Welcome to a new Wildcard Wednesday! This week, I’ve got another Q&A entry, where I answer questions submitted by readers. Thanks to everyone who sent in something — if you don’t see your “Q” here, I just may “A” it next time. (And keep them coming — any related topic on which you want my opinion and/or a little research? Just let me know!)
Travis wants to know… What play has been the biggest surprise (in a good way) in your recent Literary Society series?
Some of the first plays I read for this series really charmed me. I’m curious to look at them again at some point in the future to see how they still fare against all the others I’ve examined since. But I remember that I quite enjoyed Clare Boothe Luce’s Margin For Error (1939), a fascinating political snapshot of its time that also manages to be surprisingly funny, and S.N. Behrman’s No Time For Comedy (1939), which is a lot better crafted than I expected it to be. Also, I found Somerset Maugham’s The Circle (1921) to be just beautifully written, along with John Van Druten’s sensitive but amusing classic, The Voice Of The Turtle (1943).
MickeyDeez says… I love your posts on comedic plays and I was wondering since you’ve done TV and theater if you have any favorite comedic movies as well?
There are lots of great ones! I love screwball comedies and bedroom farces, along with a good rom-com every now and again, especially if it’s not too skimpy on the “com.” Among my favorite big screen laffers are the brilliantly structured Some Like It Hot (1959), the brilliantly played To Be Or Not To Be (1942), and the quintessentially screwball The Awful Truth (1937). I also love Clue (1985) — it’s so funny, with such well-drawn characters. And in terms of underrated titles, well, I think the last third of Billy Wilder’s One, Two, Three (1961) is one of the funniest sequences ever put to film. Those are just a few of my favorites.
Issa Kelly is curious… You often say about some sitcom actors that he or she elevates the material. What do you mean by that? How are they able to elevate the material? Could you give an example of an actor elevating the material through their performance or delivery?
In the context of the situation comedy, I think material elevators are performers who add laughs and/or elements of character that wouldn’t be apparent to most actors simply delivering what’s on the page – via phrasings, rhythms, pauses, gestures, expressions, bits of business, etc. Such enhancements are often due to their own cultivated skills coupled with inherently good instincts, often seeming to exist within the sheer force of their being; they naturally exude humor and individuality, which ultimately improves the resulting effectiveness of the sitcom text they’re playing. Great writing often blends actor and character seamlessly — and knows what its performers are able to do — but material elevators just make things better. A quintessential example of a material elevator is Bea Arthur – her innate qualities infuse every part she plays with suggestions of a pinpointable characterization, and she brings extra hahas to her scenes because of the smart choices she makes in performance. A specific instance (and one I recently watched) occurs in Maude’s “Feminine Fulfillment” when she, as Maude, turns around to glance at Walter while Vivian is detailing some recent sexual role-playing with her husband. It’s not merely a facial expression, it’s a turn to Walter, a slight look away, and then a quick double take back at him. None of that is part of the dialogue or the necessary action, and it’s not something that would read funny if it was even on the page. But it’s hilarious on screen – an enhancement to that scene as result of Bea Arthur’s performance. She does this all the time – and not just with those long glances. She knows when to pause. When to hurry. When to shift. When to freeze. When to be loud. When to be quiet. She’s, simply, great — she makes her material better.
Mr. Melody asks… How accurate, personally speaking, would you say that the Emmy’s/and Tony’s are as an accurate assessment of the best sitcoms/musicals of the era?
Well, as you know, awards are inherently unreliable barometers of quality, and I don’t look to them for an alignment of my own perspective. But, I’d say the winner for Outstanding Comedy Series is a bit more than 50% of the time the series that I would personally agree is that season’s best, while the nominees for that honor is never – as a limited selection – what I’d say are that season’s top efforts. And sometimes it’s not even close. In general, I detect a bias towards prior winners with wide name recognition and flashy newbies that are trendy and sexy, at the expense of solid but unglamorous workhorses of reliable quality that occasionally manage a relatively great showing. Also, as we’ve seen lately, when drama invades the comedic form, the terms of competition change and it’s very likely that comedy is no longer rewarded at all. Meanwhile, the Tonys and I probably agree more often on both their winners and nominees for Best Musical – but their options are far more limited and they’re always awarding new shows only. If the Emmys simply had newbies, my level of agreement would be higher as well… Either way, it doesn’t matter. Awards are not unreliable barometers of quality when we merely don’t personally agree with the results; they’re also unreliable when we do, for value is subjectively determined by an individual, and popular opinion – even inside a group filled with people we maybe respect – is not personal opinion. You can (and should) take what others say about the things they enjoy into consideration (and I am grateful that you are curious about the personal opinions I express here), but ultimately your own perspective about what you enjoy should be more important (to you). Also, I think it’s helpful to remember that, with industry awards specifically, they’re not simply a display of perceived excellence by that group. That is, there’s a difference between an anonymous poll where responders are asked to individually name their favorite shows, and a public awards ceremony following a campaign process where members of a specific group vote on what deserves the group’s formal recognition. From the first, you’ll probably be able to determine what other individuals like; from the second, you’ll only be able to tell what a plurality inside a small group wants to recognize (without definitive criteria as to why). And, again, neither will ever tell you what YOU think is good. That’s up to you!
Lastly, Elaine submitted this one earlier this year… What show are you most excited to cover from the 2000s that you haven’t yet?
Well, I’m thrilled to be doing The Office now. And I look forward to 30 Rock and Parks And Recreation in 2025 — all funny ensemble workplace comedies from the late ’00s and early ’10s!
Have a question for me? Submit it at the “Ask Jackson (Q&A)” link.
Come back next week for another Wildcard! And stay tuned Tuesday for more of The Office!