As I have often stated this semester, one of my favorite pastimes revolve around watching and collecting movies. I have recently have had to ask myself as to why I had collected hundreds of movies yet only possess a handful of comedies? Spending this semester focusing on the topic of American comedy has helped me to garner a greater appreciation for comedy along with a better understanding of its meaning and purpose; therefore I am really looking forward to adding more comedy to my movie routine. I would like to draw your attention to a couple of reasons why I was attracted to other movie genres such as Action, Westerns, Horror, Drama, and Psychological Thrillers.
I find that I am attracted to a typical narrative format to watching film. In other words, I am more accustomed and comfortable with film that tells a story, which develops the roles of the main characters, and presents the traditional beginning, middle, and ending to it; but my key reason centers on me being a creature of habit. For instance, According to Timothy Corrigan’s Six Approaches to Writing About Film, he writes, “auteur criticisms are one of the most widely accepted and often unconsciously practiced film criticisms today: it identifies and examines a movie by associating it to a director or occasionally with another dominant figure, such as a star say, Clint Eastwood” (Corrigan, 85). In other words, I have a propensity for following the work of specific directors and actors because of their signature moves or special trademarks. For example, I have certain heroes that I follow in each of these genres except for Comedy; however that is about to change. Thus, my newfound hero in comedy will be Mel Brooks. It is my opinion that Actor/Writer/Producer/Composer/Performer/American comic writer Mel Brooks has a very versatile and distinctive style which he features when using the Auteurs approach in his filmmaking.
I liken his style to that of two of my favorite directors, Quentin Tarantino and Ridley Scott; in the sense that they both feature distinctive trademarks or signatures moves that automatically causes my interest to peak when viewing, hearing or reading about any of their films in the making. I will watch with great anticipation as to how these directors are going to take a particular subject matter and visually make it their own. In fact, in an article entitled Auteurs: 7 Movie Directors Who Have Their Own Style by Thomas Mentel of Movies CheatSheet.com; had listed seven modern American directors “who seem to lend credence to auteur theory with a distinctive visual style that appears throughout their bodies of work” he writes. Mentel goes on to rank Quentin Tarantino #6 on his esteemed list. According to the IMDb, Ridley Scott is also highly recognized as an Auteur director. In an article entitled The 110 Top Auteurs (Directors) of All Time! (Ever!) by danpivalwil of the IMDb; Ridley Scott is ranked #1 on his esteemed list.
Let’s take a peek at the trademarks/signature moves of these esteemed directors. Tarantino’s film characters are usually depicted as anti-heroes which are generally defined as having imperfections that separate them from typically heroic characters such as selfishness, ignorance, bigotry, etc. or anti-villains who are generally defined as villains with gentlemanly qualities, a code of honor or some sense of justice; which in most cases he incorporates both categories into his movies and pits them against each other. Tarantino Films are very intense, violent, and bloody; even the title of his movies take on an ominous tone. Regardless of all the twists and turns of the plot and subplots, his movies do achieve a sense of closure which results into suitable endings.
Ridley Scott uses stunning visuals to express his work, he frequently casts Russell Crowe as his lead actor, uses strong female characters; he is viewed as the actor’s director, he frequently uses music by composers Marc Straitened and Hans Zimmer, he begins most films with an info card sequence or montage, displays sweeping landscapes or backdrops, he is called the father of “director’s cut” and his main characters are often on a mission; adventurers; in a foreign land that turns hostile or they are challenged to adapt to the circumstances.
On the other hand, I found an article entitled Mel Brooks as Anti-Serious Auteur by Matt Cibula of popMatters.com and here is a hilarious excerpt, “Mel Brooks is one of the great American filmmakers. Or he was, for a few films. Or he could have been, if he had just trusted his own instincts. Or he would have been, if he had ever been interested in actually becoming one of the great American filmmakers. Or he never was, due to his addiction to the cheap laugh, the fart gag and the dick joke and the horrible pun and all the vulgar moments that disqualify him for any kind of lofty title.” In an article entitled My 25 Favorite Comedic Actors/Actresses by Cliffhanger94 of the IMDb; Mel Brooks was ranked #1 on his esteemed list.
I am also intrigued by the trademarks/signature moves of Mel Brooks such as described in this article entitled Auteur Characteristics in The Films Of Mel Brooks on: http://www89.homepage.villanova.edu/elana.starr/pages/auteurist_comedy_of_mel_brooks.htm such as: a fixation on his Jewishness, the representation of the Other (Jewish, African-American, handicapped, sexual preference, etc.) an emphasis on sex and the scatological, satirizing generic expectations, incorporating music, often written by Brooks himself, that is anachronistic and/or out of whack with what’s going on in the narrative, and tends to work with the same cast and crew. I found this to be a very good article regarding his Auteur Characteristics.
