Judge John Hodgman - Judge Hodgman: Tear Down That Wall

Episode Date: November 23, 2010

Foy argues that breaking the fourth wall ruins film and theater.  His friend Matt disagrees.  Only Judge John Hodgman can decide.

Welcome to the Judge John Hodgman podcast. I'm bailiff Jesse Thorne. This week, Judge John Hodgman teared down this wall. A dispute between friends, Foy and Matt. Foy, our plaintiff, argues that breaking the fourth wall disinvests the viewer from the story in which they are immersed and ruins film and theater. Matt responds that it's a valuable device. Please rise as Judge John Hodgman enters the courtroom. You may be seated. Foy, please stand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God or whatever? I do. Do you swear to abide by Judge John Hodgman's ruling, no matter how odious it may be?

I do. You may be seated. Matt, please rise. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God, or whatever? I do. Do you swear to abide by Judge John Hodgman's ruling, no matter how nefarious it may be? I will. You may be seated. Judge Hodgman?

Greetings, Foy and Matt. Were either of you actually standing up and sitting down as instructed? Absolutely. I could not. I am sitting in my car. All right. I know who is telling the truth and who is the liar in this case. I just solved that logic puzzle. I know who is the human and who is the vampire. Now let's move on. Foy, you are bringing this complaint, is that correct? That is correct, Your Honor. What is the nature of the complaint, please? I think that breaking the fourth wall is unnecessary in almost all forms of literature. in almost all forms of literature.

The reason that I think so is that in order to sort of care about characters, we have to sort of impose meaning on them because we can't care about non-existent things. And so for the duration of the story, we kind of have to pretend that the characters are real even though we know that they're not. And the story has to assist us in that process. Otherwise, the story is thwarting

our attempts to basically prescribe meaning to something that basically has no meaning and so the characters have to act consistent inside their universe and they have to act as if there are things that are really occurring and actually going on and when you break the fourth wall what the characters are basically stating is that the things that are occurring inside the story aren't real. At that point, it becomes harder for the audience to be actually create meaning within the story. All right. Foy, I believe in your opening statement that you said that we cannot care about non-existent things. I would say that that's true. Okay. Can you find one example of human history that would suggest that that is true?

I think that we pretend that they are real for the duration of caring about it. Oh, like for the duration of the Catholic Church, for example. Without passing judgment myself, humans do tend to believe in non-existent things all the time. But we'll move on from there. Matt, how do you respond to this complaint? I think that if you're against breaking the fourth wall, you are basically an enemy of joy and happiness and all things that are good. I think that it's great and a lot of fun. And some of the most innovative and entertaining forms of humor and also general entertainment are found in Breaking the Fourth Wall. I mean, some of the best jokes from Blazing Saddles, for example, came at the end when a chase scene literally broke down the set that the movie was being filmed on and continued on into several

other massive set scenes. That was a ton of fun, and I would be very sorry if I missed out on it. All right, we shall introduce evidence in a moment, but let me give a little history here. I did a little research, and historically speaking, the term the fourth wall actually goes back to Elizabethan England, the Globe Theater, when the play invisible and largely inaudible in order to preserve the authenticity of the play itself and also the privacy of the actors who in that day were all men, even the female parts, and they were, of course, all nude. The great innovation of Shakespeare was the literal breaking of this fourth wall in the first performance of Hamlet, the actor playing Hamlet at the time, I think it was Sir John Gielgud, burst through the wall, shocking the audience, and then delivering

his famous soliloquy, beginning with perhaps the most famous words in Shakespeare of all time, it's clobbering time. So I guess my question is, with all this history of this technique, this dramatic technique of breaking the fourth wall, Foy, why do you hate Shakespeare? I don't hate Shakespeare, but I think that his plays where the fourth wall is explicitly broken are, generally speaking, some of the weaker ones. And I, in particular, think that instances where it breaks the fourth wall damages your ability to care about the characters in question. So Macbeth and Hamlet are among his weaker plays? I don't actually recall an instance of Macbeth or of Hamlet.

