Comedy in Parody

Perhaps one of the reasons comedy in the film acts to create suspense is because the slapstick brand of comedy adopted by Matsumoto usually indicates that by the end, the movie’s values are positively charged. AKA a happy ending. And in our core, although we certainly do not hope to see Eddie go through the Oedipus cycle and claw her eyes out, we really do not want to see those events and for them to be declared by the filmmaker as happy. After all, with such an obviously personal film on the part of the director who even includes a character that represents himself, we get a strong sense of living through Matsumoto and feeling his emotions, seeing the world through his eyes. This is mesmerizing, but also horribly violating when he weaponizes it against us and makes us laugh at something we know is not funny.

Nearly all of the plot elements transcribed from Oedipus Rex are done through a comedic lens. Furthermore, most of the jokes in the film come almost entirely through the spectator’s preexisting knowledge of the story being told. This makes Funeral a great reference point in the discussion of what is defined as parody, how that differs from satire, and if humor is a necessary element of this conversion. In the case of Funeral, most of the commentary and emotional impact of the film comes from the humor, and if it were to be stripped of this, it would be a totally different experience and strongly devalue the message.

Several questions rise at this juncture, which I believe everyone will have different answers to. If humor is not required to make something a parody, does this mean a parody is just any story tangential to another known narrative? By this definition, is any adaptation a parody? Is it more or less of a parody when the parodying artist transcribes the narrative into a different medium? What is the difference between a remake and a parody? Ironically, what makes the ending of Funeral the hardest part to watch is its lack of humor, disregarding the cut to the news anchor. Does this mean it stops being a parody in the climax? 

Above are two more clips that further illustrate the ability of Matsumoto to subvert expectations by jumping between hilarity and seriousness. When it comes to this film, reversal is the name of the game; we are regularly shown one thing, then have that thing flipped on its head. For example, in the first clip, watching 'women' in a public space talking about men like they are food and totally objectifying them, then ducking into the men's room to use the urinals in a totally slapstick tone. Or the following scene, featuring the transgender singer seducing the wealthy business men but played out in a dramatic way that treats the issue of trans rights seriously. Ultimately, these moments amount to further complicating the relationship between comedy and parody.