Comedy Special: Bo Burnham And The Battle Of Art VS Comedy

A little while ago, I wrote a special feature on comedies for an online magazine called Splendid Fred. It focused on why comedy films are not considered good films - why jokes are not considered art. Obviously, I am not the only one who has been involved in the art versus comedy argument but I feel like a recent creation brings the two together in a glorious collision of music and laughs. That creation is Bo Burnham's recent stand up show, what. (Available in full on Youtube and Netflix) But this is not the first time Bo has proved himself a master of art and comedy.

Bo started on Youtube with songs such as 'My Whole Family' and '3.14 Apple Pi' in 2006. He then went on to release an EP entitled 'Bo Fo Sho' in 2008, followed by a full length album, 'Bo Burnham', in 2009. From there, it was strength to strength for Burnham as he filmed his own Comedy Central, had small roles in films such as American Virgin and Funny People, released his own live special and album, Words, Words, Words, and secured a TV deal with MTV to air in 2013. This TV series turned out to be the horribly underrated and prematurely cancelled Zach Stone Is Gonna Be Famous, a show that I personally recommend. Despite Zach Stone's cancellation, Bo stayed strong and wrote a poetry book called Egghead: Or, You Can't Survive On Ideas Alone. Most recently, Bo toured with his new show, what., which he then released, for free, online.

Bo's success is undoubtedly thanks to his universal, but ultimately niche, appeal.  This is an oxymoron, a paradox of demographic. His jokes are sometimes as mainstream as they come but they are always, always, layered with heaps of intellect and it is this that pigeon holes him. It is this reason that Zach Stone did not strike well with the contemporary audience that Bo's dick jokes go so well with. The crude side of his jokes, even without the layering of intelligence, still have a basic comedy value but as Burnham has moved forward, he has developed his style so that the crude jokes are now the side bit, the superficial top layer. His social commentary that the jokes cover has moved more into the foreground and his clever wit and performance style has highlighted the satirical nature of his work. But this mainstream/niche appeal leaves him in a perfect position to create a discourse (or blend) between 'art' and comedy.

Words, Words, Words was Bo tipping his toes into the world of the battle of art and comedy. The majority of the show was a combination of clever gags and his usual subversive music, both delving more into the world of politics and social commentary. However, there are two songs that stand out in this debate: 'What's Funny' and ' Art Is Dead'. Their titles even spotlight their insight into the argument. The former simply parodies how easy it is to create comedy and why such simple things are funny, while the latter suggests that it is exactly this attitude that has killed art. He points out that comedians are just the kids who wanted attention and are now being paid to do just that, and can call themselves artists because of it. But this is where Bo is so clever: he is using an art form to criticise the nature of art itself , he uses comedy to point out how easy it is. This meta-comedy routine makes us question our own thoughts on the subject, brings the debate into full-view, and provides a paradoxical answer. This is where what. comes in.

what. is almost a full fledged dedication to art versus comedy. There is still his normal subversive songs and his could-be offensive brand of jokes, but from the very opening of the show he is commenting on the nature of 'art'. After a bit in which he sings about his natural voice whilst heavily auto-tuned, he knocks a bottle of water over followed promptly by a track that says, 'he meant to knock the water over ... art is a lie, nothing is real'. He then goes on to prove that 'art' is a lie with a, crudely beautiful, poem entitled 'I Fuck Sluts'. A masterfully constructed piece of spoken word, an indisputable art form, comically written with highly misogynistic language, the contrast of which brings the humour. It is not the only time that Bo uses this form in what. as he returns to poetry later on to continue what he started in 'I Fuck Sluts' - to completely juxtapose the art form he uses, a lot like 'Art Is Dead' from Words, Words, Words.