In my opinion, his best signature move occurs when he is including slapstick and farce, to showcase serious subjects. In other words, the materials used in his films are meant to be very progressive. In this article Mel Brook states, “One of the purposes of art is to make things right that is eternally wrong.” ---Mel Brooks he goes on to say, “Comedy is a red rubber ball and if you throw it against a soft, funny wall, it will not come back. But if you throw it against the hard wall of ultimate reality, it will bounce back and be very lively,” –Mel Brooks. This philosophy is what spurred his production of Blazing Saddles (1974) as he stated in his video commentary, “this film was created as a basis to make fun of people and life; in other words, to bring attention to the absurdity of racial prejudice.”
I find that Brook’s philosophy also parallels with our textbook Film Comedy, by Geoff King; he addresses the topic of Racial, ethnic and national dimensions. He writes, “Comedy is often used to ridicule and mock other groups in society, whether on gender, racial/ethnic or any other lines, a tendency that is widespread in human cultures. Comedy of this kind becomes pernicious where it is used to reinforce inequalities, which need not always be the case” (King, 143-144). King also writes, “Race is another arena in which comedy can function as a safety net, permitting the use of material that might otherwise be controversial or impossible to include mainstream film. Comedy licenses the usage without entirely removing the racist edge” (King, 149).
Mel Brooks’ original name is Melvin Kaminsky, The son of Eastern European Jewish immigrants, he was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., on June 28, 1926; he was under three years old when his father died. As a teenager in the early 1940s, Brooks worked as a tummler—a combination social director and entertainer—in the “Borscht Belt” resorts of New York’s Catskill Mountains. He based his stage name on Brookman, his mother’s maiden name. While in the Catskills, the young drummer and budding comic met a saxophonist and comedian named Sid Caesar (1922– ). After serving in the U.S. Army during World War II, Brooks renewed his acquaintance with Caesar, who hired him to write comedy material at $50 a week. When Caesar was chosen to headline the weekly television variety series “Your Show of Shows” (1950–54), Brooks came with him, matching wits with a stellar writing team that also included Carl Reiner (1922– ), Neil Simon and Woody Allen.
Brooks made his debut as a feature film director with The Producers. In that movie, regarded as a comedy classic, Zero Mostel (1915–77) plays conniving Broadway impresario Max Bialystock, and Gene Wilder (1935– ) is his accountant Leo Bloom; the two finaglers conspire to create a surefire failure that, ruinously for them, turns out be a big hit. The film, originally called springtime for Hitler, was officially released in November 1967. There was difficulty in getting a distribution deal, but after British comic actor Peter Sellers (1925–80) viewed it at a special screening, he paid for and signed an ad in the trade newspaper Variety, in which he declared the movie a “masterpiece.” Opening in New York in March 1968, The Producers went on to win Brooks his second Oscar, this time for best original screenplay. Brooks continued to focus on parody during the 1980s and ’90s, poking fun at sci-fi in Spaceballs (1987), swashbuckling adventure in Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993), and, for a second time, horror movies in Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995). Due to his tremendous versatility Mel Brooks has a very impressive and extensive Filmography Page per IMDb.
I read an article entitled Why Do People Laugh? By Sophie Scott of thegaurdian.com and a couple of her excerpts caught my attention. She writes, “If you ask people why they laugh, they tend to talk about humor, comedy and jokes. Humor, comedy and jokes do seem to be very important to humans: as far as we can see, as long as humans have had language, we have had humor”
She also writes, “Robert Provine has demonstrated that in the wild, laughter is a largely social behavior, a way of making and maintaining social bonds. He has argued that though we associate our laughter with humor and jokes, in fact we laugh most when we’re talking to others, and in those conversations we are rarely laughing at jokes. And laughter is hugely potentiated by the presence of other people – Provine has shown that we’re 30 times more likely to laugh when we are with someone else than when we are on our own.”
After contemplating Provine’s argument, I would have to say that if I am watching a Mel Brooks film this rule would not apply; because without a doubt he will draw laughter out of me regardless to whether I am in a group or alone! Kudos to Mel Brooks: My Newfound Comedy Hero.
Work Cited:
Six Approaches to Writing About Film (Corrigan, Timothy, 79-93)
No comments:
Post a Comment