Stand-Ups on Screen

December 27, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
With “Mad TV” star Aries Spears performing this week at Morty’s Comedy Joint and Chris Rock coming to the Murat, I’m thinking about stand-up comics transitioning into movies.

Although he seems to have the talent to do so, Spears hasn’t broken out. And while Rock has had plenty of opportunities, he hasn’t quite gelled on screen.

It used to be that there was no assumption that stand-up comedy and film acting were transferable skills. I’m guessing you can’t name too many Milton Berle movies or Jack Benny flicks. Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl didn’t make the jump. Even Rodney Dangerfield was decades into his stand-up career before he was featured in “Caddyshack” in 1980. 

On the other hand, Bob Hope, Woody Allen (until he stopped being funny) and the brilliant Albert Brooks managed to effectively extend their stage personas into film.

Others such as George Carlin have made efforts in that direction. It’s just that the results (“Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” aside) haven’t been very impressive. Even the great Richard Pryor has a very short list of watchable non-concert films.

You could argue that that’s because those artists didn’t control their films in the way that Allen and Brooks have. Perhaps, but other actors who had the clout to have some say have still avoided the movies. Ellen DeGeneres and Ray Romano seem to have gotten the message very quickly (from “Mr. Right” and “Welcome to Moosewood,” respectively) that they should stick to animated voices. Jerry Seinfeld has wisely gone right to “Bee Movie.”  Since rising to stardom, Dave Chappelle has pretty much stayed away from the big screen, too.

So what does it take to make the jump? Who do you think hasn’t been giving a fair shake in movies? And who should stick to the stand-up stage?
Your thoughts?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Don't forget Andy Griffith, Bob Newhart, Jerry Lewis, and the great (Kennedy Center Honoree) Steve Martin. Griffith has performed in just about every medium imaginable, actually, though most people know him now almost exclusively for the Andy Griffith Show and Matlock. (Griffiths' Wikipedia entry says he was a monologist in his early career. Maybe the term stand-up comic hadn't been invented yet.)

    Why Tim Allen still has a film career, though, I don't know. I think he may have sold his soul to Disney.

    I think the comics that have done well on film have been those whose acts originally relied on the ability to create a character somewhat distinct from themselves. There's a level of acting already present there. In fact, I don't think Robin Williams actually has his own identity, which is perhaps why he's been arguably the most successful stand-up comic in the movies.

    On the flip side, some comics derive their humor from other sources than a projected persona, so they might not be the best candidates for character acting. It would be difficult to create a film around the incisive and hyperintelligent observations of a George Carlin; his humor is almost entirely verbal. There's no George Carlin character; there's just George Carlin. (I have no idea what the deal was with his tenure on the kiddie show SHINING TIME STATION.)

    I wonder why black comedians in particular seem to have had a tough time in the movies, even the most astoundingly successful ones? (Anyone remember LEONARD, PART SIX?) Eddie Murphy had a great run, up to about the year 2000 anyway, but have any other prominent black comics been consistently successful (commercially or otherwise) on the big screen for any similarly extended period? What's going on there?
  • Don't forget 1/2 of Cheech & Chong and Lily Tomlin.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT