[What is Slapstick? A Discussion of Definitions]

"....slapstick needs to be aligned with the worlds of make-believe in order to operate. So filmmakers have to figure out ways for the audience to know that the physicality and the violence of slapstick is not "real" and that no one is actually getting hurt from this excess of violent actions."

 

Do you still find this to be true?

 

I think, as audiences have become more accustomed to screen (both large or small) portrayals that filmmakers no longer tend to do this as far as the make-believe queues.

 

Of course there are still the outlandish sound effects, but slapstick itself is seamlessly melded into established action so frequently that it's become accepted.

 

The audience knows that whatever they're watching isn't real to begin with... Batman (with West & Ward), The Monkees, Blazing Saddles....

 

I wonder if this criteria is now more of a "it once needed to be..."  rather than the concrete "needs to be aligned" position it currently holds.

 

 

With all the violence going on in our world today, I believe it's more important than ever that there is no doubt in the viewer's mind that it's all unreal and not injuring others. Otherwise, the humor of the situation will be undermine by feelings of revulsion.

[What is Slapstick? A Discussion of Definitions]

 

Multiple goodies in this post.

 

 

I think your excellent first comments on violence and avoidance also touch on the ritualistic aspect of slapstick. Ritualism is not only repetition, but also culturally meaningful. I'd argue that slapstick does indeed require violence. This is not necessarily interpersonal violence, it could be one person against the elements (or a banana peel). Otherwise you've got "physical humor". Think of the moment in "Bringing Up Baby" when Katherine Hepburn tears her dress and Cary Grant helps her disguise it by welding himself to her back(side) and marching across the room with her.

 

           

 

Several of the moments leading up to the stroll are slapstick - tearing clothes etc. - but the actual walk across the room is just a sublime moment of physical comedy.

 

 

Second, slaptick doesn't go back only to commedia. There are traces that go back to our earliest Western drama - the Greeks circa 400BCE were swatting each other with phalluses. No doubt our caveman ancestors were miming club fights around the campfire.

 

 

Finally, I'd like to note that stunt performers refer to stunts as "gags", I presume because of the overlap with slapstick comedies. These share many of the qualities of true slapstick gags.

 

 

Your post got me to thinking about how much screwball comedies owe to physical comedy in general and slapstick in particular. Those elements often provide the atmosphere of chaos often featured in the genre.

[Breakdown of a Gag, Episode 1: Chaplin's Physical Comedy]

Just a quick thought...I think I figured out why I can't develop an appreciation for Tillie's Punctured Romance. I don't like Chaplin playing a rather villainous sort. I guess I like my slapstick stars to be cast in a kind of heroic or at least more innocent light. There is definitely a need for the villain, or some type of opposing force to give that dynamic...but just not Charlie.

 

 

I understand your hesitance to see Charlie as a villain, but that film was made before he truly became the Charlie Chaplain we now know.