In my opinion, the real issue with Brain Candy isn't that Dave Foley didn't write any of it. The thing that differentiates it so much from the series is that the movie had a PLOT. I think this should be obvious. Brain Candy featured a story arc that began at the outset of the film, and concluded at the end, and every scene...sketch-like though some of them were...was in some way related to said plot. This was not the nature of the series, which was simply a weekly series of mostly unrelated sketches, generally with no real transitional material.
It's the same thing as Monty Python's films (at least Holy Grail and Life of Brian). The Pythons made a TV show that they wanted to have no real "shape" to it...to be anarchic and weird, and showcase a brand of humor that was indefinable...and then, they made films that had plots. You can't compare the two. You can't compare Holy Grail and Life of Brian to Flying Circus. They're apples and oranges. Personally, I think that the Pythons struggled with the changes in their writing that were necessitated by plot. While Holy Grail is a funny film, I think it's vastly overrated. They hit the nail on the head with Life of Brian, though, and plot didn't hamper them one bit. Still, it's a different kind of humor than Flying Circus.
The Kids in the Hall were the same way. In many ways, their series was reminiscent of Flying Circus. Not just because most of the parts were played by the same five guys, and often in drag...but also their comic sensibilities and the off-the-wall nature of many sketches often brought to mind the Pythons' work on Flying Circus. And Brain Candy was the Kids' stab at a feature film where they had to work their comedy into an overall plot. Some may like it better than the series, others won't. But really, it's apples and oranges. You just can't compare TV sketch comedy to a plot-driven comedic feature.
reply
share