by Finnegan Burres
The Yes Men take a look at big companies, particularly oil companies, that are irresponsible and unaccountable for their misdeeds and misuse of their immense power. Beyond this, they attack the general greed that plagues the free market, and the firm grip this ideology has on the American government. And, having understood this film so well that I can concisely describe their goal, I feel as though I've conserved room in this paper to say that I have been inspired by these two gentlemen, international pranksters, and people who, themselves, use a prank to cost a group of people two billion dollars in stock shares. This, to me, says that the artist, and the comedian has a far greater power in this world than I previously thought.
Now, back to the matter at hand, this film follows two men who use deception in the press to misrepresent the actions of big companies in order to incite a reaction from the public that will end up pressuring the companies into change. First, they go on international television to say that their large oil company has decided to liquidate a 12 billion dollar subsidiary in order to pay reparations to people affected in a third world country. The point of this video was to demonstrate that wealthy corporations operate without much needed restriction, and the filmmakers use documentary footage of the stupid being stupid in order to illustrate how deep the problems they see are going.
The biggest of the many laughs I had over this film came from the occasions when Andy was standing in front of a group of investors, businessmen, or even world audiences and lying through his teeth. And, not only this, but the fact that the audiences are captivated and enthralled by a flat out lie. This comedy presents people we know, people in the press, people in nice suits, high ups, those we assume to be efficient, no-nonsense people, as being easily duped and manipulated. But of course, the real laughs were taken from information completely untouched by the film makers, such as reporters offhandedly remarking about the relative insignificance of natural disasters in comparison to terrorism, or the relief in hearing a company say that they care very little about the value of a human life.
So, these film makers have managed to exaggerate the focus of major corporations on one primary goal that seems to supersede the need for basic human rights and respect by showing that they have completely disregard human life in favor of making money. And, they have also used a series of actions that seems to take the power back, and put it into the hands of the people in the conflict with big corporations. When these companies can defend themselves with armies of lawyers, and century long policies that contain hidden loopholes, audiences can watch films like this to find out that the little guy can still manage to gum up the works, and tip the odds in the favor of morality.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Mission: Unlikely
by Caleb Richardson
Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? is a documentary by Morgan Spurlock. The film follows Spurlock as he travels the Middle-East “looking” for Osama Bin Laden. Although he is looking for Osama Bin Laden he spends the majority of his time interviewing civilians of the Middle-East. It’s through these interviews we get the true sense of this documentary.
Spurlock starts by trying to clear up some of the confusion that may be the core reason as to why America(ns) are hated so much in the Middle-East. “He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." FDR said this and it is this quote is the leading line of an animated sequence. Spurlock explains that America practices the enemy of my enemy idea. Although we don’t fight side by side we will supply training and supplies to groups from time to time. It’s through this idea however we create our enemies down the line. The example used is that we work with Egypt so closely even though reports of torture and corruption come out of the country. “When it came to our freedom it became ok to sacrifice the freedom of others.” (Spurlock)
The most time spent with people, during interviews, was in people’s home discussing politics and the countries’ relationship with America. This is where the documentary will hit hardest home in America. It was during these interviews we got the most real information about the people of the Middle-East when compared to Fox News. Revealed to us was not only were some of these people sane, but most of these people have families with the same values of Americans. These parents preached of how they so desired to have their children receive a good education and not get swept up in violence. A perfect comparison within our own country could be looking to our past during the 1960’s. Bill Cosby, a black comedian, had an audience love him from both sides of race when the country couldn’t have been more divided on color. “(Cosby’s) routines transcended race by talking about kids and parenting.” (Misch 39)
Everywhere Spurlock went he asked, “Where is Osama Bin Laden?” This question would lead to many different places. During the interviews one other idea became clear: Osama Bin Laden being captured or killed wouldn’t change anything. The Hydra concept, one head is taken two would replace it. When in Pakistan Spurlock asked this question and the civilians always pointed towards the mountain. Most of the people who did this laughed afterwards. It was here that people laughed together and, “When people laugh together, they also agree on a certain ideological alignment, if only for a moment.”(Sands)
The American troops worked very hard to maintain a friendly relationship with the civilians of the Pakistani town Spurlock visited. So when they all laughed together what was this a sign of? Spurlock would like us to believe that one day there will be Peace in the Middle East. As silly as this may sound, the stereotype about Arabic people is that they hate Americans, but he was invited into their homes, shared their food, and was treated with great respect by almost everybody.
Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? is a documentary by Morgan Spurlock. The film follows Spurlock as he travels the Middle-East “looking” for Osama Bin Laden. Although he is looking for Osama Bin Laden he spends the majority of his time interviewing civilians of the Middle-East. It’s through these interviews we get the true sense of this documentary.
Spurlock starts by trying to clear up some of the confusion that may be the core reason as to why America(ns) are hated so much in the Middle-East. “He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." FDR said this and it is this quote is the leading line of an animated sequence. Spurlock explains that America practices the enemy of my enemy idea. Although we don’t fight side by side we will supply training and supplies to groups from time to time. It’s through this idea however we create our enemies down the line. The example used is that we work with Egypt so closely even though reports of torture and corruption come out of the country. “When it came to our freedom it became ok to sacrifice the freedom of others.” (Spurlock)
The most time spent with people, during interviews, was in people’s home discussing politics and the countries’ relationship with America. This is where the documentary will hit hardest home in America. It was during these interviews we got the most real information about the people of the Middle-East when compared to Fox News. Revealed to us was not only were some of these people sane, but most of these people have families with the same values of Americans. These parents preached of how they so desired to have their children receive a good education and not get swept up in violence. A perfect comparison within our own country could be looking to our past during the 1960’s. Bill Cosby, a black comedian, had an audience love him from both sides of race when the country couldn’t have been more divided on color. “(Cosby’s) routines transcended race by talking about kids and parenting.” (Misch 39)
Everywhere Spurlock went he asked, “Where is Osama Bin Laden?” This question would lead to many different places. During the interviews one other idea became clear: Osama Bin Laden being captured or killed wouldn’t change anything. The Hydra concept, one head is taken two would replace it. When in Pakistan Spurlock asked this question and the civilians always pointed towards the mountain. Most of the people who did this laughed afterwards. It was here that people laughed together and, “When people laugh together, they also agree on a certain ideological alignment, if only for a moment.”(Sands)
The American troops worked very hard to maintain a friendly relationship with the civilians of the Pakistani town Spurlock visited. So when they all laughed together what was this a sign of? Spurlock would like us to believe that one day there will be Peace in the Middle East. As silly as this may sound, the stereotype about Arabic people is that they hate Americans, but he was invited into their homes, shared their food, and was treated with great respect by almost everybody.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Some Anarchy in Your Soup
by Charles Rainbow
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)
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)
She Done Him Wrong/On the Right Side of History
by Melanie Cross
She Done Him Wrong challenged and tried to subvert societal norms by pushing the envelope with regards to sexual undertones and innuendo. Lady Lou, the main character, played by Mae West is a confident, outspoken, and sexual woman. This persona was not necessarily considered a socially acceptable one when the film came out, although based on the popularity of the film and its star, it was at least an intriguing one for many people to witness. More so than her appearance and attire, it was West’s demeanor and Lady Lou’s attitude that were sexually charged. An example of this attitude was when she was having a conversation with her servant and said, “Listen, when women go wrong, men go right after them”. Another example of this was early in the movie when Lou is first shown walking into the saloon. An old town woman says, “Ah, Lady Lou, you’re a fine gal, a fine woman.” Lou’s response is, “One of the finest women ever walked the streets.” Although these lines were meant to be comedic and light-hearted, I’m sure they raised more than a few eyebrows when audiences (and movie censors) heard them. Not only was her attitude provocative, her lines were rich with double entendre, especially when she was shown flirting with one of the many men in the saloon who were under her spell. “Outrageous coincidences or deus ex machina devices” as Geoff King points out in his book Film Comedy, are more accepted in comedies than they would be in other genres of film. This device can be seen at the conclusion of film, when Lady Lou is proposed to instead of being arrested. In a drama, this would be a far-fetched scenario and most likely be detrimental to the way in which audiences respond to it. On the contrary, in the case of a comedy like She Done Him Wrong, this ending seems to fit somehow with the overall tone and helps to wrap everything up nicely, while playing on the irony of the situation for comedic value.
