Quote:
Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick
I suspect Ionesco would not likely appeal to you now, either. Absurdism is a love-it-or-hate-it thing, I think, and likely a lifelong opinion. I asked because I was wondering if your distaste for this had to do with your general preference for high art - and Ionesco is one of the few absurdists who is given that distinction.
Though... I've always thought Arrested Development hinged a little bit on absurdism from time to time. (30 Rock certainly does, and though I was thinking of suggesting it to you, my understanding now of your preference for absurdity causes me to retract any previous suggestion. No 30 Rock for you!  ) |
It's not a blanket thin with me at all. I LOVE Dada and Surrealism. Duchamp was a master of the absurd. I think what doesn't appeal to me with "Muffins" (as well as Python, et all) is the lack of subtly. Humor is a great deal more enjoyable for me if you have to be fully engaged to comprehend it (or you may miss it). When it is "in your face" I just don't find it amusing or engaging.
My recent experience with "Sweeny" is a good example. Cohen's in your face, over the top character was completely distracting and took me out of the experience of the film as a whole. I felt like I was watching a fine film with a commercial for Cohen's "talent" inserted into the midst of it.
I have similar issues with Jim Carrey in his comedic roles. "Unfortunante Events" would have been MUCH more enjoyable if Carrey was a part of the ensemble and not a "look at me" character. (Jerry Lewis was probably the first hatred I developed for this type of humor.)
But, as will all things I like or dislike, there are always exceptions. For every album of quirky pop music I don't like (TMBG, etc) there's a Belle and Sebastian in the mix that I adore.
As for Ionesco, it might be interesting to see if it appeals to me at this point in life when my preferences are much more developed and my knowledge base quite a bit greater than it was a 17 or even 23.