I've never heard of this Macbeth. No, I mean, I genuinely don't recall an instance of it occurring in the play. And I think that if you look to something like A Winter's Tale or A Comedy of Errors, those are particularly weak plays that both break the fourth wall. Do you deny that Hamlet breaks the fourth wall in Hamlet? I would deny it. Okay. What would be the instance of where he breaks the fourth wall? The famous aside in Hamlet is when he directly addresses the audience saying, a little more than kin and less than kind, which in reference to Claudius.

That would have ruined it for you, though. That would have taken you out of the moment. If I thought those were instances of breaking the fourth wall. Well, they are. I mean, we can't stipulate two facts. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to choose my facts. A little more than kin and less than kind is an aside. An aside is traditionally directed towards the audience. State correction is not necessarily the

same thing as actually the character stipulating that he is talking to the audience. And more general than that, I think that there's nothing in that statement that indicates that Hamlet doesn't think that it's a real world, nor does I think there's anything in it that particularly indicates that he thinks there's an audience. Well, is he mad or is he mad north by northwest? Is he talking to himself or is he talking out loud to an audience that he believes is there but is not there because he can't see it because technically there's a wall there? You have some examples, I presume, some evidence you would like to introduce, aside from Shakespeare, of moments where breaking the fourth wall are terrible and annoying?

I do. All right. Exhibits A through whatever he gets up to. They are so entered. All right, very well. My favorite example of where this is really terrible is in the movie Funny Games. Has your honor seen this film? No, but I am aware of the film. In a particular scene near the end, there is a scene where one of the killers has their weapon taken from them,

and the person who takes it from them shoots them, and the other killer picks up the TV remote that's nearby and presses the rewind button in order to rewind the film and then stops her from stealing the weapon. I think that that is a particular example of where the fourth wall is breaking the fourth wall is bad because it cheats the the audience out of a scene that it thought was going to basically be real and re-canonizes it. Right. So that... And much more basic than that, at that stage, I don't really understand why I'm supposed to care about the characters in the scene, because if the fourth wall can be broken and you can

change things at any time, then why does anything that is occurring inside the scene matter? So it reminds you in that moment that you are watching a film and therefore you are disappointed because you are not actually watching a human die the way you want it to. I would say that I'm not particularly excited by the thought of watching another. When you watch a snuff film,

if the killer turns to the camera and gives you a wink, does that also annoy you? I don't watch a great deal of snuff, I'm afraid. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, you said that you were watching the movie Funny Games and that you were sad that the character revealed the artifice of the movie at that moment. Is not that movie, which I have not seen, specifically about the voyeurism of watching movies in which people get killed? Yes, but then again, so is Cannibal Holocaust. But Cannibal Holocaust never for a moment puts any effort in pretending that the film is anything other than not real.

Matt, how do you respond to these examples? I think that if you find bad examples of breaking the fourth wall, that doesn't dissociate the entire concept. We don't say that all golf movies are bad because that Who's Your Caddy exists. No, I will say all of golf movies are bad. Okay. But not for that reason. I hate golf. Can we stipulate that there are a few funny parts in Happy Gilmore? Look, there are lots and lots of funny parts in the movie Caddyshack.

I've still never seen it. How do you like that? I've seen the funny parts, but you know what Mark Twain said about Caddyshack? It's a good Bill Murray movie spoiled. Now, buy golf. So I also think that fiction doesn't exist in a vacuum. And if you choose to break the fourth wall and speak directly to your audience, it can provide context for actions that occur on screen

that would otherwise not make sense. For example, if the show is about to be canceled as Arrested Development was, the fact that they are looking for the home buyers organization I can't believe this guy just goes on and on about this. What is going on? Oh, I'm sorry, you weren't supposed to hear that. That was directly to the audience.

But you can... Here he goes again. Oh my god. If they're looking for HBO, then... The thing about it is I sort of agree with them. It can continue, and I think that there's value... At least the other guy had the decency to bring up Cannibal Holocaust and knows we're doing an entertaining podcast. Just boring examples.