She Done Him Wrong challenged and tried to subvert societal norms by pushing the envelope with regards to sexual undertones and innuendo. Lady Lou, the main character, played by Mae West is a confident, outspoken, and sexual woman. This persona was not necessarily considered a socially acceptable one when the film came out, although based on the popularity of the film and its star, it was at least an intriguing one for many people to witness. More so than her appearance and attire, it was West’s demeanor and Lady Lou’s attitude that were sexually charged. An example of this attitude was when she was having a conversation with her servant and said, “Listen, when women go wrong, men go right after them”. Another example of this was early in the movie when Lou is first shown walking into the saloon. An old town woman says, “Ah, Lady Lou, you’re a fine gal, a fine woman.” Lou’s response is, “One of the finest women ever walked the streets.” Although these lines were meant to be comedic and light-hearted, I’m sure they raised more than a few eyebrows when audiences (and movie censors) heard them. Not only was her attitude provocative, her lines were rich with double entendre, especially when she was shown flirting with one of the many men in the saloon who were under her spell. “Outrageous coincidences or deus ex machina devices” as Geoff King points out in his book Film Comedy, are more accepted in comedies than they would be in other genres of film. This device can be seen at the conclusion of film, when Lady Lou is proposed to instead of being arrested. In a drama, this would be a far-fetched scenario and most likely be detrimental to the way in which audiences respond to it. On the contrary, in the case of a comedy like She Done Him Wrong, this ending seems to fit somehow with the overall tone and helps to wrap everything up nicely, while playing on the irony of the situation for comedic value.
Modern Times are Rough
by Isaac Fletcher
Modern Times was rather an interesting movie. One of the outstanding features of this film is that it is a silent film made very soon after the implementation of sound in movies. Charlie Chaplin being so popular was one of the only people that would have been able to release a somewhat successful silent film at this time. Obviously, the choice to keep the film silent, or at least mostly, was an attempt to subvert societal norms. Charlie seemed to most definitely be very aware of societal issues and brought cultural commentary into his films like Modern Times. The movie exaggerates elements of society in order to point out certain absurdities of the times, mocking the assembly line and technologic advancements that were beginning to disturb the way things had been. It is fairly reflective of the situation that Charlie was in, with the advent of sound in film and his refusal to work with it, so the tramp in Modern Times has new technology forced upon him and somewhat loses his mind, along with his job. The tramp continuing on to be arrested and find it to be a pleasant experience also makes a cultural statement about the times and how the depression makes being imprisoned almost better than being starving and homeless. As the lecture talks about, much of the movie sets up its acts into 3 parts, the setup, the experiment, and the punchline. This is seen in the opening sequences of the film where we are introduced to our character, his struggle with technology and the assembly line and keeping up. Then he is tested more against absurd technology, and finally goes a bit crazy because of it. Overall, the film makes attempts to subvert societal norms by firstly being a silent film in a talking era, as well as commenting on the possible drawbacks of some of the technological innovations, and also reevaluating the notions of living conditions (particularly prison versus the depressed economy).
