Steve Harvey Says "Think Like A Man" Sequel Won't Become "Buffoonery"

17 Comments

• | Reply

• reeler than real deal hollyfield | August 1, 2012 11:06 PMReply

  when it comes to comedy and comedic timing there are a few who do it really well. As a comedian you have to really know you audience and be witty at the same time. Kevin Hart is not that guy as well as steve harvey. They do or say silly things and its passed off as comedy / humor. And they are good a fooling folks. Dave Chapelle is the last real comedian that we have had and before him is Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor, Redd Foxx, Chris Rock and Martin Lawrence. They were conversational and genuinely funny. Steve Harvey appeals to the urban crowds that populates 35-up groups. Where at venues they play "before I let go" and "ain't no stopping us now" and end with the electric slide or the wobba wobba if there are younger folks present. I begrudgingly understand his purpose just as I do Al Sharpton however it would be great to get some new blood up in there. Are there any funny dudes out there besides the one I mentioned. And Kevin Hart does not count. He is a certified coontastic ... please advise

• Adam Scott Thompson | July 17, 2012 7:44 PMReply

  I enjoyed the first film in spite of my reservations, but I don't know that a sequel is necessary. Nevertheless, this is how Hollywood thinks as a whole: Squeeze that fruit till all the juice is in the cup!

• Akimbo | July 17, 2012 8:11 PM

  My sentiments exactly.

• ALM | July 17, 2012 5:24 PMReply

  Merriam Webster's definition of bufoonery: foolish or playful behavior or practice.
  
  If that is indeed the definition that people are using, then "playful behavior" covers almost all comedies that have been released, regardless of the race of the cast. I don't consider "Coming to America" bufoonery, but the movie sure had a lot of great, playful behavior.
  
  It seems to be that the issue is that everyone's definition of bufoonery is different.

• JMac | July 18, 2012 10:07 PM

  NB, it just sounds like you prefer low-key, subtle laid back comedians than clownish comedians. Just because some black comedians are "buffoonish" in the general dictionary sense still does not mean their performances are buffoonish in the negative black stereotype sense - which is what I believe SH was referring to. Maybe that's where the confusion is. Nobody here is talking about dictionary-sense buffoonery. We're talking about degrading, deprecating, stereotypical, disgusting, harkens back to Birth of a Nation, go put some burnt black cork on your face and make those white people laugh cuz you's scarededed of ghosts buffoonery. And yes there are plenty of white dictionary-sense buffoonish comedians in the past and out here now but that's not even relevant. If watching Kevin Hart, Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby, Wil Smith (when he was on Fresh Prince), Dave Chappelle, Bernie Mac, Robin Harris, Martin Lawrence, Sherman Hemsley (lol, gotta love his dance) or any other black comedian's performance makes you feel uncomfortable, insulted, or disgusted that's something you need to look into. Clownish, yes. Over the top, sometimes. Buffoonish, nah.

• CareyCarey | July 18, 2012 2:29 AM

  At first No Brainer, I thought you were totally off base, but when I read further I see were you're coming from. Yes, Kevin Hart's performance could be called buffoonish, but you cleaned it up by saying he was the best part of the movie -- and I will agree with that. However, your take on "most white comedies" IS waaaaaaay offbase and totally ridiculous. I mean, are you saying that Adam Sadler is NEVER over-the-top. What about Steve Martin or Robin William... come on now have they been complete over-the-top buffoons! Have you ever heard of Jim Belushi - huh? You mean to tell me that Bill Murray, Jerry Lewis and Will Ferrell are NEVER over-the-top!? Listen No Brainer, I think what you are experiencing is the blue-eye gaze. That is, you're feeling some type of shame for what we laugh at (what we find funny) and what many white's may not be able to relate to. Look, call it what you want, but a comedian's job is to "clown" - period.

• NO BRAINER | July 18, 2012 1:11 AM

  Saw the racist comedies featuring blacks from the 30's and so on. I do have an understanding of the word and from what I saw of TLAM, Kevin Hart was being a buffoon in the film. He was clowning mostly, which is a typical word in most dictionary definitions of "buffoon." Not only is he clowning, he's going way over the top. Most white comedies, like Hangover, may have some absurd, even grotesque antics but the main characters, the protags, never look over-the-top-clownish doing whatever it is they're doing. There is usually a reason for their behavior, whether it be drugs, booze, etc. Kevin Hart was behaving this way without anything provoking it. There was nothing subtle with his attempt to get us to laugh. Also, just because I thought he was a buffoon, doesn't mean he was a bad one. He was the best part about the absurd movie. He did a damn good job being a buffoon. It worked. If only the whole movie worked for me as Hart's clowning did.

• Laura | July 17, 2012 6:33 PM

  @Jmac. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. I am tired of any kind of Black comedy that white folks don't get is called buffoonery. I am so tired of this. Do I like Steve Harvey as a comedian? Not in particular. Do I think his book "Think Like A Man..." is full of crock? Um, yes. But that doesn't make is work buffoonery. It seems like for some of us, any non-mainstream Black humor that does not poke at social/racial issues is some kind of buffoonery. I don't understand. We are more concerned about the white gaze than anything else. Do we really think that low of ourselves?