I mean, while my opponent hates Shakespeare, I think that he also hates Chaucer or Milton or anyone who would potentially invoke the muse. In those senses, aren't you asking for divine sense? That's a little more than kin and less than kind if you ask me. Ask me. Then you can, all that you need to do is, you're asking for divine help, not for the purpose of making something better, but simply to tell the audience that you're taking this seriously. Well, all those points are very well made. Let me interrupt you there. Do you think that your friend Foy has a problem separating the artifice of storytelling from reality?

Is he delusional? That's a good question. I've only seen one instance where a murder on screen forced him to call the police to report that murder. Was it Cannibal Holocaust? Did he call the police and say, you guys, something is going on. There is some kind of holocaust going on, and I am watching it through a magic box. It might have been.

I think that it's time to move to closing arguments. I think I get everyone's points, but just so that I can clarify and help clarify your closing arguments. Foy, are you saying, well, what are you saying? Say what you're saying and say it again. Well, what are you saying? Say what you're saying and say it again. I think that breaking the fourth wall damages your ability to actually care about the characters in a piece of fiction. Matt, your closing argument? I think breaking the fourth wall is way better than other fourths. The fourth grade, you have far less long division and are less likely to get beat up. Or fourth meal, because it's certainly more delicious and are less likely to get beat up, or fourth

meal, because it's certainly more delicious and less likely to give you irritable bowel syndrome. Do you think you're going to ingratiate yourself to me with jokes? All right, I'll take that under consideration. I'm going to retire to my chambers, and I'll be back in a moment with a ruling. Please rise as the judge retires to his chambers. You may be seated. Foy, you spoke vociferously against the breaking of the fourth wall,

but it sounded like Judge John Hodgman had other ideas. How are you feeling right now? I think at a certain stage it's obvious that I was going to lose, but I still feel like I'm right. I still think that this is sort of fundamentally true. I guess this just mostly means I can't do ad hoc soliloquies about it to other people anymore. Foy, do you accept that Judge John Hodren's ruling will be final and his sentencing will be final as well? Very much in the same way that a ruling by the Supreme Court would be,

which is to say that I might disagree with it, but he will be the ultimate decider in this. Matt, it sounds like the example of William Shakespeare and his nude actors was a strong point in your favor. Were you surprised that history played such an important role? Oh, no, not at all. Any time that I can use the nude to bolster my point, I will certainly do it. And history is definitely on my side there. Are you optimistic about your chances? I am as optimistic as I can be. as optimistic as I can be,

but I'm ready for the ruling simply so that we don't have to have one more party-killing conversation over this. I'll rise as Judge John Hodgman returns from chambers. You may be seated. No boasting like a fool. This deed I'll do before this purpose cool. But no more sights.

Where are these gentlemen? Come, bring me where they are. Macbeth. That's an aside in Macbeth I found on the internet. He's talking about burning down a castle, but I'm about to burn down your castle, both of you. Normally, I don't rule on matters of taste. Sometimes a thing is simply not your cup of tea, and if you drink from someone else's cup of tea, you will be arrested for tea theft, and I do not want to see this happen to anyone. But in this case, I must point out that the aside or breaking of the fourth wall is an important historical dramatic device, and I don't think that we can pick and choose I May agree with you that Funny games for example

May overuse this device or use it in a way that is not enjoyable to you as you know I have not seen the movie because obviously I know already know everything there is to know about it. I Do not I get the gist I'm not required to see that film. I may even have chosen not to see it precisely because I knew it had a certain twee amount of self-awareness that often comes with a direct address to the camera in a movie, for example. I don't necessarily disagree with you. But to say that Hamlet, in an aside to the audience, that's not breaking the fourth wall, when it is by definition the breaking fourth wall. I know because I read about it in Wikipedia.

