mugging

some people are offended when i say that i don't watch adam sandler movies or jim carrey movies. i've undergone several phases of thinking regarding the usefulness and value of these texts -- so thought i'd put some of my thoughts into the blogosphere for some reflection.

the free dictionary dot com offers this definition of a:

mug - the human face (`kisser' and `smiler' and `mug' are informal terms for `face' and `phiz' is British)

so mugging -- would be -- really using the face for some use, right?

and that seems, in my opinion to be mostly what Jim Carrey & Adam Sandler (the cultural products, not the people or the actors) are about.

They both have the ability to MUG in inspired ways.

Hilarious ways. When they use their face (or bodies) to perfection -- these guys are VERY very funny.

So why don't I watch their movies?

For me its always been a sort of dis-ease about the ways that MUGGING does not serve the story that they're telling.

I liked both of these guys in sketch comedy shows -- and IF i watch a portion of either of their movies -- I laugh. Hard.

But then, if i happen to try to watch a WHOLE story -- I don't. I groan. I grow weary. I turn them off. Because it seems like (in most cases) the story becomes incidental to the punchline of their gloriously funny faces.

Like the story is the setup and their FACE is the punchline.

I used to say that I didn't like them because they weren't acting. I still think that this particular STYLE of "acting" while it doesn't at all serve the story (or their "character" within the story) -- it also probably isn't who THEY are -- so it probably is a kind of performance -- "acting" might be an appropriate name.

But ultimately, I don't think there's anything BAD about what they're up to. I think it just belongs in sketch comedy shows. Not in movies.

Even the GOOD stories that some of their movies started out as -- are -- it seems -- ill served by this MUGGING.

Mugging does, now, however, serve up juicy "quotes" -- which end up getting bantered about in social groups -- weaving a textual fabric of continuity around most social networks like a warm media blanket. Not that there's anything wrong with that. In fact, it seems like a really great side benefit.

Clearly the biggestt and most central benefit to this kind of punchline-driven approach to character or story -- is that each MUG -- each quotable bit -- each hilarious gesture -- memorable line -- BECOMES a kind of an advertisement that is ongoing for the franchise which is --

Adam Sandler.

or

Jim Carrey.

which is why, I suppose that these movies are considered "vehicles" for their stars....but what gets eroded in a world where most people JUST see these movies INSTEAD of movies with more subtle humor -- which reward the patience and attention of a faithful audience is --

story.

and particularly comic story.

Kenneth Burke calls the Comic Frame -- "equipment for living."

and unless we can weave a comic perspective back into our understanding of WHOLE characters -- and broad sequential and consequential sweeps of human action --

we lose valuable equipment for living.

i'm not the culture snob i once was who sneered at these movies or anyone who watched them -- but i want to remind people that they're just watching sketch comedy when they engage these films. And that, while sketch comedy is a VALUABLE way to start building our comic frames -- its insufficient to build hearty structures which will allow us to the see the world more truly.

i'm eight minutes past the ten minute post rule. So that means you're asleep. Not reading anymore.

But if you are awake, I'd love to be engaged on this topic...

peace~

** in a technology-gaffe-deletion -- Gary makes the worthwhile contribution that *Punch Drunk Love* & *Eternal Happiness* are worthwhile exceptions. I concur and add *Man on the Moon* and *Truman Show*