The 93% 59% Conundrum

Sorry, come again? Exactly. Fine, I will walk you through it.

From as long as I can remember, I have loved funny movies. Sentimental and funny really. Big. Angels in the Outfield. Those fit the bill.

And over the past several years, after we moved past the heyday’s of Old School, Wedding Crashers, and Superbad, the comedy genre has taken a big backseat to everything else. The allocation on the pie chart to notable comedies in production is shrinking.

To me, it’s an unfortunate reality, but as the saying goes, it’s show business. And people are in the business of making money, which comedies make less of.

My thesis on comedies has always been singular fold. If a comedy gets a mediocre rating on Rotten Tomatoes, it means it is a great comedy and good movie. I seek out comedies in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. I don’t know who the Rotten Tomatoes folks are, but I have zero faith in their reviews of humor. They don’t appreciate the simple and natural bouts of laughter. Or the softer smiles.

I have a movies to watch list. It’s a mix of items. But on this Saturday afternoon, when Miles was gallivanting around with his grandparents (my parents), Alex and I had time on our hands. So I reviewed the list. Snuck and smack in the middle of some like B list action movies was “Champions (Woody Harrelson).”

When I saw the preview for this movie, I assumed it would not do well at the “box office.” Quotes on box office because with the movie straight to whatever medium nowadays, it’s very common for movies to skip the box office all together. The reason I had the initial reaction is because in today’s “quickly cancellable” society, it is clear from the preview the movie stars children with down syndrome in a way that could be “uncomfortable” or “rude.” But just like people say ‘that’s why we play the game,’ this is why you need to watch the movie, which I did. I was extremely encouraged before I turned it on when it had a 59% on Rotten Tomatoes.

The movie was heartfelt, simple, undramatic, creative, witty, and funny. Some lines were perfect. It was the didn’t expect it laughter, which is the best kind. I was surprised it was a 2-hour movie. The comedies of the 2000s almost never cross 105 minutes. They even built more of a complex story into this that wasn’t farfetched – it was realistic.

I just finished the movie. I don’t like watching movies in two segments, but today, it was on the menu. It was a great movie. But it’s not for today’s critics. Not for today’s society. It wasn’t rude of critical of children with ‘intellectual challenges.’ It supported them. It highlighted them. It made you want to root for their every move. Woody Harrelson I happen to think is a great actor (from White Men Can’t Jump to Zombieland and others) and he delivers in it. I just wish the critics saw it. I wish the critics applauded the simple fun.

When I watched the credits, it noted that the movie was based on a Spanish film. It even clicked for me more – because it did not have the American must have it drama or climax or super intense moment that we feel things need to have – it had more cursory highs and lows running through a creative, simple plot.

The people agreed. The audience score: 93%. So why the 59? Why have we written off a genre that keeps us happy and light on our feet? Our feet have become so heavy. I believe deep down in many ways people have forgotten what light and airy feels like. Maybe I’m over-generalizing. But we’re living in complicated times, and simple good comedies are natural remedies that should be applauded and brought to light, not escorted to the side for business reasons. Let’s embrace the audience score. Let’s embrace the 93%.

P.S. After I wrote the 105 minutes line, just for kicks, I checked the runtime of the two movies I mentioned. Big – 104 minutes. Angels in the Outfield – 102 minutes. We’ll call it lucky. But I’ll call it good vibes.