The important thing to realize is that you can't choose which is which. It is a device. Now, all stories use these devices because all stories are artificial, and that's why we enjoy them. To some degree, we may enjoy them less or more depending on the extent to which they acknowledge their artificialness. But the reality is we do not want to watch our neighbors

through an invisible wall go about their normal lives. Our neighbors are dull and disgusting. We want to watch compelling, artificial, constructed stories through a broken wall that convey the impression of reality without the boredom of reality. Verisimilitude. Now, to take away this one device in the spirit of so-called naturalism, to me, to the artist, is arbitrary and cruel. arbitrary, and cruel. You might as well take away the interior monologue because you don't like it, or the unreliable narrator, or the flashback, or the flash forward, or if you like lost, the flash sideways, and the flash diagonal, and the flash W term with alternate dimensions. Now, if you were saying, Foy, I don't ever want to see or read another movie or book that involves

cloning, I would agree with you. Cloning is a cheap narrative device, and it is gross. But in this case, I must rule in the favor of Matt. And as sentence, Foy, I insist you watch three movies. Some of them will be punishment, just for your crime, and some of them, I think, will open your eyes a bit to the useful use of Breaking the Fourth Wall, or the, let me say, the creative and enhancing use of Breaking the Fourth Wall. The three movies are in chronological order, reverse chronological order, I should say. You have to watch the 1999 TV movie about Steve Jobs and Bill Gates called The Pirates of Silicon Valley. You have to watch Ferris Bueller's Day Off. And you have to watch

The Muppet Movie. And since you're obviously an intelligent person, if you want to write in and say what you liked or disliked about those movies personally, I would be delighted to read your little reviews or long reviews. I don't care what they are, whatever you feel like doing, your reviews of those films, and in particular, their review, their use of the breaking of the fourth wall technique. That is my sentence. Judge John Hodgman rules. This is the sound of a gavel. That is all. Please rise as Judge John Hodgman exits the courtroom. all. Please rise as Judge John Hodgman exits the courtroom. Foy, Judge John Hodgman delivered a stern rebuke to your position. It sounded like that's what you were expecting. How do you feel

about his sentence? I feel misunderstood. Also, I kind of still want to argue with him about whether or not a narrator constitutes breaking the fourth wall. But he has decided, and I shall abide by that, and I shall watch the movies, even though I've seen two of them already. Matt, you emerged victorious, but even you received a mild rebuke from Judge John Hodgman. Do you expect to watch these movies with Foy? I think I will, and I feel lucky because Ferris Bueller's Day Off is awesome, and had Foy won, I would have had to enjoy other John Hughes movies like Drillbit Taylor

just as much because it doesn't break the fourth wall, and I'm not sure I could have done that. Matt, do you think that this will affect your friendship with Foy for good or ill? Only if he throws something at the television once the fourth wall is broken. I could give you my TV if I broke your TV. I don't think that could end our friendship. Foy for once, close your mouth. Hey, hey, hey, hey, Bailiff Jesse, what's going on in here? I'm out of control. Why are you yelling at these guys?

Well, they were being crazy. I had to tase one of them. Oh, no, I was just thinking about how great it would be if I tased one of them. The Judge John Hodgman Podcast is produced by myself, Jesse Thorne, and Julia Smith from MaximumFun.org. You can find John Hodgman online at areasofmyexpertise.com. MaximumFun.org is supported by your donations. You can visit us online at MaximumFun.org slash donate to support the show.

And hey, guess what? Why not join me and Julia and Judge John Hodgman at MaxFunCon 2011? Registration for MaxFunCon opens on November 26th. That's Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving. You can find more information about this wonderful weekend of fun and frivolity and learning and friendship online at MaxFunCon.com. If you have a case for Judge John Hodgman, email us at hodgman at maximumfun.org. That's hodgman at maximumfun.org. Be sure and include both the nature of your dispute and some contact information so we can give you a call. Needed elsewhere now. I'm needed wherever outlaws rule the West, wherever innocent women and children wherever outlaws rule the West.

Wherever innocent women and children are afraid to walk the streets. Wherever a man cannot live in simple dignity. And wherever a people cry out for justice. Bullshit! All right, you caught me. Speak the plain truth. It's getting pretty damn dull around here.