Again, why is this the case? Shouldn’t the introduction of sound accentuate the comedic film tradition nicely, instead of demean and demonize it? Clearly it is still a beloved genre, especially since audiences still flock to the box offices to see comedies? Why the loss of prestige? A New York Times discussion panel offered a new explanation to this question: the film awards system, particularly the Academy Awards. Why are comedies always snubbed at the Oscars? Specifically, this forum was discussing the 2012 Academy Awards in which many felt the comedy Bridesmaids was unfairly slighted by the Academy, for while it was nominated for Best Screenplay (Kristen Wig, Annie Mumolo) and Best Supporting Actress (Melissa McCarthy, who was hilarious in her Slapstick role for this film), it was not nominated for the coveted Best Picture award.
Jim Piazza, co-author of The Academy Awards; The Complete Unofficial History, argues that the Academy itself is trying too hard to keep up a specific persona that “tries too hard,” and comedies do not play into this identity. He argues that: “pratfalls, cream pies and wisecracking dames may have paid for the Beverly Hills knockoff Versailles with the polo ponies in the backyard, but they weren’t quite up to snuff for front-room company. That was reserved for important pictures with high ideals that made you drowsy enough to think you were sitting with all the swells in Carnegie Hall” (Piazza, 2013). He closes his article by arguing that, “in a year when the most celebrated laughs have come out of presidential primary debates, the Academy's nominating wing might want to watch its back. The exclusion of Bridesmaids infuriated millions who might not be so willing to stay awake for television’s equivalent to Wagner’s ‘Ring Cycle.’ Until the Oscars favor us with a few more nods to comedy, we may have to settle for the over baked jokes imbedded in ‘big message’ melodramas” (Piazza, 2012).
Matt Alchity, editor in chief of popular movie review website “Rotten Tomatoes” weighed in on the debate as well, and raised a very interesting point regarding the poignant nature of Slapstick comedies, and how they can sometimes be more insightful than the melodramas the Academy loves to praise: “It’s easy to point at a moving, dramatic film and say, ‘This is important, and we should remember it.’ Never mind that a comedy like Borat more sharply exposed prejudice in America than a drama like The Help could” (Atchity, 2012). (It is interesting to note here that Borat is considered a Slapstick comedy, with elements of political and social commentary). Thus, the Academy seems stuck in a specific mindset that values drama over comedy.
Comedian Phoebe Robinson offered commentary on the exclusion of comedy from the Academy Awards as well, arguing that comedies are wrongly considered as meeting a “lesser pleasure” than dramas. She states, “like dramas, comedies move us — to laughter, to tears amid laughter—yet they are treated by you, Oscar, like bridesmaids who get left behind by the bride once she’s pelted them with her bouquet and progressed to a more legitimate world… the perception of comedies needs to change. They’re not second-class citizens of film. Last I checked, the comedy and tragedy masks were paired together to represent the entire human condition. You need both” (Robinson, 2012).
Bambi Haggins, associate professor of film and media studies at Arizona State University, questions whether the Academy’s perception of “low-brow” comedy and “high-brow” drama will ever change. If “dying is easy” and “comedy is hard,” then why does comedy…get no respect? The Academy’s love affair with gravitas makes it nearly impossible for comedies to consistently be a part of this exclusive club. Historical epics and melodramas, whether grand or intimate in scale, or of the gritty and tragic variety, exhibit the requisite weightiness. You have to wonder whether a 20th-century view of comedy, one that posits the film work and performances as being tied to low culture — traced back to vaudeville or rooted in its more recent progeny, sketch and improv comedy — can ever change” (Haggins, 2012).
Jim Piazza, co-author of The Academy Awards; The Complete Unofficial History, argues that the Academy itself is trying too hard to keep up a specific persona that “tries too hard,” and comedies do not play into this identity. He argues that: “pratfalls, cream pies and wisecracking dames may have paid for the Beverly Hills knockoff Versailles with the polo ponies in the backyard, but they weren’t quite up to snuff for front-room company. That was reserved for important pictures with high ideals that made you drowsy enough to think you were sitting with all the swells in Carnegie Hall” (Piazza, 2013). He closes his article by arguing that, “in a year when the most celebrated laughs have come out of presidential primary debates, the Academy's nominating wing might want to watch its back. The exclusion of Bridesmaids infuriated millions who might not be so willing to stay awake for television’s equivalent to Wagner’s ‘Ring Cycle.’ Until the Oscars favor us with a few more nods to comedy, we may have to settle for the over baked jokes imbedded in ‘big message’ melodramas” (Piazza, 2012).
Matt Alchity, editor in chief of popular movie review website “Rotten Tomatoes” weighed in on the debate as well, and raised a very interesting point regarding the poignant nature of Slapstick comedies, and how they can sometimes be more insightful than the melodramas the Academy loves to praise: “It’s easy to point at a moving, dramatic film and say, ‘This is important, and we should remember it.’ Never mind that a comedy like Borat more sharply exposed prejudice in America than a drama like The Help could” (Atchity, 2012). (It is interesting to note here that Borat is considered a Slapstick comedy, with elements of political and social commentary). Thus, the Academy seems stuck in a specific mindset that values drama over comedy.
Comedian Phoebe Robinson offered commentary on the exclusion of comedy from the Academy Awards as well, arguing that comedies are wrongly considered as meeting a “lesser pleasure” than dramas. She states, “like dramas, comedies move us — to laughter, to tears amid laughter—yet they are treated by you, Oscar, like bridesmaids who get left behind by the bride once she’s pelted them with her bouquet and progressed to a more legitimate world… the perception of comedies needs to change. They’re not second-class citizens of film. Last I checked, the comedy and tragedy masks were paired together to represent the entire human condition. You need both” (Robinson, 2012).
Bambi Haggins, associate professor of film and media studies at Arizona State University, questions whether the Academy’s perception of “low-brow” comedy and “high-brow” drama will ever change. If “dying is easy” and “comedy is hard,” then why does comedy…get no respect? The Academy’s love affair with gravitas makes it nearly impossible for comedies to consistently be a part of this exclusive club. Historical epics and melodramas, whether grand or intimate in scale, or of the gritty and tragic variety, exhibit the requisite weightiness. You have to wonder whether a 20th-century view of comedy, one that posits the film work and performances as being tied to low culture — traced back to vaudeville or rooted in its more recent progeny, sketch and improv comedy — can ever change” (Haggins, 2012).