In this edition we look at the two poles of horror comedy: in one corner, we see Mel Brooks’s probable masterpiece, Young Frankenstein:
And in the other stands a contemporary favorite, Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi’s What We Do in the Shadows:
See the introduction and full slate here: http://oftenveryvile.ghost.io/introducing-horror-movie-madness/.
I’ve written before in this space that comedy and horror are sisters. They both traffic in involuntary reactions, ones that can be imitated for an observer but not faked. You can pretend to laugh, but people can usually tell a fake laugh from a real one. You can pretend to be afraid, but it’s less easy to make yourself afraid of nothing (well, those of us with anxiety disorders can make ourselves afraid of nothing really easily, but in general the point stands). Likewise, if something is funny or frightening, and you really find it so, you won’t necessarily be able to control your physical reaction. Laughter and fear are felt in the body; they are physiological responses to stimuli.
The comedy and horror genres are both always raising tension and releasing it, provoking feelings of discomfort and then relieving them. The difference may just be that with horror, the tension never really dissipates, but instead lingers. We always know that comedy isn’t really real, but horror might be. Most horror films are at least a little funny, even if that comedy is uncomfortable. James Whale’s films were frequently hilarious. Jordan Peele’s films are frequently hilarious.
There are multiple ways you can make a horror comedy, but they tend towards two sides that these two films are good examples of. One adds comedy to horror, and the other adds horror to comedy. Young Frankenstein is a parody of a specific horror classic, that finds the absurdity in the horror. It builds tension in the way a horror film wood, but then makes jokes in the place of scares. What We Do in the Shadows, conversely, is a parody of reality television, that plays with and heightens the absurdity of that genre by injecting horror elements and images into it. Those horror elements are brought down to earth by making them look ridiculously out of place. This means that both films are extremely funny, but they have fundamentally different sensibilities.
Young Frankenstein loves horror. It loves cinema, and performing. The film is made with so much knowledge and passion for the weird little beats in Whale’s two films, and the interesting thing is I suspect Whale himself would really love it. The interesting thing is that some of the parody scenes are barely exaggerations. I’m thinking especially of this sequence:
It’s very funny, but it’s actually not much funnier than this one:
Whale’s film was already funny, and meant to be. The later horror still works better because we had been primed not to take any of this too seriously: we’re extra shocked when things turn horrific. Brooks used similar techniques and story beats, but just never let things turn horrific.
The primary target of What We Do in the Shadows is, again, reality TV. The characters are vampires who believe themselves to be at the same time very serious, very important, and very normal. The joke is that reality TV is already full of ridiculous people who don’t really realize how ridiculous they are yet who nonetheless believe they are important and singular enough to deserve constant attention. It’s about people who are boring, but important, because they’re on TV.
That’s what makes it funny: the vampires are not fascinating or charismatic but deeply boring people, tied up in petty squabbles and vapid ambitions. It could be a real housewives show except they’re vampires.
Which means that, necessarily, there isn’t the same reverence for horror that you see in Young Frankenstein. It’s a fine line, because of course Young Frankenstein finds humor in horror too. But it finds humor in the beats of horror; it plays with the raising and release of tension inherent to horror and zigs instead of zags: making you laugh instead of gasp. What We Do in the Shadows finds humor by reminding you that characters like Lestat or Dracula would be ridiculous if you really knew them. It makes them not actually scary.
Young Frankenstein is going to win. It really is beautifully made. Brooks really studied Whale, and the other horror golden age directors. It’s an homage as much as it’s a parody. He really, really loves those movies. And god, every single scene is so funny. Every single actor is so funny.
What We Do in the Shadows is really funny, and it was made before we all got a little sick of Taika’s schtick (or before I got sick of it anyway). But the thing about parodying low quality is, if you do it well you’ve also got something low quality. A lot of WWDITS is tedious and repetitive: like reality TV.
Young Frankenstein is parodying quality, and it knows it. It’s not just making a version of a good thing, but worse, and it’s not making a version of a bad thing but with a twist. It’s finding the humor out of a good thing and reminding you how good that thing is too. It’s a pretty amazing accomplishment, and I really can’t think of another film quite like it.