But the peak of the debate comes in the form of a skit that, in audio alone sounds like a piece of art, but in visuals alone looks like a very crude, and tasteless, joke. The song is very bluntly titled 'Beating Off In A Minor', which Bo clarifies as the key and not the felony. The music is a delightful, joyous piece of music consisting of a flute, piano, and violin before turning into electric rock, and then after a pause turns to a haunting, harsh keyboard. On stage, we see Bo mime typing on a computer, before seeming content and pulling his trousers down, and the joke becomes clear. To the electro-rock, Bo masturbates furiously, to the haunting track, Bo shamefully washes his hands of his deed. Masturbation jokes are, arguably, one of the lowest forms of comedy but Burnham turns it entirely on its head by combining it with a well composed segment of music creating an intriguing piece of performance. Is it art or is it crass? Or is it both - is comedy art? Who would have thought a young man mime-masturbating would raise such questions?

Finally in what., is 'Repeat Stuff' and 'We Think We Know You', two songs which point out the fickle nature of the music industry, supposedly an industry of art. 'Repeat Stuff' is a song about the production and creation of pop hits, the idea that they must appeal to everyone and be immediately memorable leading the art within to suffer. 'We Think We Know You' carries this on with a conversation between Bo and three others, an agent, a bimbo, and a jock. The bimbo and jock highlight that change that fame can bring, both socially and within the self, whilst the agent shows the corrupting influence the industry can have on the content and quality of art. 'We Think We Know You' ends with Bo remixing the voices, adding a layer of synth and drums, until the audience are completely absorbed into a musical trance. Art made out of the commentary of art - how much more meta can you get?

So in the argument of art versus comedy, or comedy versus quality, Bo Burnham excels in contrasting the two to raise the point, the same point I raised in my last feature on the topic: why can comedy not be considered art or quality? Bo simply answers it can be. He plays with people's expectations of art and makes it hilarious. The majority of Bo Burnham's work can be found on his Youtube, and it is highly recommended by myself and critics alike. what. is available on Netflix and Youtube worldwide and Words, Words, Words is available on UK Netflix or to buy.

English Pastures

Art is a word that gets bounced around a lot in the creative industries. Cinema is no exception. Of course, there will always be arguments over what actually constitutes 'art' and many will dispute items that are supposed to be 'art'. Well today we look at a film that has been labelled under this particular term, but what actually is it? This is A Field In England.

It's the English Civil War. An assistant to an alchemist, Whitehead (Reece Shearsmith), clambers over/ through a bush to escape the prying eyes of his master. Further down the bush line, a man, Friend (Richard Glover), crawls through the growth only to collapse on the other side, the life leaving his body. A third solider, Cutler (Ryan Pope), appears and checks the lifeless body before running to try and help Whitehead. Finally, a fourth man, Jacob (Peter Ferdinando), a deserter, shows up, checks the dead body - who turns out to not be dead - and swears a lot. The four of them decide to head for an alehouse but along the way they pull a man through to the world with a piece of rope. The man is O'Neil (Michael Smiley), an Irish alchemist with great power and intent on finding a treasure in the field they are in. He utilises Whitehead's abilities in order to hunt and as they go along, the group have to perform some surreal tasks in order to get the treasure.

Some describe the film as a thriller.

With only a five man cast - well, pretty much - all of the performers need to give brilliant performances. Fortunately they do. In some ways, it is a wonderful achievement in writing as the characters on screen create a perfect balance of emotions and atmosphere between them - something that is especially difficult in the world of the abstract. Shearsmith's Whitehead is a level headed, intelligent man that is somewhat more accessible than the others. He questions the abnormal and objects to things he deems morally unsuitable. A point of view in which the audience can adapt to. Ferdinando and Glover's deserter characters bring comedy release to what is, on the large scale, a dark film. Glover's friend, particularly, is wonderfully entertaining with his slow nature and impeccable timing. His speech about his wife is a particular highlight of this. Ryan Pope, is the adaptable Cutler. He lures both the audience and the other deserters into a false sense of security, knowing of the darkness ahead, and yet he never seems to falter in charm or authority. Finally, Smiley's O'Neil is a horrible character. Powerful, charming, and yet completely detestable. Perhaps it is Shearsmith's likeability clashing with O'Neil's evil that emphasises how undesirable the character truly is but either way, nothing can be taken away from Smiley's dominating, engaging, and captivating performance.

Well, they look like a civil bunch.

There is something about A Field In England's production that is extremely interesting. Perhaps it is the actors standing in tableau at the beginning of important scenes or the long drawn out slow motion sequences, or the strobe like hallucinations, but there is definitely something that makes A Field In England truly unique. In a similar way, Ben Wheatley creates a haunting picture. The frantic editing contrasting with the slow scenes combined with a ominous score build an atmosphere of mystery and fear. The fear of the unknown is arguably the most universal of all fears. Wheatley immerses the audience and characters in this with hundreds of unanswered questions. However, it is important to note that the questions do not, in fact, need answers. We accept the reality that Wheatley presents us with, even if we do not understand it. The decision to shoot in black and white only adds to this world of maniacal magic within the fairy circle and really emphasises the hallucinogenic sequences. A truly spectacular exploration of the human mind in some respects, even if you do not truly follow what actually happens in the film.

An exciting and interesting piece of cinema. Some may call it art, some may not, but it is certainly an interesting film and one well worth a watch. It will definitely bend your mind and give your brain a good work out. It will, no doubt, make you feel highly uncomfortable at some points as well. Wheatley's world is not exclusive to on screen. Its presence fills the room you are in and chills you.

Best Bit? There are several exciting sequences. Some would say the tent scene, others would say the tug-of-war. I personally feel that The strobe scene was the most powerful. The most haunting, certainly, and a really intriguingly edited sequence that raises questions of deeper meaning within the film.

History In Paris

Every so often a film comes out that people are aware of, but no one seems to know what it is. For me, this was Midnight in Paris. I knew of it, but I wasn't sure what it was going to be or if it would even be any good. I sat down to watch it, completely clueless about what I should expect. Knowing it was nominated for four Oscars (Direction, Screenplay, Art Direction and Picture, and it being recommended to me by several people, I was getting rather excited for it. So does it live up to its, somewhat secretive, hype?

The film opens with a variety of shots showing Paris throughout the day, right through until midnight. We then get thrown into writer, Gil, (Owen Wilson) and his fiancée, Inez, (Rachel McAdams) life as they are visiting Paris. Gil wants to move to Paris once they are married but Inez disagrees. Gil truly believes that living in Paris will do wonders for his creativity so that he can move on from screenplays and write proper literature. While in Paris, the couple hit some speed bumps. Gil has problems with his novel, old friends Carol (Nina Arianda) and pedantic academic Paul (Michael Sheen) begin to take over their time, Gil and Inez’s parents disagree on very fundamental things. Gil gets stressed by all this and goes for a midnight stroll. On this stroll, he is picked up by a car on the dot of midnight that takes him back in time to the 20s, what Gil considers to be the Golden era. The film tells the story of a man meeting his idols and taking a journey of discovery in both art, and life. 

The Hangover Part III was going to be slightly more formal.

I think it is completely safe to claim that this is Owen Wilson's best performance to date. He is absolutely perfect in this role. Admittedly, Woody Allen did rewrite the role for him, but that's unimportant. He is a perfect combination of charming, lovable, accepting, and, most importantly, real. There's something very real about Wilson's performance. Gil is a hardly a character; he is completely believable as a real man. He comes to life through Wilson. The rest of the cast are excellent too. It's nice to see familiar faces popping up in supporting roles throughout the movie. Tom Hiddleston appears as F. Scott Fitzgerald and Alison Pill (a.k.a Kim (a.k.a the drummer) from Scott Pilgrim) is his emotionally unstable spouse. Adrien Brody appears as a very funny and surreal Salvador Dali, or DAH-LEE, as he exclaims when he meets Gil. Kathy Bates and Marion Cotillard play important parts in Gil's adventures as Gertrude Stein and Adriana respectively. Also performing to perfection is Michael Sheen as Paul. His perfectly agitating character is a brilliant example of a person who does nothing seriously wrong except conform to all of your pet peeves. A nice guy who you cannot stand captured perfectly.

