This is only the third week of class but I am starting to obtain a greater appreciation for comedy. I am a very serious movie buff and collector of film but of all the hundreds of movies I have collected, I do not even own five comedies. I have a passion Action movies followed by Westerns, Horror, and Psychological Thrillers. I sense that I have become too serious of a person and must learn how to laugh more. This week’s lecture is entitled “Laughter is the Cure for Depression” it is the perfect theme for humor which generally is what makes us laugh or be happy.
In our textbook, “Film Comedy” by Geoff King, we are examining comedy as it relates to narrative. He writes, “Classical Hollywood narrative is usually characterized by the telling of a largely coherent story. A series of events is presented, each of which is meant to be linked in a more or less clear pattern of cause and effects” (King, 20). In other words, film viewers are 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. However, some forms of comedy are known to deviate from the Classical Hollywood narrative of filmmaking. In Chapter One of our textbook “Film Comedy” by Geoff King, he addresses this by writing, “Many film comedies have been seen as little more than strings of gags tied only loosely together by narrative thread.” (King, 20)
That is one of the most interesting things I observed from the comedy film I viewed this week called Duck Soup (1933). The funny this is that the movie appears to have narrative development in that it tells a story, which develops the roles of the main characters, and presents the traditional beginning, middle, and ending to it however, it ends up nothing more “than strings of gags tied only loosely together by narrative thread.” This film mirrors King’s sentiments regarding comedy as he writes, “Comedy, by its very nature, can be given free reign. Absurd behavior is permitted, expected even.” (King, 20)
I love the absurdity in Groucho’s response as to how he will run the nation. He states that there will be: no smoking, no dirty jokes, whistling is forbidden, if chewing gum is chewed the chewer will be pursued, if any form for pleasure is exhibited report it to me and it will be prohibited. I will put my foot down and it will be.. because this is the land of the free. He ends his speech by saying; the last man nearly ruined this place because he did not know what to do with it, if you think this country is bad off now, just wait till I get through with it! This serves as a perfect example of how this movie playfully subverts the power and authority of this fictional government, how people are placed into office, and how wars can be started over misunderstandings. The slapstick style of the Marx brothers, involving exaggerated physical activity was at its best during the “mirror gag scene” between Groucho and his brother. I felt that the scene with Harpo and his horse sharing the same bed was meant to appear incongruous. I also found humor in the exaggerated war sequences. Overall, I really enjoyed the Marx brothers and their zany antics.
I sense that the Marx brother’s film Duck Soup (1933) drew an audience mainly because of their own star power, rather than their appearance in a well-structured Classical Hollywood narrative film. My thought is supported in our textbook, “Film Comedy” by Geoff King. He writes, “Duck Soup is one of the most extreme examples of what could still be achieved in Hollywood by the end of the 1920s, a brand of lunacy described by Henry Jenkins as “anarchistic” comedy, in which narrative momentum is constantly undermined by the madcap activities of the comic stars.” (King, 29)
No comments:
Post a Comment