Thanks for reply. My point was not about an argument that 'you should' like any film etc. Perhaps I should expand my argument. You will probably still disagree, but at least you will understand where I am coming from...
My point was regarding your remark about particular comedy being 'childish' and as an adult you rejecting it. I was/am arguing that may be a baby with the bathwater argument.
I did the same in my late teens and early 20's with certain films,tv and comedy/comedians that I had liked. I saw them as childish and yearned for more mature entertainment.BUT very quickly, I realised that such a stance was and is in many cases one of pure snobbery, the feeling that one somehow MUST reject the things of our childhood and teens, like St Paul 'putting away childish things', in order to mature...
In fact, getting older, I realise that was an ignorant stance to take.Because it means that one cannot understand that what we may have regarded as 'childish' in fact is far more layered and complex than we realise.
For example, the Carry On's. As I have said, I would argue that in calling them childish is to misunderstand them. Funny or not. The style of them was a deliberately calculated one,NOT a 'childish' mish-mash. The whole point of the Carry On films IS their 'end of the pier', double entendre style. Cheesy lines delivered by fine comic actors, lines which needed the flair and gift of the likes of Williams and Hawtrey to deliver them impeccably, such lines said by mediocre actors would have been much less funny.
The whole point of them WAS their knowingness, their self-parody.What did you think lines like 'infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!' were about?...another why this generation and the next will rediscover and enjoy them. In fact, some have argued that they are almost early post-modern in their self-knowingness.
The audience knew then and knows now that the jokes and lines are hoary old end of the pier stuff, delivered with great elan. And that is the point...that is the reason for their appeal...
Am I saying that you should like them?. No, of course not.I AM arguing that like them or not, they have more skill and depth in terms of writing, acting and direction/production and their style than you give them credit for....
As to the Two Ronnies,quite how you regard them as childish I do not know. By all means, dont like them, but to argue that they are 'childish' comedy is imo just silly. If anything, they are at the other end of the scale.....
The Two Ronnies wrote and performed extremely involved and intricate sketches and musical numbers. THAT was their stock in trade!.And Barker and Corbett were/are extremely deft comedians and comic actors.
'The Mastermind Sketch', Barker's solo to camera sketches, Corbett's monologues, 'Four Candles', the news items etc etc etc....I cannot see, even if I were NOT a fan, how their style of comedy is childish,as I said, it is the very opposite in fact,being some of the most intricate and involved comedy ever seen (the Mastermind Sketch alone is a work of genius frankly....)
Just because we may dislike or reject a work of entertainment or art does not mean ipso facto that it is bereft of any maturity or complexity, not to say skill. It simply doesnt speak to us personally, nothing more. To argue that ipso facto, they are therefore not worthy of respect and are not good or are 'childish' is a flawed argument.
