Everyone knows Cheech & Chong, but does anyone really know Cheech Marin or Tommy Chong? This powerful comic duo created characters so beloved and so iconic that for many people it's really hard to see where the cinematic line ends and real life begins.
Of course for Tommy Chong, he seems to embrace his alter ego having played a very similar character on the TV show That '70s Show and allegedly selling bongs and other marijuana paraphernalia in his down time. Cheech, on the other hand, seems to be taking a different route rediscovering himself in a memorable arc on the TV series Lost as Hurley's estranged dad.
But I'm sure your first reaction was the same as mine. "Holy shit, Cheech is Hurley's dad!"
Today, the talented comedian Sacha Baron Cohen brings his second comic character to the big screen with the debut of Bruno. Both Bruno and Borat were shot under the guise that these people were real, further blurring the edges between reality and fiction.
The entertainment world has always had these characters from the earliest days of Vaudeville through today, so do you think these comic icons are good for comedy? Or, do you think that Hollywood is just being lazy shoveling out tried and true caricatures of something that was funny the first time around?
Share with us your favorite comic icons and whether or not you think it's ok to be typecast as your character or should these actors branch out into other areas or characters.
Update #1
It's very easy to say that Hollywood is just recycling comedic icons these days. The majority of comedies these days are marketed based on the comedic actors/ characters within them. However, comedy is a strange genre. I think that if you found yourself laughing at a character the first time around, it's only natural to want to see those characters doing more hilarious antics. I mean, who didn't see Borat and think, "Man, I'd love to see what else that guy can cook up!" I'll always give my beloved comedic icons a chance, no matter how ridiculous their latest film seems. Cause that's what comedy is based on - being ridiculous.
--Matt from Edgewood, MD
I can't really argue that point Matt. I mean, I'd pay to watch Jay and Silent Smoke a Bowl and Watch Paint Dry. In fact, I'm pretty sure Kevin Smith could land Jason Lee and Ben Affleck for that movie easily.
But, I guess what I'm trying to say more to the point is do comics become too typecast? Paul Reubens WAS Pee Wee Herman until he got caught with his pants down (literally) in that theater. And then, as my colleague Tim rightfully pointed out, he went on to bust completely out of that role with a great performance in Blow.
I wonder if Sacha Baron Cohen is truly talented or just a guy that can play off the wall, bizarre characters.
Update #2
Yes, my reaction was also "Holy shit, Cheech is Hurley's Dad?!"I'm a fan of Sacha Baron Cohen's work, and can't wait to see Bruno. For him, these icons are okay because each time he does these characters, he loses himself completely in them.
To me, comic icons are very hit or miss. Sometimes, an actor will be able to shed a character completely (As the case will hopefully be with Baron Cohen), but other times, that character or icon will stick. For the last ten years, Mike Meyers has been identified with the Austin Powers character, and for 9 years before that, he was Wayne. I hope with Inglourious Basterds, people can see that he can do serious stuff, also.
--Shane from NC
Shane, that is also my biggest fear about Inglourious Basterds too. Are we going to be sitting there saying "One Miiiillion dollars?" Or will be able to accept him in a more serious setting?
I think the jury is still out on Sacha Baron Cohen. I'm not his biggest fan and find his humor hit and miss at best.
Update #3
Hey guys. Good question. I'm very indecisive on this one because on one side of the argument you have Borat and Bruno. My personal opinion (and I'm probably in the minority on it) is that Sasha Baren Cohen is not even remotely funny so he should stick to these kind of comedies simply so that he never invades films I want to watch (Talladega Nights), but on the other hand you have Adam Sandler featured in Judd Apatow's new comedy "Funny People"(Sandler and Apatow were roomates) and it looks absolutely amazing, even though it a complete departure stylistically from what Sandler has done in the past, which makes me wonder if sometimes pidgeon-holing a comedian into a singular kind of schtick may be bad for comedy. Either way, I definitely don't think repetitive charcters from a single actor are going anywhere. With the way studios are these days, they want vehicles they are sure will sell to specific audiences. So you can look forward to the next ten family-friendly, shit! ty beyond all reason Eddie Murphy flicks over the next five years, and expect to see Will Ferrell as a dumbass until the studios can't sell tickets on him any longer. Repitition is the word in Hollywood and there is no getting away from it. Anyway, my rant has reached its end, so have a great weekend guys (mine will be Bruno-free)!
--Eric from Shawnee Mission, KS
All very wise points Eric. I think Eddie Murphy is a prime example of a great comedic actor who got slotted into this whole family comedy man and now has no way of getting out of it. Where's the Beverly Hills Cop Eddie? Or the raunchy stand-up Eddie that put him on the map?
Update #4
I agree that hollywood is just reusing the comedic icons. It is one thing for Neil Patrick harris to appears a a drug-addicticted version of himself in the Harold & Kumar movies (he steals both films) have Elton John appear as himself in 2002’s the country bears just to have some appeal for adults.I think that there are not that many good ideas out there so filmakers try to include big names and big stars in their films in order to grab their audience.
However sometimes hollywood icons sticking to the same type of role work out. For example, many people were awed to see Leonard Nimoy reprise his role as Spock in the latest Star Trek film, opposite Zachary Quinto as the new Spock.
Recently Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences annouced the best picture category to be expanding from five enteries to ten. How do you think this will affect this year’s oscar race?
--Alexis from Hyannis, MA
You are right, NPH owns those movies and while it does have some appeal to fans, I think the reason he was so killer in those movies was how far against type he was playing from Doogie Howser.
I think that by expanding the Best Picture category at the Oscars, you're going to get more popular movies in the mix and less of a chance for the little guys to pull off the upset.
Thanks for all your support and feedback. Have a great weekend.
