The movie Trading Places, starring Eddie Murphy, Dan Akroyd, and Jamie Lee Curtis would probably be considered a "comedy" by today's standards. But then again, almost everything that attempts to make the viewer laugh is considered to be a "comedy". Today's "comedy" does not have to teach anything, and it does not even have to make an intelligent point about society. It just has to attempt to make the viewer laugh and then it is automatically stamped as a "comedy". However, I think that Trading Places is more than today's comedy. It fits the definition of dramatic comedy according to Aristotle and is meaningful.
Trading Places in my eyes has not just one sympathetic character, but two. Two old men place a one dollar bet that they can change the homeless Eddie Murphy into a successful stockbroker, and a successful stockbroker, Dan Akroyd, into a homeless person. Although the movie has one character rising and the other appearing to fall, in the end both rise and destroy the old men's lives for messing with their lives. Also, at the end of the film, Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy realize that even though they might appear to be completely different people, they are really not different from each other. The movie satirizes the cutthroat nature of the old men who are major stockbrokers, and how they are willing to ruin lives over a one dollar bet. It also shows that regardless of appearance two humans are really not all that different from one another.
This movie exemplifies exactly what Aristotle had in mind when writing his definition of a comedy. It entertains the viewer with laughs, but also teaches a valuable lesson with characters who the viewer can sympathize. If comedies follow Aristotle's guidelines for comedy then they will likely be meaningful works and can teach as much as a tragedy can.
No comments:
Post a Comment