The general decline in standards today

LoveMyHats2 said:

I have no idea why but I always tend to think of comedy as to individuals that lived a long time ago, such as Laurel and Hardy, or even W.C. Fields. They had it going on as far as comedy.

I recall a article written about W.C. Fields, he had a partner in a way in some of his "skits" if you want to call it that, Little baby Leroy, a child that seemed to always cause him trouble. He made the appearance that he hated children while on screen in his skits. So during an interview he was asked if he hated or liked children? His response was, "Children, why of course I love children, specially when they are well done".

We do have many greats that have performed comedy. Some more into our own time era, but if you sit and watch Laurel and Hardy, I myself tend to think they were the masters of it all.

Click to expand...

Pompidou said:

I wanted to like Laurel and Hardy but never really got into them. Three Stooges, however, were a different story. Abbot and Costello, too - or at least, I thought Who's On First was pretty funny, but who doesn't?

Click to expand...

LoveMyHats2 said:

Yes they were a riot! Most of the Movies they made are very classics now.

There are some really good people in Comedy, that are here today yet. Blues Brothers, Eddy Murphy, George Carlin, and most of the Stars that have been in Mel Brooks movies. I enjoy a good Comedy.

Click to expand...

LoveMyHats2 said:

In Israel, everyone is required to serve in the military, and that training starts at a young age.

Click to expand...

Travis Lee Johnston said:

So Beavis and Butthead is more intelligent than SNL. Got it.

Click to expand...

LoveMyHats2 said:

I have no idea why but I always tend to think of comedy as to individuals that lived a long time ago, such as Laurel and Hardy, or even W.C. Fields. They had it going on as far as comedy.

Click to expand...

LizzieMaine said:

Interestingly, during the early 70s there was a huge wave of interest in classic film comedy, to the point where L&H, Fields, the Marx Brothers, and others of that era were mainstream again -- they were showing all the time on television, and they were lionized on college campuses -- Groucho, the last major survivor of the period, was making the rounds doing lectures, had a sold-out show at Carnegie Hall, and talk show hosts battled to have him on as a guest. Thirties comedy wasn't just a niche taste then -- it seemed to be genuinely undergoing a renaissance. When the Marxes' "Animal Crackers" was rereleased for the first time in decades, it was shown to great fanfare on CBS in a heavily ballyhooed prime-time slot, and got huge ratings.

Click to expand...

adouglasmhor said:

Not so, All Israeli Jews (but there are a few exemptions for some), All Israeli Druze men (except inner circle clergy) and Circassian must serve but there are border police, prison, police posts that are non military. Israeli Bedouin and Israeli Christian Arabs are automatically exempted too (but can volunteer).

Click to expand...

Nathan Dodge said:

I thought that the Marx Brothers' popularity along with the resurgence of interest in Humphrey Bogart stemmed from the fact that in their own ways, both were anti-establishment and seen as rebels of their age. Film schools were flourishing, so there was a platform to show off that Golden Age stuff in addition to the relative cheapness of being able to show it on TV all the time.

Things like Holiday, where Cary Grant's character says "When I find myself in a position like this, I ask myself what would General Motors do? And then I do the opposite" probably spoke just as much to late '60s counterculture types just as it did to radicals and disenfranchised people alike in the 1930s. In fact, it should be speaking volumes now, as well...but the short-term memory of the masses is even more limited than what it was decades ago. Odd, considering we now have the technology and means to explore the stuff. But then high technology and access doesn't seem to equal intellectual curiosity.

Click to expand...

Viola said:

I have a real soft spot for George Burns and Gracie Allen.

Click to expand...

LoveMyHats2 said:

I myself have never got into the "whys and hows" of what has come and gone in the movie industry or on stage. I take things more or less on face value of how I appreciate or find something worth watching and that is all that has ever mattered to me.

Click to expand...

Viola said:

It's odd, perhaps, but Gracie Allen's most equivalent entertainer today is, I think, not a comedienne at all but I see shades of her in Dolly Parton. I just get that sort of wry semi-innocence from Dolly. Dolly strikes me as a throwback to vaudeville in some ways - and yes, she definitely has made a career of dressing like a superannuated cheerleader - but in today's entertainment industry, she's a bit of a lady.

Click to expand...

LizzieMaine said:

As I said above, it's like a monkey flinging poo -- it doesn't discriminate between worthy targets for satire and targets that don't deserve it. My belief is that satire should be used for a worthy purpose, not simply to get cheap laughs at the expense of someone you think is beneath you. They're capable of doing some insightful work -- but the fact that they "treat everyone to equal abuse" as has sometimes been said says to me that they simply don't understand the difference.

Click to expand...