Modern Times was rather an interesting movie. One of the outstanding features of this film is that it is a silent film made very soon after the implementation of sound in movies. Charlie Chaplin being so popular was one of the only people that would have been able to release a somewhat successful silent film at this time. Obviously, the choice to keep the film silent, or at least mostly, was an attempt to subvert societal norms. Charlie seemed to most definitely be very aware of societal issues and brought cultural commentary into his films like Modern Times. The movie exaggerates elements of society in order to point out certain absurdities of the times, mocking the assembly line and technologic advancements that were beginning to disturb the way things had been. It is fairly reflective of the situation that Charlie was in, with the advent of sound in film and his refusal to work with it, so the tramp in Modern Times has new technology forced upon him and somewhat loses his mind, along with his job. The tramp continuing on to be arrested and find it to be a pleasant experience also makes a cultural statement about the times and how the depression makes being imprisoned almost better than being starving and homeless. As the lecture talks about, much of the movie sets up its acts into 3 parts, the setup, the experiment, and the punchline. This is seen in the opening sequences of the film where we are introduced to our character, his struggle with technology and the assembly line and keeping up. Then he is tested more against absurd technology, and finally goes a bit crazy because of it. Overall, the film makes attempts to subvert societal norms by firstly being a silent film in a talking era, as well as commenting on the possible drawbacks of some of the technological innovations, and also reevaluating the notions of living conditions (particularly prison versus the depressed economy).
Monday, January 25, 2016
Mediocrity Rules!
by Katrina Bertz
The theme of Idiocracy revolves around the dangers of modern capitalism and consumerism. It presents a futuristic world, which is an exaggeration of what could happen. This is a common theme in comedy: the political satire. As King states, “some forms of comedy, such as political satire and black comedy, can be sharp, controversial and, in some cases, commercially or politically risky for those involved,” (King p.2). The same can be said for Idiocracy in that, it was a smart satire, which was poorly marketed by the distributors and misunderstood by audiences due to its content. It posits a world that has gone through years of de-evolution, to the point where everyone is incredibly dumb and corporations completely control the population. This is what Mike Judge was trying to say with his film: if we continue to allow corporations to control us, as well as continue to make reading and writing less important, this future is not that far off.
To convey that kind of a message while keeping the film a comedy, however is difficult. There must be a blend of absurd situations which could never happen (like Starbucks offering hand-jobs and facing famine because people are unaware of the values of watering crops) and plausible situations (like the corporation Brawndo controlling all of America and marketing campaign slogans being repeated by the people as though they are scientific fact). “It is the simultaneous presence of the two frames of reference- absurd and plausible/logical- that is central to the creation of the comic effect,” (King p.15). It becomes satire by this “biosocial” construct, telling a cautionary tale and disguising it with absurd situations. This is where the comedy comes through.
Idiocracy suffered the same fate as many other political satires throughout the history of American film; it was too smart for people to truly understand what the writer was trying to say. In Idiocracy’s case, however this adds extra irony to its fate. The plot is about a future world where people don’t understand complex themes and concepts. Idiocracy didn’t do well because audiences couldn’t grasp its concept. This is why the film’s theme is so important: while the actual de-evolution of the human race seems extremely unlikely, the notion of corporate take-over and the loss of intellectualism seems highly likely.
King, Geoff. Film Comedy. Wallflower Press. London and New York. 2002. Print.
Pulling the Strings
by Taylor Russo
The film Team America: World Police, is a political satire that makes fun of Hollywood action movies by using exaggeration (pg. 5), puppet characters and musical outbursts throughout the film. The creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone are known for making jokes about controversial topics going on in the world by using raunchy, offensive humor and violence as a key ingredient to poke fun. The underlying message of the film is how America tries to involve itself in everyone else’s business and how we try to “police” the world, but also a little bit of bringing to people’s attention how Hollywood celebrities try to use their star power to sway people on certain political issues.
