comedy writing and timing are matched with shot use and editing timing.
I think its helps sell it when the actors aren’t really that great at all.

For example, in the opener of Scary Movie 4 Shaq and Dr Phil are in a Saw spoof with their Captor who is on a screen. Shaq asks “Are we dead?” The Captor says “You are not dead, you are being held against your will.”, then it cuts to a wide and Shaq looks into the darkness and says “Koby?”

Another example I saw from someone here a while ago, it’s a set-up where Friend A thought Friend B was dead, then walks into a room and discovers Friend B is alive. A says something like “Oh my god I thought you were dead!” B says something like “Well, Sometimes I feel dead inside, like when-“, and it cuts to Friend A closing the door on him and blowing off his sob story. The editing timing and shot type make it hysterical.

I love the resolve to the 'So, what is everyone doing after?' set-up in Man bites dog when the killer wants to go out to eat.

-Thanks-
 
I like when good comedy writing and timing are matched with shot use and editing timing.

This reminds me - you can't force it, too much. I think of the restaurant scene in Spielberg's 1941. There is such a thing as "being too rehearsed." Would you want CLERKS or UP IN SMOKE to be perfect? Hell, no.

I encourage my actors to keep going with the scene and not stop, when there is a mistake. Sometimes mistakes are golden, because the rebound can be improvised and natural.
 
This reminds me - you can't force it, too much. I think of the restaurant scene in Spielberg's 1941. There is such a thing as "being too rehearsed." Would you want CLERKS or UP IN SMOKE to be perfect? Hell, no.

I encourage my actors to keep going with the scene and not stop, when there is a mistake. Sometimes mistakes are golden, because the rebound can be improvised and natural.

I agree with the "going with it" and not overediting. To use another "Dark Knight" example, although I can't remember the dialogue, when the Joker meets the mayor, and the mayor said something totally outlandish, the Joker gave him the look that is used quite a bit on discussion boards with the "Not sure if serious" caption, the pacing and timing was perfect-not to fast or too slow. Have to watch that movie again :).

As far as mistakes, the famous "Why don't I just shoot him" comment from Harrison Ford while shooting Raiders of the Lost Ark worked wonders and is a memorable scene(I'm trusting that just not urban legend).

Humor opportunites can hit at the most unexpected times.
 
Back
Top