'I swear, the fish was this big'

This is screenplay writing at it's best. A solid contender for the Screenplay Oscar. The dialogue is completely flawless and smooth (except when it's not meant to be) and it touches every emotion the heart can feel. It blends fiction and fact sublimely. This is Woody Allen on form. The score and soundtrack are absolutely wonderful. There's either a French heart or an upbeat 1920s rhythm to every song that plays and it is an example of the music perfectly setting the scene in a movie. The camera work shows some glimpses of beauty. There's a wonderful tracking shot early in the movie that perfectly follows Gil, Inez, Paul, and Carol as they wander French monuments. It's cheating I suppose, to shoot a movie in Paris, as every shot is guaranteed to look wonderful. This is some of Woody Allen's best directing in a long time and will be placed just under the likes of Annie Hall and Manhatten.

A delightfully charming, exceptionally witty, and wonderfully satisfying piece of cinema. It is submerged in art and literature and drips culture but doesn’t require its audience to be pretentious art collectors. At points it’s hilarious and at others, very touching. A great story told in a fantastic way. Owen Wilson at his best and Woody Allen returning to form. A perfectly solid film. Completely enjoyable. Definitely one of the most all–round decent films of 2011. A must see. 

Best bit? This is really hard. There's a wonderful laugh out loud joke at the very end, but I'll go with the discussions over Picasso's Adriana; firstly in the 1920s and then again in 2010. Classic. 

2011: Life Odyssey

It's been a while since there has been a film that is quite like the one we are looking at today. In fact, the last film I think that is at all similar to it is 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's got the same visual effects supervisor, Douglas Trumbull and everything. A film about life and our world. It's nominated for three Oscars. (Best Picture, Best Cinematography, and Best Director.) It's called The Tree Of Life.

A rather difficult movie to sum up since it has a non-linear narrative. Focus is definitely needed. The story is of a family in Texas in the 1950s, particularly focusing on Jack (portrayed by Hunter McCracken as a child and Sean Penn as an adult) and his relationship with his mother, Mrs O'Brian (Jessica Chastain), and his father, Mr O'Brian (Brad Pitt). It focuses mainly on the innocent childhood of Jack leading into his more delinquent years and his adult life. The film is supposed to symbolise him as a lost soul in the world trying to find answers to the big questions and struggling with faith. Also, there is plenty of metaphorical scenery that establish plot points.

Jack had a rather bubbly personality.

A cracking performance (pun intended) from young Hunter McCracken. It's rare to come across movies that rely on a very serious performance from such a young actor but McCracken nailed it. Especially next to Brad Pitt's excellent portrayal of a dominating father. I personally preferred Pitt's performance here to his in Moneyball. It was shorter but there was something raw behind it... And also something that is a lot easier to relate to. I was disappointed that there wasn't more Sean Penn in the movie. His part could have been far greater with more time. As it was, he just seemed a little unused.

What really made this movie stand out was the technical elements. A very well written piece of film, layered in metaphors and subtext. It shows us all of creation and its complexity reveals how big those 'big' questions are and just how small we are. It inhabits the mind and digs out all of those unanswered questions and places them on screen for all to see. Kind of like a serious version of Monty Python's Meaning of Life. And the cinematography was like nothing I can think of. It was beautiful. It was constantly visually outstanding and obviously heavily thought about. Every shot had purpose. And it was all edited together so wonderfully. Terrence Malick, writer and director, obviously but more effort than most when creating this piece of art. That is what it is: art. Definitely a competitor for Best Director, as we all know the Oscars like to shock everyone. (Tom Hooper has an Oscar and David Fincher and Darren Aronofsky don't?)

The desert didn't really suit Sean Penn

As a piece of art, I would give this 5 stars. As a movie, it is incredible too. It was a completely absorbing 2 hours of film that moved swiftly from the story of evolution to emotional family disputes. The acting was brilliant and the film was beautifully shot. I was pondering about how good I thought it to be, but, like 2001: A Space Odyssey, the film gets better the more it is thought about. While it could be interpreted as a load of superfluous shots of rivers, it really is a profound and complex experience.

Best bit? A family domestic around the dinner table kicks off. Some of my favourite acting in the movie, even though it was brief.