MovieChat Forums > The Aristocrats (2005) Discussion > People who find Aristocrats funny, simpl...

People who find Aristocrats funny, simply aren't.


You can go on about pushing the limits of taboo, exploring our perceived notions of tolerance or looking beyond the content of a joke to find its humour but the bottom line is that this film must be one of the worst ever made. It lowered my opinion of both comics (who seem to be narcissistic creeps) and Americans (who everyone hates anyway). I feel sorry for anyone unfortunate to have been seduced by the attractive cast (and attractive it is), spent money and taken more time out of their lives than was necessary to see this in the cinema. I urge anyone with a sense of humour to avoid it at all costs.

You have been warned.

0/10.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

the joke is not funny, it isn't supposed to be funny...the thing about it is this:
it is a joke shared amongst comedians, always telling jokes and as a job hearing them told back at you probably gets quite boring. like if you worked as a projectionist, the first couple of times you watch a film you think it's a cool job but pretty soon if you're gonna stick it out you have to amuse yourself because the movie is no longer entertaining...this must be what it is like for comedians, therefore they use this joke as a way to amuse themselves, the point is to make this sick, vile charade between family members so gross and so pointless that it isn't supposed to be funny for the audience, but for the comedian telling the joke - the point of making it last as long as possible makes it all the funnier because you're wasting the other persons time and the look on their face at the end is the 'punchline'
I liked the movie but did not find the joke funny, then i made up my own version, tried it on a friend and completely understood what it was about...just hope i've explained it well enough!

reply

so a joke shared amongst comedians is not at all funny, innovative or original. it's no wonder the film industry is getting killed financially...

reply

And the primary ideal in this film was to make huge piles of cash wasn't it...

It is attitudes like yours that the film industry suffers with.

"Believe or suffer eternal torment: Thank you God, for all those options" - Bill Hicks

reply

Going to see this movie was just a waste of money and time. The joke is terribly not funny and like someone in the board said, ten minutes into the movie you already got the idea, the other 80 minutes were totally unnecessary.

I had never seen so many people leaving the theater as with this movie. At least 50 percent of the people left, and I still don't understand why I stayed, maybe it was my optimistic side that still expected the movie to get a bit better at some point.

www.hangover-square.blogspot.com

reply

three words: Documentary NOT film
whether you find the joke funny or not is irrelevant, the fact is somebody has made this documentary for those out there interested enough to find out more about its origin, throughout the entire documentary the very actors/comedians who are presenting it to us are telling us that they know it isn't funny...if you went to the cinema expecting a laugh out loud comedy fest of course you were gonna be disappointed...I find the film funny because of all the bitching it's causing amongst people who are upset they lost 2 hours of their lives...two hours you'd probably just have spent on IMDB bitching about some other movie/documentary...get over it!

reply

As far as I know, a documentary is still a film.

www.hangover-square.blogspot.com

reply

hey patrick lemberg on a scale from one to ten how mcuh of a douchebag are you hmmm lets see ten, the aristocrats...hahahahahahha imm soooo funny just liek the movie I say somethign retarede and people laugh when i say the aristocrats
but yes you are a douchebag for condemnign christians

reply

If anything it was too short. I bought the DVD and watched every extra available just to make the experience even longer.

reply

It seems as if you used the word 'narcissistic' improperly. Only a few comedians seemed remotely narcissistic.

And I have a great sense of humor. And I laughed my ass of at this film.

Don't judge people because they thought this was funny, you *beep*

Cheers.

"There's piss and blood and cum and sweat...OOH, THAT SWEAT!"

reply

I can't believe what i've just read!! Have you lot been watching a different film!! This is a classic and always will be. The animation for it's time was superb, and some of the songs will live long in the memory.

Oh malley, it's a wonderful film....

Cough.

reply

You're a loser for even writing that.

Care for a little necrophilia?

reply

I couldn't agree more. I just perused the boards here and it immediately strikes you what a bunch of humorless losers those who like this film are.

reply

This movie sucked. I dowloaded it though, so at least I didn't pay to see this *beep*

reply

At what point did we explitives become funnier than humor?

I like to use vulgar language. Its great. But it really doesnt make anything 'funnier', if anything it subtracts from the humor. The joke itself wasnt funny, and if its meant to be something deep or symbolic, someone never attended Lit classes. This movie has famous people in it. Otherwise its just to be pittied.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I finally got to see this movie for the first time on HBO last night, as the limited theatrical release did not include my area. I am glad to add my two cents to this discussion.

"At what point did we explitives become funnier than humor?" -- The_Adam

Although I think what he intended to ask was, "At what point did expletives become humor?" I think that this is the unspoken question that forms the whole premise of this film and, indeed, the joke itself.

As George Carlin stated, humor is all about context. An appropriate secondary title for this movie could be "The Evolution of a Dirty Joke." Phyllis Diller's reaction after Penn Jillette's telling of "TA" was especially relevant. The version she heard back in her day is quite different from the version(s) circulating now. Yet, after she recovered, she was cackling right along with everyone else.

