Talk:Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker

"Slapstick" comedy? Isn't it more properly absurdist and/or deadpan?
Slapstick are things like Charles Chaplin, the Three Stooges. There's actually very little slapstick in ZAZ comedies, as far as I remember. At least that's not what it reminds me more of, but rather of those absurd dialogues where people's names sound like once, twice, who, making every sentence have an ambiguous meaning, and those ridiculous things like "cigarette?", "yes, these are cigarettes". "The tape is in the glove compartment", and then proceeds to take dozens of gloves out of the glove compartment until finally finding the tape. There's also things like characters walking through parts of the scenario that shouldn't exist if it wasn't a movie, like an open space, a "hole" on the wall right beside a door, since it's just a scenario and the wall does not go all around forming a real room. There's some slapstick, but it's far from the main thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.18.246.250 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This really jumped out for me, too. "Slapstick" is a specific genre, and while ZAZ productions involve plenty of slapstick (I'm thinking about Frank wrestling the fighting fish and struggling with shopping carts, Topper shooting a chicken with his bow, there's enough examples), but to call this the overarching genre of ZAZ is totally ridiculous. It's satire. Their films (and show) are spoofs. The flavor of comedy is absurdism.
 * Just for a thought experiment: if you were releasing a "best of slapstick" DVD box, would you seriously put a ZAZ film next to Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, the Three Stooges and what have you? No disrespect, but there's so much more to it. 62.163.69.196 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)