Realism + HUMOR

**airpezman** · 02-01-2005, 04:18 PM

Ok... How realistic do Humor characters need to be?

QUESTION 1:Could you honestly meet these characters at a super-market in real life possibly?

Example: Natalie Sintek's "Ruthless".

QUESTION 2 :Was Sylvia a "realistic" character that often times is found at shopping malls. OR was Sylvia a "charicature" OVER THE TOP and not 100% realistic.

Where does REALISM come into play with Humor characters?

Pez

**IERULZ** · 02-01-2005, 04:35 PM

This is like asking if apples belong in paintings. They are appealing as part of a still life but may not work as well sticking out of the Mona Lisa's mouth. Just my opinion.

**Chewie** · 02-01-2005, 05:00 PM

While I think IE's analogy is a little...er...bad, I think I agree.

Realism doesn't really matter one way or another, in humor. Exagerrating or focusing on certain characteristics or mannerisms of characters is key. Whehter or not those are commonplace in the real world is irrelevant.

**jman255** · 02-01-2005, 05:23 PM

Realistic characters are cool and all, but I think every piece needs some type of charicature or 100% non-real...as long as it is not TOO far over the top.

**flyfarfromhere** · 02-01-2005, 07:24 PM

realism? i play satan, the antichrist, two aliens, and a cannabalistic grandpa. take that realism!

i've actually gotten a comment, "Somehow, in Squee's world, this all seems natural, like it could really happen."

**Ryan** · 02-01-2005, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by airpezman

QUESTION 1:Could you honestly meet these characters at a super-market in real life possibly?

Well considering that the environment for my whole HI is a supermarket, I'm going to have to go with a YES. I've even run my piece at a supermarket and it seemed like it really worked.

**SniffyGuy** · 02-02-2005, 04:53 PM

This really does depend on the piece. I can't imagine you doing Captain Underpants and having "real" characters, if by "real" you mean "relatively normal."

However, I think it is imperative to, no matter what piece you're doing, have "real" characters - in this case "real" meaning "well developed." There's a difference between having over-the-top and insane characters and having shallow characters. Look at Chris Hejl's Batman. Batman was probably one of the most out-there characters I've seen in an HI, but he was still a good character because he was more than just a pose and a voice. He was still a character, albeit an extremely eccentric one. Another good example is Kramer from Seinfeld. Real as in fleshed out and deep? Yes. Real as in normal? No way.

**Ryan** · 02-02-2005, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by SniffyGuy

Look at Chris Hejl's Batman. Batman was probably one of the most out-there characters I've seen in an HI, but he was still a good character because he was more than just a pose and a voice. He was still a character, albeit an extremely eccentric one.

Boy did I love that pourpoise. In that piece, he really had a purpose.

**Corn** · 02-05-2005, 11:15 AM

I think if you can make the characters real in HI it's funnier. I did DI and DUO before I even touched HI. I was so use to being real people and being natural with the characters. When I started HI I took the aspect of natural acting and just merged it with the wackyness of the intense characters in Pageant. I see too many times in HI you don't see growth in the characters, you don't see change and build. Everyone's characters have the same intensity level and stay on the same plane of thinking the whole time. I like to see HI's that the characters grow and it just gets wackier and wackier. What I think is funny is when I can look at an HI and go "that's so my next door neighbor, or that's so my sister boyfreind," I can relate to them. And no matter how odd a script and wacky a script is there is always some type of meaning and depth behind the writing, and it's essential to find that depth so no matter what the content of your piece is everyone can relate to it.