Dramedy or Comedy-Lite?

2006 saw the release of both The Breakup, a mostly unfunny, almost-too-authentic tale of a couple splitting up, as well as Stranger Than Fiction, a mostly unfunny, but sweet, gentle story of redemption and what it means to really live. I don't dislike either movie, but I have to say, I'm a little surprised that two of the classier (read: attracted great casts 30+ and were clearly targeting grown-ups) pictures of the year would walk this tonal line.

The kicker is, both of these movies have comic premises. They've just got great comic hooks. Instead, each movie went for something that was, perhaps, more interesting... but definitely less funny. What is this, as a genre? Unsuccessful comedy? Successful dramedy?

I was disappointed by both films, because to me, many a dramedy is just a comedy lacking self-esteem. Imagine if these films had kept their story structures, and their great characters, and their strong thematic threads, and been funny.

They'd be elevated from "might rent" to "must own".

It can be done. Groundhog Day. 40 Year-Old Virgin. Sideways. Little Miss Sunshine. About a Boy. Any one of them could have had their comic teeth extracted, and a solid story would remain. Instead, they reached higher.

With their comic teeth. Or something. You know what I mean.

A Kinder, Gentler Satire

I will tell you: I was really excited about Thank You For Smoking. A story about a charming smoking lobbyist without a conscience? What a brilliant world and character to explore and -- I'd hoped -- show me some difficult truths about our society while making me giggle in discomfort.

Well, those of you who've seen it know: it ain't no Network. Or Wag the Dog, or Bob Roberts, or Dr. Strangelove. I'm not actually sure this movie has seen those movies.

The big question is: what do you ask of your satire? For me, I want satire to fulfill some, if not all, of the following:

1) Make me laugh while cringing.
2) Explore some aspect/institution in our society and show me that it's much more corrupt than I could have imagined (or at least, it has the potential to be...).
3) Related to 2): Disturb/frighten me. Make me say to myself "they wouldn't...".
4) Tell a story with the regular stuff: characters, tension, consequences.
5) Explore characters that have the chance at redemption/change (whether or not they succeed).

Thank You For Smoking provided a few laughs, but once you've seen the lobbyists for tobacco, alcohol, and guns get together to compare death-stats, you've got to up the ante. The movie doesn't know how. (See, should've watched those other satires!) What's left is a very soft story about whether or not the tobacco lobbyist is going to lose his job. No kidding, that's what's at stake.

To which I ask: why do I frakkin' care?

The thing most absent from this film is the "they wouldn't..." factor. Here, there's no building to a "surely they wouldn't really allow the bomb to drop" or "surely they won't really kill Howard Beale on live TV".

This character -- slick as he is -- just isn't bad enough to be interesting. Now imagine the HBO, F/X or Showtime television series based on this same character and world. Then you realize how truly gentle Smoking is. And how big the gap between audacity on TV and audacity in film has become.

Instead, we're getting the NBC version. Oh well, win some, lose some.