• JMac | July 17, 2012 6:23 PM

  I think the issue is that younger viewers don't know how to determine buffoonery because they honestly have never seen it - not in its purest form. Now any show, film, webseries, etc.. that has black people in it being comedic can be labeled "buffoonery" when it isn't. They just need to watch excerpts of racist comedies in the 20's to 50's (or look at screen shots) then maybe they can be better judges of it. The definition is clear ... or should be... and hasn't changed.

• SOULWIZE | July 17, 2012 4:39 PMReply

  I actually like Steve Harvey (in spite of that pic yall are using ;-)-- he knows his lane and is pretty comfortable with it.
  
  Now, about this post-- I watched the movie, read some of the book (does the back cover count?) and heard quite a few interviews Steve did on it. My only thing with the movie, that I hope they address in the sequel, is making the WOMEN the real heroes of the story -- NOT the men as they did in the first one. Check out "Some Like It Hot" and some other classics. If this is a Women vs. Men story, then go look at "First Wives Club"-- or "9-5" even. It just seemed that the story lost focus and became less about the women's goals and more about the men trying to get back at the women. I didn't leave the theater feeling any more connected to the way a man really thinks and how women can use it to their advantage and really turn it around on men. Not having sex until you're ready (is a woman thing, no need for details); redecorating the place you're sharing with someone into the way you like (is a woman thing, again no need for details) and the powerful woman thinking she's better than a man because he makes less than her (hmmm...that's just a cliche thing). In fact these are all archetypes. Which is cool. I mean we can all relate to people like this-- because we either are them, have been them or know someone like them. But, what would be more cool is adding a fresh perspective to how we see them. The biggest issue when you take on characteristics of the opposite sex is not only loss of self, but how you handle experiencing the best AND worst of that sex's life. I didn't really see that happening in this movie. Because for the most part the women acted like... well women. One of the reasons the book became a hit is because it seemed to be revealing secrets into how men behaved and thought. Women don't like emotional detachment, mixed messages or the ultimate feelings of being played.
  
  The men in TLAM all were good. So there wasn't too much to root for because there were no real villains in the movie. Everyone was pretty good, or safe. The "player" wasn't really a player. He was just scared of commitment. In fact, all the guys were scared or simply immature about commitment, except the ones whose wives we didn't see (the psychology of that alone is interesting-- not once did we see what a healthy relationship looks like, we just heard about it).
  
  2 men wrote the script for the movie. Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing-- eh hem-- but what I am saying is that a woman's PROFESSIONAL (read: credited) involvement in the script may have helped shape it so the story could go back to the central concept of: WOMEN acting like men. I definitely advocate a woman-- an AFRICAN AMERICAN female screenwriter-- being hired to write the next one. There are lots of talented screenwriters to choose from. Time to break some more new ground.

• the black police | July 17, 2012 3:31 PMReply

  A sequel is not necessary. Give us something new.

• That guy | July 17, 2012 1:41 PMReply

  How so???

• Donella | July 17, 2012 1:08 PMReply

  It takes vigilance because many people will do just about anything for money. Why Did I Get Married was a great movie that would have done well overseas if the studio had done the publicity. However, Why Did I Get Married Too took a great idea and ran it off the rails on a runaway buffoonery train and I'm glad there was no overseas publicity for it. Vigilance and the strength to resist easy $. Not everyone can do it. Perhaps Steve can.

• NO BRAINER | July 17, 2012 12:35 PMReply

  Yeah but, the first one was buffoonery...

• NO BRAINER | July 18, 2012 12:58 AM

  My sentiments exactly: what would be it's purpose? I think whenever you put a camera on Kevin Hart, you're going to see a buffoon, like seeing an exotic animal in the wild. He was a complete clown in that film, which is a buffoon to me (not to mention the dictionary meaning). And come to think of it, some of the dialogue encouraged buffoonery, but the more talented actors in the film played it so it won't be so obvious. And did I mention how terrible the movie was? It wasn't the worst but it wasn't good either. At the same time, it was below average, which is a pretty bad film that doesn't need a sequel.

• CareyCarey | July 17, 2012 4:58 PM

  How ya doing NoBrainer... I always respect your insight and couragous opinions but in this case, I wouldn't call "Think Like A Man" buffoonery (whatever that mean?). Maybe you can share with us why you thought it was "buffoonery"? Was it the actor's expressions, the message, the dialog or what exactly makes it buffoonery? I know some people use the words coonery and buffoonery in the breath, so what's your opinion on the two? On another note, I wouldn't consider "Think Like a Man" a great movie (it was a so-so event), nor do I believe a sequel is necessary. I mean, it possibly could make money for it's investors, but other than that, what would be it's purpose?

• Man-Over-Bored | July 17, 2012 2:11 PM

  Well-said, NO BRAINER! I lasted all of 10-minutes in the first one for the very reason: Buffoonery (with a capital B)!