Was Count Olaf supposed to be a funny character?

[tk]

In both the movies and the Netflix series, Count Olaf has been interpreted as a funny character. I've never really questioned it before, but it's just occurred to me that he's never been portrayed that way in the books. The Baudelaires were always scared of him, and there was never any hint of him doing anything remotely "funny."

I can understand some characters being interpreted as having comedic or funny characterizations for the movies/series, like Mr. Poe (coughs a ridiculous amount), Sir (come on, his face is always covered by smoke???), Principal Nero (mocking children = can be interpreted as 'funny') -- but the main villain himself?

I also understand that the books and the movies/series have different feels to them -- the books are more serious, the other two, not so much -- but I do wonder. I guess Daniel Handler must've agreed with/has had a say in the changes they've made to Count Olaf, since the characterization is very similar in both adaptations.

I must mention that I don't hate Jim Carrey's Olaf or NPH's Olaf -- they're both great, and personally, I do think making him funny is a good move. I'm just saying it's a rather interesting way to interpret the main villain that way.

Thoughts?

[Dante]

There is some opinion that Count Olaf became, if not necessarily a funny character per se, then a character who became something more of a figure of fun in the later books - and this was the opinion at the time of publication, with Olaf's presentation in TGG in particular being compared unfavourably to Jim Carrey's interpretation in the movie (as in, some felt that the movie's style might have unduly influenced the writing of TGG, though there was some dispute as to whether this was chronologically feasible). Olaf was portrayed as an increasingly manic and unhinged character, more prone than before to gimmicky dialogue (like this various evil laughs), remarks that lacked all lucidity (his rambling at the beginning of The End about buying a car, for instance), or blatant stupidy (basic counting errors, failure to understand the force of gravity, and so on). Some readers felt that the character had been diminished and no longer felt frightening, even as the Baudelaires still feared and loathed him; it is worth remembering, in that respect, that the fear they felt for him also diminished. It is worth noting that, across the series, Olaf had been given to the odd joke and funny dialogue, as most characters are - but in earlier books there is an argument that these lines existed in something of a state of tension with Olaf's status as an object of fear; in a way, the very jokes felt like an expression of power.

[Hermes]

The humorous element begins quite early, I think - the Gunther character in TEE, for instance, or the absurdity of the turban-wearing in TAA (which he says is because of his religion, though he clearly isn't a Sikh, the only religion which actually does this). Later in the series, as he becomes more unhinged, he is both funny and scary at the same time.

But even earlier, there is a humorous element in the absurdity of his plots, which would never work (even as well as they do) in the real world. There is a paradox, in that these events, if they were really happening to us, would be genuinely scary, but the idea that they could happen is ridiculous, so to us, the audience, there is a persisting absurdity in the situation. But as 667er Grace said a while ago, in the books the absurdity is largely conveyed through the narration, in the film and show they have to be projected by the actors.

[tk]

May 4, 2020 5:48:18 GMT -5 Dante said:

and this was the opinion at the time of publication, with Olaf's presentation in TGG in particular being compared unfavourably to Jim Carrey's interpretation in the movie (as in, some felt that the movie's style might have unduly influenced the writing of TGG, though there was some dispute as to whether this was chronologically feasible)

Ooh, this is interesting. But a quick Google search showed that TGG was indeed published before the movie came out in 2005, so it's logical to dispute this theory. But it's still interesting nonetheless. I wonder if other authors whose works got adapted into movies/series ever had the original interpretation of their characters influenced by the movies in their yet-to-be-published books...like JK Rowling, for example. Hmm.

May 4, 2020 5:48:18 GMT -5 Dante said:

Olaf was portrayed as an increasingly manic and unhinged character, more prone than before to gimmicky dialogue

I've always viewed these dialougues as annoying more than funny, though. But I guess I can see this as a basis for making him into a funny character in the adaptations.

May 4, 2020 6:11:57 GMT -5 Hermes said:

But as 667er Grace said a while ago, in the books the absurdity is largely conveyed through the narration, in the film and show they have to be projected by the actors.

This though! This is a nice way to put it. I guess it's true, the characters did have to undergo some changes in order to portray the absurdity of the ASOUE universe -- although I think Patrick Warburton did a great job with making the narration funny at times (which I don't think Jude Law managed to do in the movies -- his portrayal of Lemony Snicket was a bit too serious, I think!).

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

I think NPH was forced to play a funny character because Jim Carrey was a funny character. There were people who had only seen the movie and needed something familiar in the Netflix series to not get away soon. About Jim Carrey being a funny character, I agree that it was a decision involving Lemony Snicket's funny plot and narrative.

[tk]

May 4, 2020 7:59:33 GMT -5 Optimism is my Phil-osophy said:

I think NPH was forced to play a funny character because Jim Carrey was a funny character. There were people who had only seen the movie and needed something familiar in the Netflix series to not get away soon. About Jim Carrey being a funny character, I agree that it was a decision involving Lemony Snicket's funny plot and narrative.

It makes sense for them to keep Olaf's character the same so people would recognise him, but I don't think NPH was forced to do that. I think maybe it was the writers' vision, more like?

Now I'm wondering how scary Count Olaf could be on screen had they decided to REALLY make him into a menacing villain...with a tinge of humour? Hmm...

[counto]

I think Olaf only acts as an idiot at times to throw people off. He is shown in all adaptations that he has a sense of intelligence from his years as a former Volunteer.
Also most adults in the SnicketVerse are either stupid or unwilling to believe anything else they've already been told. Which makes sense since Olaf often uses this to his advantage. He does have his moments of humour from time to time. Like when he doesn't know the difference between literally and figuratively.

[Uncle Algernon]

I think the decision to make Olaf a focus of comedy in the Netflix series had less to do with trying to tie back to the Carrey films, and more with the fact that the series as a whole was conceptualized as a (black) comedy from the start. The humour of it is the main appeal. And since the child actors couldn't be expected to take on too comedic roles without a chance of everything falling flat, it fell to the main adult recurring cast to provide the comedy. 

At any rate, I find the series does an admirable job of reframing Olaf's increasing stupidity in the books as his increasing insanity due to his desperation and drinking; the TPP lines about “gravity”, for example, NPH does a great job of selling as Olaf being completely at his wits' ends by that point. 

As for whether Olaf is meant to be funny in the books… he certainly is to one extent or another, inasmuch as ASoUE is built on being absolutely preposterous from start to finish. There isn't one completely plausible human being or plot development in the entire thing, and the atmosphere of absurdism is very much one of the main comedic draws. But there can be room for debate about what kind of "funny" Olaf is; in the first books, he's mostly funny in the way of Dick Dastardly, funny for how much of a pantomime goatee-twirling wretch he is. This does not mean he's supposed to be “goofy”, or, for that matter, intentionally witty in-universe. 

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

I agree. I would only say that the only plausible human being is Uncle Monty, even though he deals with non-plausible animals.