The Chris Moeller Archives

Does it hold up?

Superblogger Ken Levine nibbled off a good one yesterday. He posted a classic clip from "The Honeymooners," circa 1955, and asked his readers to determine whether or not they found the clip to be funny. Many respondents also posted their age, which added another layer of pseudo-science to the equation. Is it funny? Does it hold up over time? Is the person seeing it for the first time with young eyes, or for the umpteenth time with old ones?

Put me in the "finds it funny" category. I rarely laugh out loud when I watch these old shows, but then I rarely laugh out loud when I watch anything by myself. Laughing, like sex, is best when it's done in a group. At the same time, I can't watch an old Gleason or a Jack Benny without my lips curled up at the end in satisfaction. To enjoy them this many years later, it may the case that you have to be, like me, really enamored with the comedic structure. For me, enjoying this clip has as much to do with recognizing the unique dynamic between the two performers and appreciating it in the knowledge that its popularity has endured than it does with the landing of the gags. The clip is primitive television, to be sure, but for what it's worth, it's also primitive "Honeymooners"-- just episode #3 of the "Classic 39" from 1955 and 1956, so the interplay that's often regarded as some of TV's all-time best is far from its most finely-tuned.

A relatively small collection of moving picture artists trotted out 39 of these half-hours in less than 10 months time, and I think it's that "on-the-fly" energy that gives the show its lift. The episodes were also recorded in one take, and many episodes contain evident line flubs for all-time, but the trade-off was that we still get to hear the live audience busting up to beat the band. I don't think the show would hold up nearly as well without the audience's rapt participation, which is part of why the dramatic TV programs of the 1950s, produced in empty sound studios, have become almost completely lost to time. Live audiences have fallen out of favor in this era of the one-camera sitcom, like "30 Rock" and "The Office," but I wonder if time won't be crueler to these shows when, years from now, we won't have that recorded audience along for the ride to help us place the references and humor into the context of the time.

Clearly, a false comparison is against the great comedy shows of today, and that's to take nothing away from the greats of either era. A program nearly half a century old shouldn't be held responsible for all the imitators it spawned. It wasn't cliche when Gleason and Carney put this blend of physical humor and sight gag on television for the first time. Ruth wasn't the greatest because his single-season home run mark stood as the Everest of the sport for 34 years, although the fact is noteworthy. He was the greatest because he hit his 60 in a year in which entire teams failed to hit 60.

"The Honeymooners" finished 3rd on the CM Blog Top 50 TV countdown last year, and it wasn't because it's funnier than a "Seinfeld" or a "30 Rock," but because it was so much funnier than its contemporary TV comedies during the '50s, and if you can still name more than a couple of those others today, I'd be terribly surprised.

---

Huh? In a CBS News/New York Times poll, 59% of Americans support "homosexuals" serving openly in the military, but an overwhelming 70% favor "gay men and lesbians" serving openly. Among self-identified Democrats, the gap in support, based on that change in wording, was 43% to 79%.

This week, I've given you a baseball quiz and a link to Ken Levine's comedy exercise, now sort this.

---

The St. Louis Rams have been sold, and not to Rush Limbaugh (mercifully), but to Shahid Khan, a Pakistani-American from Champaign/Urbana, Illinois, president of auto-parts manufacturer Flex-n-Gate, and a major booster at the University of Illinois. He's also going to have the greatest sports mustache in St. Louis since Whitey traded Keith Hernandez in 1983.

posted by CM @ 8:31 PM