Ironically, I took that challenge when I first read the XKCD and found quite a few pretty quickly. It’s either surprising how little people agree with each other OR how bad my movie tastes are :)
The hard parts are that post-2000 it was harder to find a <50 movie at all… and the fact you can’t easily just grab a list of <50 movies after 2000 to read through and pick. In the 90’s it’s the opposite, since movies were so polarizing. Ace Ventura: Pet Detective sits at a freaking 48%. In fact, almost every movie I grew up loving is <50%… but then 2000 hits and it changes. I spent an hour and found a dozen back then, then moved on. But it’s still so much easier to pick your favorite pre-2000 classic and find it’s sitting well under 50%.
It’s still a reasonably funny movie. I watched it a few years back and enjoyed it.
Importantly, I can probably come up with 50 movies I liked before 2000 that are <50. Hell, I grew up with Richard Pryer’s “The Toy”, which sits at 3%. College-me really liked Toys, sitting at 29%. If it’s pre-2000, I can literally name almost any non-disney movie I love and find it in the “rotten” bin.
Im not saying some bits aren’t funny, but it depends on whether “parts are funny” is more important to you than the following statements, vis a vis your enjoyment of a body of work, which may affect your enjoyment in a cultural way (as these considerations could set a context that is uncomfortable for a vehicle for jokes and humor), or might affect your enjoyment in a critical way (as these considerations could, to some be hallmarks of poor writing and dramaturgy).
dolphins are better off in captivity
mental health institutions are wacky fun
it’s OK for private detectives to interrogate the parents of leads under false pretenses
medical health records should be available to private, sole traders even if they have to engage in espionage to obtain them
kissing a trans person is extremely disgusting and wrong
a man kissing “a man” (with all apologies, cf supra bullet) is extremely disgusting and wrong
if you suspect someone is trans you should forcibly remove their clothing in front of law enforcement
to “free” someone’s dog, it is ok to stalk them, destroy their property, and kidnap the dog
white men in Africa are saviors and extremely sexually desirable (sequel)
he also
has a massive disrespect for women
opens conversations with women with unwanted sexual innuendo
trafficks illegal exotic animals, keeping them in squalid, urban living conditions
doesn’t pay his creditors
desecrates holy places of tribal persons (sequel)
it was also absolutely panned by critics at the time for being homophobic(! in the 90s!) — and for being quite annoying, which, of all these criticisms are the two most fair ones.
Looking at your bullet points, I’m thinking you’re going way too political about this. I’m a believer that comedy gets “the hall pass” so long as the comic is not racist/sexist/whatever. I am a huge fan of a stand-up comic with serious disabilities who spends an entire hour making fun of those disabilities. Of all genres of book/film that fail to age well/badly because of the changing in political winds, I would say comedy is the most protected and protectable.
I’ve seen your argument used to ban Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer from schools. And those aren’t comedies.
You have every right to avoid old movies that happen to do things unacceptable in current society. I support that. But unless you have evidence that the actors/directors feel the way you implied OR that the movie is going to influence society’s disposition, it should not be affecting an objective metric of the movie’s quality. You can laugh at bad things as long as you know they’re bad things and you’re not going to support bad things in the real world.
Let me remind you of Mel Brooks’ Spanish Inquisition. Nothing you mention above is darker than that.
I was writing in the detached/supposed-omniscient voice of “The Critic”, not necessarily me qua me.
I think its an interesting discussion to participate in, but I’d request a generosity of not thinking I am 100% ideologically committed to one side of any of those points (note my frequent use of “depends”, “might”, “may”, “if”, etc). I think they are interesting starting points for a conversation about this particular piece.
But - I also recognize that further up the chain, someone notes their displeasure at the very concept of art criticism. I take pleasure in it, others may not. Cest la vie.
Fair point about art critique. I’m not saying a person can’t rate it low. I’m just not a believer that comedy can age badly. If anything, the opposite. It is a statement for the flaws of our past.
Take any classical book where slavery was commonplace, or men lorded power over women and abused them. Any book before suffrage, or before the 1850’s will depict that. The classics we read or watch are of a worse time, and that should itself be a lesson for us.
Of Mice and Men. George killing Lenny. There’s a laundry list 100x longer than Ace Ventura. Some parts of that were a statement about society, but some parts only became a statement about society 100 years later.
I dont know if I completely agree “no comedy can age badly”
this https://youtu.be/cZIQZZpprHw is one of my parents’ fondest comedy memories from growing up. To a modern audience its almost incomprehensible
see also this gag from Romeo and Juliet
‘Yea,’ quoth he, 'dost thou fall upon thy face?
Thou wilt fall backward when thou hast more wit;
Wilt thou not, Jule?’ and, by my holidame,
The pretty wretch left crying and said ‘Ay.’
There’s also a bunch of Monty Python skits featuring a Mrs N-word (yes that n-word), and modern renditions of The Philosophers Song cut all of the mentions of “poofters” (equivalent of the f-slur for gay men) from the preamble.