Team America polices the world for good, but usually results in doing more harm than good. For example, when Team America destroys the terrorists who are trying to attack Paris, they end up doing more damage to the city than the terrorists probably would have done. Team America leaves the city destroyed and in flames, however, they consider it a victory because they “saved” Paris. After Gary infiltrates the terrorists in Cairo, Team America kills them all but also leaves Cairo absolutely destroyed. It is brought to our attention that the majority of the world is not a fan of Team America when a news reporter says “Team America once again pissed off the entire world by blowing up half of Cairo”. Cairo attacks led the terrorists to blow up the Panama Canal in retaliation. The Panama Canal, once again not in the United States, causes Team America to go after the terrorists again. The teams job of policing the world that they probably have no business doing, is an on going cycle of destruction. This film is comedy in the sense of laughter, anarchy and disruption of harmony, but also in the sense of movement towards harmony, integration and a happy ending (pg. 8) (other than the insect crawling out of Kim Jong-Un’s mouth and flying away). The film uses the most popular entertainment found in Hollywood comedies, musicals (pg. 4), to keep the seriousness of the issues presented lighter and more humorous. For example, Kim Jong-Un breaks out into musical at the beginning of the film with a song about how “ronrey” he is. It is quite amusing.
Lastly, it could also be inferred that the liberal celebrities part of the Famous Actor's Guild, or F.A.G., who criticize the team, are going public with their thoughts to get the rest of the world to agree with them, is a poke at how celebrities in reality do try to publicize their opinions to get people on board with them and bring issues to the publics attention. The F.A.G. characters are portrayed as slightly arrogant, not too bright, know-it-alls. An example I thought showed that well was when F.A.G. and Team America broke out in a fight and one of the actresses said “Let’s go bitch. I’ve done action movies!” Indicating she actually had never been in a real fight before, just scripted ones.
The film Team America: World Police, is a political satire that makes fun of Hollywood action movies by using exaggeration (pg. 5), puppet characters and musical outbursts throughout the film. The creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone are known for making jokes about controversial topics going on in the world by using raunchy, offensive humor and violence as a key ingredient to poke fun. The underlying message of the film is how America tries to involve itself in everyone else’s business and how we try to “police” the world, but also a little bit of bringing to people’s attention how Hollywood celebrities try to use their star power to sway people on certain political issues.
Team America polices the world for good, but usually results in doing more harm than good. For example, when Team America destroys the terrorists who are trying to attack Paris, they end up doing more damage to the city than the terrorists probably would have done. Team America leaves the city destroyed and in flames, however, they consider it a victory because they “saved” Paris. After Gary infiltrates the terrorists in Cairo, Team America kills them all but also leaves Cairo absolutely destroyed. It is brought to our attention that the majority of the world is not a fan of Team America when a news reporter says “Team America once again pissed off the entire world by blowing up half of Cairo”. Cairo attacks led the terrorists to blow up the Panama Canal in retaliation. The Panama Canal, once again not in the United States, causes Team America to go after the terrorists again. The teams job of policing the world that they probably have no business doing, is an on going cycle of destruction. This film is comedy in the sense of laughter, anarchy and disruption of harmony, but also in the sense of movement towards harmony, integration and a happy ending (pg. 8) (other than the insect crawling out of Kim Jong-Un’s mouth and flying away). The film uses the most popular entertainment found in Hollywood comedies, musicals (pg. 4), to keep the seriousness of the issues presented lighter and more humorous. For example, Kim Jong-Un breaks out into musical at the beginning of the film with a song about how “ronrey” he is. It is quite amusing.
Lastly, it could also be inferred that the liberal celebrities part of the Famous Actor's Guild, or F.A.G., who criticize the team, are going public with their thoughts to get the rest of the world to agree with them, is a poke at how celebrities in reality do try to publicize their opinions to get people on board with them and bring issues to the publics attention. The F.A.G. characters are portrayed as slightly arrogant, not too bright, know-it-alls. An example I thought showed that well was when F.A.G. and Team America broke out in a fight and one of the actresses said “Let’s go bitch. I’ve done action movies!” Indicating she actually had never been in a real fight before, just scripted ones.
