If you expect a comedy from the start you can make a distinction to events not taking them seriously or literally. So this is not laughing at human misery but at the way this misery was presented. Surely, if the event becames to similar to something bad that happened to you it will probably fail in making you laugh, but the majority of other people will accept it.
Also, the authors of the movies make, or at least they should make for certain audience. Some make it for festival juries - yes, it is also a kind of audience but not a very numerous one. The others make it for average public, and it seems to be logical that it is the public of his country, people who share his culture. Therefore it can have problems with being understood and/or accepted in other countries and cultures, but it should be irrelevant: the author has his roots, he belongs to his nation, and it is normal that he understand them and can expect to be understood in return. If the movie isn't extremely local targeted, it is very likely that people from other countries that belong to similar cultures would also find at least some common feelings, messages, jokes.
The problem is with those authors who, either by their own will or by pressure of producents, make movie that would be understood by all audiences and all cultures (so having this big audience it would bring a lot of money). This is typical in modern Hollywood movies, especially comedies - they don't have roots and don't have soul, they are pale and bloodless, they don't target anybody and don't belong to anybody. I maybe won't understand all the aspects of certain country's humor (or tragedy, or...) but I will understand that it exists and surely appreciate it more that have the lack of it in movie made for everybody. I must tell their producers that they didn't manage to make a movie for everybody, because they failed at least one person - me.
reply
share