XL Cover Story: Austin Film Festival
Buck Henry on comedy without consequences
By Chris GarciaOct. 20, 2005
 |
|
Austin Film Festival» Learning to laugh with Judd Apatow » Austin Film Festival highlights |
Henry, 74, returns this weekend to appear on two panels discussing comedy writing and his work, which also includes co-creating the '60s television series "Get Smart" (with Mel Brooks) and writing-performing on the trailblazing TV satire "That Was the Week That Was," starring Steve Allen and Garry Moore.
We talked to Henry by phone about changes in comedy since his early days, through his numerous hosting spots on "Saturday Night Live" in the '70s, down to the Farrelly brothers.
How has film and television comedy, from what you were doing in the '60s, evolved?
It hasn't got any more sophisticated. Today it's completely harmless and not even mildly subversive. Look what "American Pie" did. It changed the nature of what commercial film wanted to do. The producers certainly didn't buy any brains.
With classic White House skits next to "Jaws" parodies during your times on "SNL," you seemed to strike a balance between old-school satire and pop goofiness.
It seemed like a continuation of "That Was the Week That Was," with more attention to popular culture. I always fought for stuff that didn't have anything to do with television and movies. And for the most part, when I think back on the stuff that I love, it wasn't, such as Uncle Roy and the political stuff. Chevy (Chase) and Danny (Aykroyd) were always up for a good political sketch.
You're a lot older than those guys. Was there a clear divide between what you thought was funny?
We totally understood each other, though there's stuff they did I never would have done and wouldn't have understood. I could not have thought up the Coneheads. When they first did it, I thought, "Yeah, they've got funny heads on, so what?" I wasn't engaged in the idea that sketches never needed an ending, that things just trailed off. Many times that was a writer's excuse for having stayed up too late and not being able to find a way out. Yet with the stuff I remember fondly, I can't imagine having been able to do it anywhere else. Nowhere else on television could we have done Lord Douche Bag, Stunt Baby or the Sodom Chamber of Commerce.
The generational divide shows when you compare the sophistication of something like "The Graduate" to, say, "Ghostbusters."
Acts do not have consequences in most comedies today. They are just there to propel the plot and make you laugh regardless. Even in silent comedy, acts have consequences. That's considered by many TV and filmmakers to be square. A punch line is square. We demonstrate our freedom by showing that all choices are equal. It's pathetic. Not that I haven't laughed at a lot of that stuff.
What did you think of "Stripes," "Ghostbusters," "Animal House"?
They're OK. They're fine. It's not something I'm thrilled about. I like the Farrelly brothers better. They get into taboo stuff in a way that amuses me. I laughed a lot in "There's Something About Mary" and laughed at times hysterically in "Me, Myself & Irene."
Have you followed what your "SNL" co-stars have been up to since those days?
Not a lot. I know what they do. And sometimes it's pretty good. It's just not something — I mean, given a choice between a comedy and a melodrama, I always go to the melodrama. I'm not really interested in comedies. I don't respond to them. I am much more interested in "The Constant Gardener" or "A History of Violence." I think television destroyed film comedies. You can watch eight hours of it a day on TV, so why bother to go to a theater and just see bigger versions of it?
cgarcia@statesman.com; 445-3649
