There are times when I wish I did not make such large demands on humor.
I appreciate the many different types of humor and can laugh heartily at both slapstick and intellectual brilliance. Simple jokes and silly FRIVOLITY can get me to fold me double. Academic credentials and hardly distinguishable and narrow ambiguities as well. As long as it is well done.
I saw on Friday night "Zpanska fly" at China Theater (or China theater, which they prefer to call themselves - stupid). And as I sat there, amidst a sea of laughing people, so I felt like a humor snob. I also want to be able to laugh at the adult equivalent of the kiss-and-poop-humor. I also want to be able to find it funny when Suzanne Reuters character says "making love" instead of "call". And when Uncle Tideman at a time is called Uncle Bestiality. To be honest, I think that the adult kiss-and-poop-humor is actually funny. As long as it is well done.
With a bit of acting finesse and elegance of the script can be the simplest things done to great joke. Even the worn-out cliches can be made to the great sense of humor if you twist and turn them a little bit. But a well-worn cliche that is only used as a worn cliche will never be anything else. Of course, people will laugh at the Reuter says "sex" on stage. But like damn is it a sign of tired scriptwriting, because it's just a cheap point and does not contain even a hint of attitude. As I earlier this fall to read that the "Spanish fly" had now been resurrected in a brasher version I had counted on manusförbättrarna Peter Dalle and Robert Gustafsson had done something more clever than simply replacing random words to snuskigare variants and shoot as many profanity as possible in the Dalles replicas.
I saw a few years ago the 1981 production of "Spanish fly" on video. It was a fantastic success in its day - 438 performances! The farce in itself is of course even older, written in 1914. But I really loved the 80's version, both when I saw it on TV when I was young and now that I am an adult återstiftade acquaintance with it. Carl-Gustaf Lindstedt, Lasse Berghagen, Inga Gill, Stig Grybe, Gus Dahlstrom - they were hilarious to watch. It was of course another comic art in the 80s, with sweeping gestures and exaggerated facial expressions. And the implication of sex was in no Gill and many others' mouths, but piquant. And just hints for me is so much more fun than Suzanne Reuter says "making love". Of course it is possible to extract a kind of Lorry Greenish humor to throw snuskord and swearing in an otherwise innocuous context. But then there must be more consistent. Now it's just a cheap after effect without thought. For the cool in the new version stops at just inserted words and phrases. Otherwise it's the same feeling as in the 80's version, but with a little paler efforts. No one can for example play Uncle Tideman Gus Dahlstrom. And considering that asked Suzanne Reuter normally may have in their lines, it is unfortunate that we misuse the so brilliant a comedian in "Zpanska fly." Of course, they can not completely change the plot, but when they still have renewed the script they had been able to improve her role. Now it will be very skewed to Peter Dalle - and he is funny, but again he is given the monotonous lines. Mind you, this is my very personal and snobbish views and concerns. The rest of the audience laughed.
I had thought I would laugh uncontrollably at Reuter and Dalle. They really are favorites in other contexts. But the script is too weak. The only thing in the farce that I really laugh at, Per Andersson. He is closer to slapstick than farce in many positions and he does something tremendous. But it's fun! It is usually bloody fun! And perhaps this is the problem. Per Andersson's brilliant body of comedian and Reuter and Dalle must be bold in the mouth, while the rest of the ensemble, unfortunately, quite pale - script-writers have not given them a new sense of humor to work with, but their role seems outdated. There are at least three different incompatible types of humor, much like it could wave in comic style between various numbers of local revue context.
There are excellent material to work with: an old father's success, brilliant comedian and talented writer. Why, then just lie down on a level where the "call" will be "making love"? Why not do something one piece funny? Or is the goal of using the simplest possible means get private theater audience laugh? Because if it is the latter, they have obviously succeeded. They've even got the reviewers to shower praise on it.
But I do not buy it fully. I thought in itself, the show was entertaining and I laughed at many occasions. So I was not disappointed in that way. But still. I demand more. I have apparently become humor snob.
kommentarer… läs dem nedan eller lägg till en } {2 comments ... read them below or add one }
It's weird how much fun Per Andersson can be given how completely flippad and hysterical, he often is. Should not be my thing, but I love it. Dixi Comedy Club on Lisebergsteatern recommended if you are in Gothenburg.
according to O: I got a tip on Dixie Comedy Cabaret from elsewhere as well. So it seems pretty definitely be worth seeing! I really hope I have the opportunity to come to Gothenburg to see it sometime.