4 ms·

This is culturally related to the US dislike of dark comedy. Very few movies in this genre have ever been successful in the US whereas they are a stock in trade

This is culturally related to the US dislike of dark comedy. Very few movies in this genre have ever been successful in the US whereas they are a stock in trade in Europe. (Dr Strangelove, Bad Santa...??)

Crito 12y ago
The Coen Brothers' Burn After Reading and Fargo. Also I'd argue MASH, which was massively successful, though that might be stretching dark comedy. Depends on the episode I guess.
- coldtea 12y ago
  MASH maybe. Burn After Reading and Fargo, not so much. Not that they weren't dark -- just that they weren't a success in any mainstream way, especially the first.
  - TylerE 12y ago
    Fargo made over 8x it's budget in income on the original theatrical run. That's major success. For comparison, a traditional american "happy comedy", Happy Gilmore released the same year, made a third less despite costing almost twice as much.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      >Fargo made over 8x it's budget in income on the original theatrical run. That's major success. Well, it's budget was a tiny (by Hollywood) $7 million, so that's not saying much.
      - TylerE 12y ago
        Back then that wasn't nearly as small as it sounds like. Even the massive summer CGI-fest of the year, Independence Day, was only a $75m budget.
        coldtea 12y ago
        That's mostly because the Independence Day director was known for being very cost-effective and frugal. It was a blockbuster, but didn't start as a big spending production like the Titanic for example. But even that is 10 times what Fargo cost already. Sub 10 million have been small peanuts in Hollywood even in the eighties, by Fargo's time a movie was not even taken seriously by big studios if it had such a budget. Heck -- an A-list actor would command 10-15 million just for himself.
        jeremysmyth 12y ago
        Burn After Reading had Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Can't get much more A-list than that. It also had John Malkovich and Tilda Swinton, who are no lightweights. And it came in at a budget of under 40M.

Crito 12y ago

The Coen Brothers' Burn After Reading and Fargo. Also I'd argue MASH, which was massively successful, though that might be stretching dark comedy. Depends on the episode I guess.

coldtea 12y ago
MASH maybe. Burn After Reading and Fargo, not so much. Not that they weren't dark -- just that they weren't a success in any mainstream way, especially the first.
- TylerE 12y ago
  Fargo made over 8x it's budget in income on the original theatrical run. That's major success. For comparison, a traditional american "happy comedy", Happy Gilmore released the same year, made a third less despite costing almost twice as much.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >Fargo made over 8x it's budget in income on the original theatrical run. That's major success. Well, it's budget was a tiny (by Hollywood) $7 million, so that's not saying much.
    - TylerE 12y ago
      Back then that wasn't nearly as small as it sounds like. Even the massive summer CGI-fest of the year, Independence Day, was only a $75m budget.
      - coldtea 12y ago
        That's mostly because the Independence Day director was known for being very cost-effective and frugal. It was a blockbuster, but didn't start as a big spending production like the Titanic for example. But even that is 10 times what Fargo cost already. Sub 10 million have been small peanuts in Hollywood even in the eighties, by Fargo's time a movie was not even taken seriously by big studios if it had such a budget. Heck -- an A-list actor would command 10-15 million just for himself.
        jeremysmyth 12y ago
        Burn After Reading had Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Can't get much more A-list than that. It also had John Malkovich and Tilda Swinton, who are no lightweights. And it came in at a budget of under 40M.