How serious can a comedy get if it still seeks to retain its core genre identification as a comedy? Here is a topical issue for discussion which further questions the current state of genre, more specifically the comedy genre.
Trading Places is a film which has shown little to no signs of datedness and ranks high on the 80s-movies-watchability-meter. It is also a solid case study to examine where comedy came from and where it’s headed. The story is probably timelier now than when it first came out considering that the plot involves a couple of wealthy CEOs plotting to test the nature vs. nurture theory by replacing a well-to-do investment businessman (Dan Aykroyd) with a homeless person (Eddie Murphy) to see if environment truly does dictate merit. CEOs single-handedly altering the lives of normal people. Sound familiar?
Eddie Murphy, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Dan Aykroyd in "Trading Places."
Due to the heavy moral and socially-conscious implications which the script outright draws attention to, the film could have actually turned out to be a lot darker if not for Elmer Bernstein’s whimsically classical approach to the score. John Landis’ approach caters instead to the buddy-film formula (of which today is a virtually extinct genre notwithstanding the bromantic comedy movies). But at the core of the story is something deeper, more meaningful and thought-provoking.
A film known for its comedic appeal and one of the first films to showcase the talents of Eddie Murphy, it’s hard to label this film as either “an Eddie Murphy film” or “a Dan Aykroyd film.” For two actors as well-defined for their careers as on-screen comedians, Trading Places seems to serve as a major exception to other comedies we tend to associate such actors with because of the severity with which major issues in the movie are treated.
One of the great messages in Trading Places is what I’d like to call “the classically classless class,” which is the idea that if two people switch outfits, jobs, and friends, they can easily pass for their visually depicted class simply based on the superficial assumptions of others. I call this a classless class because characters find a way to transcend the boundaries of class, thereby proving that they are in a class of their own. This technique is also relied on in Hal Ashby’s brilliant Being There (1979) which is known for being one of Peter Sellers’ late-great performances. Ashby’s Being There is also a film that was sold as a comedy and ended up being much darker than people had expected. And by dark I mean simply that watching the film compels us to think about issues which are far bleaker or challenging for the genre.
Plain and simply, the issue with these kinds of films is that producers feel obligated to market these movies as comedies (and let’s face it, they are obligated). But what is to be said of this deceptive strategy which delivers a product different than what is promised? Modern films like The Break-Up(2006) which guarantee traditional rom-com fun are anything but fun. In fact, The Break-Up should not even be considered for membership in the rom-com category as its morbidness likens to that of About Schmidt (2002). But The Break-Up ended up making serious box-office bank nevertheless.
Is it possible that movie-goers like being surprised by deceptive theatrical trailers for comedies? Or are they simply just as likely to see a movie based on the allure of one of their favorite comedic movie stars?
Trailers for Judd Apatow’s comedies seem to openly embrace this deception. And we buy into it. That is until theater-goers finally made a statement to Apatow when they drew a line in the sand by not seeing Funny People as audiences were smart enough to take a pass on a film which probably broke records for the amount of comedians it used to advertise the film. But considering the fact that newer comedies such as The Invention of Lying (2009), Observe and Report (2009), and even Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) have dark, complex undertones, it is tough to consider that pure comedy may be on the verge of extinction.
Recent glimmers of hope for pure comedies like The Hangover (2009) are refreshing–there’s no wonder that the film’s smashing success at the box office is indicative that there is still a demand for well-made comedies which don’t force us to think about unemployment, famine, cancer, or the moral fabric of society. Not that we shouldn’t be thinking about these things…
Anyway you look at it, comedy is inherently tragedy (unless of course when the tragedy is cancer!). Movies like Trading Places are made for both the casual movie-goer and also for viewers who like to be intellectually or spiritually challenged. Such a film which lingers under the guise of a fish-out-of-water comedy while retaining the morbid, cynical roots of its screenplay. Films like Trading Places and Being There aren’t so humorous as they’re framed to be anymore than us viewers allow them to be. But is there a clear-cut way to get people to see these movies without lying to them? Or is the only faithful, honest solution to the comedy genre a high-concept, pain-free laughathon like The Hangover with no moral didacticism?
Carmen Wexler is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade.
Excellent analysis on the film, Carmen. It is indeed a deeper comedy and behind the comic antics and occasional gratuitous nudity, lies a great film with solid performances. It simply “works” and probably will for many years.