I think Shakespeare exemplifies the rule itself. One not understanding it is a product of a lack of context of the time around which it was released. Take a course in Shakespeare and it will be covered (I was so lucky enough take a course under an absolute expert on the topic). I can see the objection “I shouldn’t have to take a course to get it”, but remember we are now stuck objecting now to one of the greatest bodies of writing in European history, a body that invented the foundation of much of modern comedy in inventing the Pun.
Many scholars seriously believe Shakespeare was the only author to ever use Puns effectively. I think that’s an over-reach.
Ironically, I took that challenge when I first read the XKCD and found quite a few pretty quickly. It’s either surprising how little people agree with each other OR how bad my movie tastes are :)
The hard parts are that post-2000 it was harder to find a <50 movie at all… and the fact you can’t easily just grab a list of <50 movies after 2000 to read through and pick. In the 90’s it’s the opposite, since movies were so polarizing. Ace Ventura: Pet Detective sits at a freaking 48%. In fact, almost every movie I grew up loving is <50%… but then 2000 hits and it changes. I spent an hour and found a dozen back then, then moved on. But it’s still so much easier to pick your favorite pre-2000 classic and find it’s sitting well under 50%.
Ace Ventura, although enjoyed at the time, hasn’t aged perfectly. There are some fun moments, and there are… others.
It’s still a reasonably funny movie. I watched it a few years back and enjoyed it.
Importantly, I can probably come up with 50 movies I liked before 2000 that are <50. Hell, I grew up with Richard Pryer’s “The Toy”, which sits at 3%. College-me really liked Toys, sitting at 29%. If it’s pre-2000, I can literally name almost any non-disney movie I love and find it in the “rotten” bin.
Im not saying some bits aren’t funny, but it depends on whether “parts are funny” is more important to you than the following statements, vis a vis your enjoyment of a body of work, which may affect your enjoyment in a cultural way (as these considerations could set a context that is uncomfortable for a vehicle for jokes and humor), or might affect your enjoyment in a critical way (as these considerations could, to some be hallmarks of poor writing and dramaturgy).
he also
it was also absolutely panned by critics at the time for being homophobic(! in the 90s!) — and for being quite annoying, which, of all these criticisms are the two most fair ones.
Looking at your bullet points, I’m thinking you’re going way too political about this. I’m a believer that comedy gets “the hall pass” so long as the comic is not racist/sexist/whatever. I am a huge fan of a stand-up comic with serious disabilities who spends an entire hour making fun of those disabilities. Of all genres of book/film that fail to age well/badly because of the changing in political winds, I would say comedy is the most protected and protectable.
I’ve seen your argument used to ban Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer from schools. And those aren’t comedies.
You have every right to avoid old movies that happen to do things unacceptable in current society. I support that. But unless you have evidence that the actors/directors feel the way you implied OR that the movie is going to influence society’s disposition, it should not be affecting an objective metric of the movie’s quality. You can laugh at bad things as long as you know they’re bad things and you’re not going to support bad things in the real world.
Let me remind you of Mel Brooks’ Spanish Inquisition. Nothing you mention above is darker than that.
I was writing in the detached/supposed-omniscient voice of “The Critic”, not necessarily me qua me.
I think its an interesting discussion to participate in, but I’d request a generosity of not thinking I am 100% ideologically committed to one side of any of those points (note my frequent use of “depends”, “might”, “may”, “if”, etc). I think they are interesting starting points for a conversation about this particular piece.
But - I also recognize that further up the chain, someone notes their displeasure at the very concept of art criticism. I take pleasure in it, others may not. Cest la vie.
Fair point about art critique. I’m not saying a person can’t rate it low. I’m just not a believer that comedy can age badly. If anything, the opposite. It is a statement for the flaws of our past.
Take any classical book where slavery was commonplace, or men lorded power over women and abused them. Any book before suffrage, or before the 1850’s will depict that. The classics we read or watch are of a worse time, and that should itself be a lesson for us.
Of Mice and Men. George killing Lenny. There’s a laundry list 100x longer than Ace Ventura. Some parts of that were a statement about society, but some parts only became a statement about society 100 years later.
I dont know if I completely agree “no comedy can age badly”
this https://youtu.be/cZIQZZpprHw is one of my parents’ fondest comedy memories from growing up. To a modern audience its almost incomprehensible
see also this gag from Romeo and Juliet
There’s also a bunch of Monty Python skits featuring a Mrs N-word (yes that n-word), and modern renditions of The Philosophers Song cut all of the mentions of “poofters” (equivalent of the f-slur for gay men) from the preamble.
I think Shakespeare exemplifies the rule itself. One not understanding it is a product of a lack of context of the time around which it was released. Take a course in Shakespeare and it will be covered (I was so lucky enough take a course under an absolute expert on the topic). I can see the objection “I shouldn’t have to take a course to get it”, but remember we are now stuck objecting now to one of the greatest bodies of writing in European history, a body that invented the foundation of much of modern comedy in inventing the Pun.
Many scholars seriously believe Shakespeare was the only author to ever use Puns effectively. I think that’s an over-reach.