A suggestion for discussion

[fpb]

In the last decade or two, the United Kingdom has produced two tremendous cultural phenomena that have gone around the world: the Harry Potter series and the Wallace and Gromit animated movies. SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION: Do they have anything in common, and do they have anything in common with other British successes such as the Dr.Who franchise or Alan Moore's comics?

Comments

[thefish30.livejournal.com]

Two observations on British cultural phenomena in general.

1. One of the things that's so appealing about British humor is that whereas American humor from Ralph Kramden to Jerry Lewis down to Adam Sandler is mostly about one person acting stupidly in the everyday world, British humor in my experience is mostly about the one sane person in a world gone mad. Hence where American comedy is a repetitive parade of one (male) idiot after another, with British humor, from Monty Python to Douglas Adams you have an infinity of Bizzaro worlds to draw on, where we find ourselves in sympathy with the protagonist, instead of superior to him. With Gromit we delightedly find that the dog is our everyman, shaking his head equally at human obliviousness and ovine nonsense.

I'm not so sure that the humor in Harry Potter (not its main point, anyway) draws on this source, but it is certainly congenial to it.

Eek, must run. Point two will have to come later.

Bri

[fpb.livejournal.com]

A very interesting point. It may have something to do with the fact that two out of four of the great acts of the golden age of black and white movie comedy - Charlie Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy; in which Stan Laurel was the leader - are in fact British; and they are about sane people in a bizarro world. One remembers Ollie's frustrated glower and tapping fingers, as goo drips down on his face, even more than the gags themselves, however great. And I think you have put the finger on what is that bothers me about a lot of American comedy (and, though you may not know this, about some Italian comedy as well): the emphasis on individual absurdity or idiocy. In some cases, such as Disney's Goofy, you are positively being encouraged to find mental deficiency funny.

Another point that occurs to me is that the dog being the one sane person actually is something that happened in one of the greatest pieces of home-made American humour, Peanuts. Charles M. Schulz explained that the origin of the character of Snoopy was in the impression he sometimes had, that the neighbourhood dogs had more sense than the children who played with them. Snoopy started out as this stoical and thoughtful canine. I guess there is something highly American, though, about the way he developped into the oddest of the odd.

And another is that, while the humour is not primary in Harry Potter, it is essential; even the wisdom and power of Dumbledore, or the courage and loyalty of the trio, would not be evident or even develop properly without a constant coating of jokes or comically embarrassing moments. And conversely, while drama is not primary in W&G, it is absolutely essential to it. The murderous robot dog in A Close Shave and the equally homicidal chicken penguin in The Wrong Trousers, are villains in earnest, and the build-up to the successive climaxes is as powerful as any Humphrey Bogart adventure. And I would say that the way these two things, danger and humour, fit together so seamlessly in both masterpieces is that both fit the idea of a slightly crazed, unpredictable world.

[3secondfish.livejournal.com]

while the humour is not primary in Harry Potter, it is essential
It seemed moreso in the first couple of books, when Rowling seemed to be writing for a younger audience. She was trying harder to be silly, then.

But this kind of funny different from what Americans think of humor, though. I would call it whimsy, an altogether more subtle beast. It floats through, tweaks your nose, and zips away again, and then when it looks back and winks at you, you're so surprised you can't help but laugh. American humor flings a pie in your face, and then conks you with the can of whipped cream if you don't laugh quickly enough. :P

And I would say that the way these two things, danger and humour, fit together so seamlessly in both masterpieces is that both fit the idea of a slightly crazed, unpredictable world.
That's the cleverness of Rowling's world. It has a lovely rosy gloss to it, and we delight along with Harry at each discovery, such as the mysterious silvery instruments in Dumbledore's office. Nothing need be difficult because magic is means anything is possible. However, the flip side of it is that magic is deadly dangerous, judging from Harry's injuries alone; and that those capable but not competent, such as Dumbledore's sister, are dangerous to everyone. Can you imagine how the Hogwarts teachers would feel if they stopped to think about being under the same roof as over 200 hormone-crazed teenagers feeling bulletproof and capable of who-knows-what? Makes one want to take an antacid in sympathy. Anyway, my point was that a lot of stuff seems cool and fun in Rowling's world until you find yourself with unexpected tentacles from looking at it the wrong way. Yay tension!