Anything Can Be Funny

Roger Ebert, in his Step Brothers review:

Is this funny? Anything can be funny. Let me provide an example. I am thinking of a particular anatomical act. It is described in explicit detail in two 2008 movies, "Step Brothers" and the forthcoming "Tropic Thunder." In "Step Brothers," it sounds dirty and disgusting. In "Tropic Thunder," described by Jack Black while he is tied to a tree and undergoing heroin withdrawal, it's funny.

Same act, similar descriptions. What's the difference? It involves the mechanism of comedy, I think. The Jack Black character is desperately motivated. He will offer to do anything to be released. In "Step Brothers," the language is simply showing off by talking dirty. It serves no comic function, and just sort of sits there in the air, making me cringe.

[...]

I'm sure I've seen movies with more extreme language than "Step Brothers," but here it seems to serve no purpose other than simply to exist.

This is exactly the way I feel about a few of the Apatow productions I've seen. It's like when you go hang out with a group of people you don't know very well, and they're all joking around and laughing, but you can only manage a smile because you're just not one of them. Maybe the idea is to make so many movies with Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, and the rest of the gang, that they do start to feel like friends and you can start laughing at their everyday conversations.

(BTW, I need to lower my expectations for Tropic Thunder if I still want to enjoy it. Even Roger Ebert is getting me pumped up for that movie!)