Jerry Lewis was primarily a stand-up comedian. He got his start on the stage and returned night clubs and shows late in life. In between, he performed on radio and later TV. He made a significant number of films in his career, when he had a partner (Dean Martin) or one of several very good co-stars.
Stand-up comics need a straight man and/or good co-star in movies, to be very good. Otherwise, they tend to drift and play to the camera. With partners, they learn to play to the co-star and not the camera. So, they appear in and are enmeshed in the story, where stand-up comics play to the audience. That works very well on the stage, and is necessary with live audiences, even somewhat in stage plays. But playing to the audience in films is deadly. It rarely works, and most of the time it kills a movie. That's why it is seldom seen in movies.
Once in a while in their movies, one or the other of Martin or Lewis might do an aside to the camera in a scene. They still weren't that good or funny. Groucho Marx and the brothers were known to talk to the camera - but their routines and humor were intentionally vaudeville done for the movies, and it worked. Bob Hope and Bing Crosby sort of capitalized on that technique in their road show films. Watching any one of them again these many years after seeing them on early TV, I'm not so sure that those scenes added to the comedy, or that they didn't diminish it some even in their day with their audiences. But, producers, directors and performers have all known that to make films with comical stories, the humor has got to be among the players,. Otherwise the story is diminished or lost and the film comes across as vaudeville or a series of sketches. And, that's not what audiences have wanted most in comedies - since way before the middle of the 20th century.
So, why all this discussion about that now? Because, not having seen the Jerry Lewis movie, "Cracking Up" before now, on DVD, I was surprised that it would be so vaudevillian and bad. One small skit and scene alone toward the end gave me a chuckle. But that's all, and it tried my patience to sit through this whole thing This was nothing more than a bunch of skits tied together, in which Lewis tries to be funny. But, he's not. And, what clinches it as a really bad comedy film in his every two out of three skits, at least, in which he grimaces, or looks forlorn or otherwise purposefully and intentionally looks at the camera. It's as if to say to the audience, "see what I mean?" or, "there it goes again," or such. Well, duh, Jerry, it's just not at all funny. Nor are the pratfalls, slips, trips, drops, falls, head-bangs or anything else. Those things can still be very funny in good comedies, when they happen among or with people in the story. But not in solo appearances in sketches that are purposely done for the audience.
Now, I saw something of cut-outs as the credits ran at the end, and one showed Lewis and Sammy Davis Jr. Laughing. They probably did have fun making the film. But the humor wasn't caught on the celluloid. No, this is a real turkey of a film. I don't think many people would care for this film at all - and most probably wouldn't last past the first 30 minutes. It's too bad. After the mid-1960s, with just a couple of exceptions, Jerry Lewis was very good on stage and in TV shows and appearances. But most of his films after that were not very good.
Stand-up comics need a straight man and/or good co-star in movies, to be very good. Otherwise, they tend to drift and play to the camera. With partners, they learn to play to the co-star and not the camera. So, they appear in and are enmeshed in the story, where stand-up comics play to the audience. That works very well on the stage, and is necessary with live audiences, even somewhat in stage plays. But playing to the audience in films is deadly. It rarely works, and most of the time it kills a movie. That's why it is seldom seen in movies.
Once in a while in their movies, one or the other of Martin or Lewis might do an aside to the camera in a scene. They still weren't that good or funny. Groucho Marx and the brothers were known to talk to the camera - but their routines and humor were intentionally vaudeville done for the movies, and it worked. Bob Hope and Bing Crosby sort of capitalized on that technique in their road show films. Watching any one of them again these many years after seeing them on early TV, I'm not so sure that those scenes added to the comedy, or that they didn't diminish it some even in their day with their audiences. But, producers, directors and performers have all known that to make films with comical stories, the humor has got to be among the players,. Otherwise the story is diminished or lost and the film comes across as vaudeville or a series of sketches. And, that's not what audiences have wanted most in comedies - since way before the middle of the 20th century.
So, why all this discussion about that now? Because, not having seen the Jerry Lewis movie, "Cracking Up" before now, on DVD, I was surprised that it would be so vaudevillian and bad. One small skit and scene alone toward the end gave me a chuckle. But that's all, and it tried my patience to sit through this whole thing This was nothing more than a bunch of skits tied together, in which Lewis tries to be funny. But, he's not. And, what clinches it as a really bad comedy film in his every two out of three skits, at least, in which he grimaces, or looks forlorn or otherwise purposefully and intentionally looks at the camera. It's as if to say to the audience, "see what I mean?" or, "there it goes again," or such. Well, duh, Jerry, it's just not at all funny. Nor are the pratfalls, slips, trips, drops, falls, head-bangs or anything else. Those things can still be very funny in good comedies, when they happen among or with people in the story. But not in solo appearances in sketches that are purposely done for the audience.
Now, I saw something of cut-outs as the credits ran at the end, and one showed Lewis and Sammy Davis Jr. Laughing. They probably did have fun making the film. But the humor wasn't caught on the celluloid. No, this is a real turkey of a film. I don't think many people would care for this film at all - and most probably wouldn't last past the first 30 minutes. It's too bad. After the mid-1960s, with just a couple of exceptions, Jerry Lewis was very good on stage and in TV shows and appearances. But most of his films after that were not very good.