Monday, January 18, 2016
The Social Function of Comedy
by Terry Snyder
In Sullivan’s Travels, the main character, Sullivan, is a man who makes movies. He wants to make a film about the dire current situation of the world as he sees it. Although he has made popular comedies, he wants to move into more serious work to reflect the times people are living in. To that end, he decides he should go out and experience “trouble” for himself to make a more realistic film. Through most of the picture, he is not really living a hard life because of constantly being saved by people who work with and for him. At the end, he is believed to have died and ends up on a chain gang with a brutal overseer and truly does experience trouble. While he and the rest of the prisoners live in misery, they occasionally are allowed to see a movie. They are taken to a church where they view a Mickey Mouse cartoon. The prisoners and eventually Sullivan are laughing uproariously and he soon realizes that the comedy is doing much more to brighten the prisoner’s life than a serious picture would.
That is the social function of comedy that I believe this picture is stressing. It was released in December 1941, the same month and year that the U.S. officially entered WWII, after the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor. But even before then, there was the knowledge of what was happening in Europe and the possibility that we would eventually be involved. I think Sullivan’s Travels reflects that period of history and the idea that people need to get their minds away from the dismal affairs of the world and just laugh and be entertained.
In Funny, The Book, by David Misch, he says, “…humor has been critical for humanity’s survival and, perhaps as importantly, our need to do more than just survive.” He then devotes an entire chapter of the book to the Marx Brothers. All of their movies except the first one were released in the 1930’s and 1940’s. The 1930’s in particular were very dark times in the United States after the stock market crash and subsequent depression in 1929. The Marx Brothers movies were very funny and very popular, mostly because it was an escape from reality. The price of a movie ticket ranged from a few pennies to around a quarter, so despite the Depression, most people could scrape up that amount for a night’s entertainment.
While this is not the only social function of comedy, it perhaps says the most about our society. Whenever some significant event happens in the world, there is usually a movie made that either makes fun of the situation or the circumstances surrounding it. From a movie like The Candidate, which skewers the circus that our political system has become, to The Big Short that ridicules the mess Wall Street made of the housing market in the name of greed, comedies can make us laugh at our troubles, forget them or even learn from them.
In Sullivan’s Travels, the main character, Sullivan, is a man who makes movies. He wants to make a film about the dire current situation of the world as he sees it. Although he has made popular comedies, he wants to move into more serious work to reflect the times people are living in. To that end, he decides he should go out and experience “trouble” for himself to make a more realistic film. Through most of the picture, he is not really living a hard life because of constantly being saved by people who work with and for him. At the end, he is believed to have died and ends up on a chain gang with a brutal overseer and truly does experience trouble. While he and the rest of the prisoners live in misery, they occasionally are allowed to see a movie. They are taken to a church where they view a Mickey Mouse cartoon. The prisoners and eventually Sullivan are laughing uproariously and he soon realizes that the comedy is doing much more to brighten the prisoner’s life than a serious picture would.
That is the social function of comedy that I believe this picture is stressing. It was released in December 1941, the same month and year that the U.S. officially entered WWII, after the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor. But even before then, there was the knowledge of what was happening in Europe and the possibility that we would eventually be involved. I think Sullivan’s Travels reflects that period of history and the idea that people need to get their minds away from the dismal affairs of the world and just laugh and be entertained.
In Funny, The Book, by David Misch, he says, “…humor has been critical for humanity’s survival and, perhaps as importantly, our need to do more than just survive.” He then devotes an entire chapter of the book to the Marx Brothers. All of their movies except the first one were released in the 1930’s and 1940’s. The 1930’s in particular were very dark times in the United States after the stock market crash and subsequent depression in 1929. The Marx Brothers movies were very funny and very popular, mostly because it was an escape from reality. The price of a movie ticket ranged from a few pennies to around a quarter, so despite the Depression, most people could scrape up that amount for a night’s entertainment.
While this is not the only social function of comedy, it perhaps says the most about our society. Whenever some significant event happens in the world, there is usually a movie made that either makes fun of the situation or the circumstances surrounding it. From a movie like The Candidate, which skewers the circus that our political system has become, to The Big Short that ridicules the mess Wall Street made of the housing market in the name of greed, comedies can make us laugh at our troubles, forget them or even learn from them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)