Laughter vs. Tears: What Makes for the Better Film?

“People seem to think it’s more difficult to make movies without jokes in them,” Judd Apatow once sagely noted, “But that’s just not true.”

When you look at the Oscar nominated films, time and again they're dramatic films. The Academy and many film viewers alike have it stuck in their minds that dramas are far more serious and notable work, and like Apatow, I have to disagree. Comedies are just as difficult, if not more so, than their dramatic counterparts. It's easy to tug on someones heartstrings; it's much harder to make a person laugh. And not just laugh at a movie, but continually and excessively laugh at a movie.

Critic's were surprised at how funny the recent "raunchy" films Aptaow produced, wrote, and directed were. The films had a number of "gross out" moments that they suspected would turn off viewers and stop the films from being funny, but the box office proved otherwise and people laughed in spite of the fart jokes. Take for example, the recent, much talked about scene from Bridesmaids where a bout of food poisoning causes the bridesmaids to breakdown puking and shitting in a bridal shop. The scene is one of the funniest of the movie. Even my mother who you'd never suspect to approve of such a raunchy scene was laughing hysterically. Apatow realized that as long as these sort of jokes and scenes had a sense of realism to them, a heart to them, people would be laughing in spite of themselves. How is that possible? Because when comedy is done right, you will laugh like crazy, even if you're questioning whether you should be laughing as hard as you are.

When you watch a middling drama, you don't question it too much. You wish it was better, but you forgive it. When a comedy is middling, you regret watching it. A comedy is, for all intents and purposes, supposed to make you laugh. When it fails to achieve this, you can not forgive it. In fact, you're probably a bit peeved. This distinction is rather important because it's why comedies are so difficult to make.

However, comedies are short shrifted every year. The last real comedy to even win Best Picture was Woody Allen's Annie Hall in 1978. That was 34 years ago. Consider the Oscar frontrunners this year. Much like every year before, 2011's Oscar hopefuls are mostly dramas. Think about the comedies that stand even a small chance for nomination. The Artist potentially. Bridesmaids may be. Young Adult perhaps. The Muppets with a long shot. Family fare such as Hugo, and We Bought a Zoo. The Help has potential, but its more of a drama with some comedic moments. But there's really no stand out candidate that you could ever see the Academy getting behind, and therefore the public at large as well.

But why is this? Why do we designate so much weight to dramas? When I think of the movies that are the movies I turn to time and again to watch, a fair amount of them are comedies. And even the more serious ones are action flicks like Indiana Jones, The Lord of the Rings, and Star Wars. Lets face it: Schindler's List is undoubtedly one of the best movies I've ever seen, and probably one of the greatest ever made. Few would be willing to argue otherwise. But I'd take a good showing of Annie Hall, The Apartment, Groundhog Day, or The Princess Bride way before I'd commit myself to a showing of The Deer Hunter or The Bicycle Thieves.

There is a reason movies like Caddyshack are so endlessly quotable, they're really funny, and because they are funny, we turn to them time and again. Dramas we can perhaps watch once and think are phenomenal, but we may never ever watch them again. So what film is the truly great film? The one you watch once and think is brilliant or the film you watch so many times you lose count. And which one honestly should be considered the superior film?