Beneath the surface, this documentary is really an observation of where society draws the line between funny and taboo. Dana Gould's suggestion of an "Amish" version, with the husband turning on a light switch and the wife using a TV remote, is a perfect example: It was funny (at least, to me) precisely because it's so incredibly tame when compared with, say, Bob Saget's or Gilbert Gottfried's versions. It exemplified that what is sinful to some is unremarkable to others.

I also thought Wendy Liebman's "inverse" telling, by making the build-up squeaky clean and the punchline vulgar, was amusing because it also illustrated George Carlin's assertion, which is that shock-humor is just another uptown word for surprise. Scientific studies have shown that most babies laugh when they are thrown up in the air and then caught for the same reason we laugh at "The Aristocrats" (or rather, some of us do): the element of surprise. We wonder where the comic is leading us, how far is he/she going to take the joke, and if the punchline will be the same. On the other hand, some babies start crying when they are thrown in the air because surprise is not enjoyable to them, and some people are offended by dirty jokes and don't find them the least bit titillating. As another comic stated, humor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. This movie is a testament to that fact.

In a nutshell, "The Aristocrats" (a.k.a. "The Sophisticates") is a dirty joke with an ironically anti-climactic punchline. It's a comedic sandwich, with the beginning and end representing the required slices of bread. What you put in the middle to make it dirty is up to you; you can make it a grilled cheese or go all-out and build a Dagwood.

If you don't like dirty jokes, you will not like this movie. If you really don't like dirty jokes, you will really not like this movie. But if you like to laugh along with comedians who laugh at themselves and the utter silliness of what they do for a living, and if you appreciate that humor is largely comprised of what we consider inappropriate in polite company, then you will most likely enjoy this movie.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"I know you don't use bad language in front of these people. I understand that, okay? 'Cause these are the movers and the shakers. These are the people who are our first line of defense when it comes to the terrorist threat. But the word 'sh*t' makes them cry."
-- Lewis Black, Red, White & Screwed (on performing at the 2005 Congressional Correspondents' Dinner)


~ Lady P

~*~*~*~*~*~
"Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves up."
Batman Begins

reply

I thought this movie was thought-provoking in several ways, including the idea that the joke could go one of two ways, either funny or gross. In the gross versions, as other posters have noted, the comedians use the joke to improvise, warm up, stretch, etc. If you imagine the stuff you said to gross out your friends when you where in middle school, then multiply that by decades of experience and a cynical comic mind trying to outdo his or her peers… it is not hard to see what comes out. (hehe … he said “hard”). In the gross versions, the act is not really an act at all, just a series of progressively more vile, nonsensical and disgusting behaviors.

BUT, in the funny versions, the act has just enough coherence to seem ridiculous but plausible. It is perverted and strange, but it could be a real act. In Jason Alexander’s version, for instance, he describes placing babies one on top of another, and spinning them in opposite directions on their own erections, like plates. You can actually picture it in your mind, and it is funny. Then he adds a little throwaway line about the lighting being fantastic. This telling of the joke relies on the juxtaposition of the outrageous nature of the act with the promoter’s matter-of-fact description. There is more tension in this version, and the punch line actually works to an extent.

For example, several of the funny versions, and even the beginning of the gross versions, start with a very precise, even fastidious, description of the setting. Something like, “The father comes out wearing a white dinner jacket with a yellow rose in the lapel and a bright yellow shirt underneath. He walks from stage left to center as a pin spot follows him. He sits on a chrome chair with a red upholstered seat, lights up a cigarette and pulls out his penis.” See, that’s funny. We don’t expect it. A bizarre and unacceptable insertion into an otherwise normal context. That’s kind of a comic staple.

So … to those who say the movie and/or the joke were not funny, that’s not really the point. Its about the process and structure of comedy. Most jokes aren’t funny after you have heard them once. And this joke, especially, relies heavily on surprise, in the content of the middle portion and in the (admittedly lame) counter-posed punch line. What do you say when someone tells you a joke you have already heard? “Yeah, I’ve heard that one.”

reply

I have one word to say to all of ure to describe how vulgar u guys r even the religous dude. You Should all call ureselves the





















f-ed up idiot that shouldnt live. Sureprised u didnt i j/k

reply

See, it's a movie for a people who are open to anything. You people that hate it are part of what makes us like it. It adds to the tabooness. If you want something mature, this isn't it. It's about as immature as it gets but it's still an art. And good art is nice to see, even if it's not right. It's an example of taking one concept and stretching it in all directions. If you understand the humor behind it, you might actually like the movie.

reply

Art is only what sells and does not require any relation to content. That explains comedic art like this movie. I say not funny is simply not funny and is not ironically funny because it is not funny nor is it art because it is anti-funny or non-art.

From a practical standpoint, this is gibberish. Just the same, this movie is practically pointless and without any value whatever. It is a ridiculous waste of the energy used to make it.

Then there those who claim you lack depth if you don't get the art of the anti-art. Rubbish again!

reply

Well put, dawnoftheidiot. Another satisfied Aristocrats customer.

reply