PennTags Feed for /tag/comedy

Hollywood as historian : American film in a cultural context

Hollywood as historian : American film in a cultural context / edited by Peter C. Rollins. 0813114861 : series Lexington, Ky. : University Press of Kentucky, c1983.

The chapter entitled “Fighting Words” discusses Charlie Chaplin’s intentions for his film “The Great Dictator”. The film was Chaplin’s first sound film. Not wanting to alter his classic silent ‘tramp’ character, Charlie found the opportunity in this entry into sound to preserve his beloved character and talk to his audience for the first time. “As Hitler I could harangue the crowds in jargon and talk all I wanted to,” wrote Charlie in his autobiography. “A Hitler story was an opportunity for burlesque and pantomime.” Charlie exposed Hynkel (representing Hitler) in exactly this fashion. For most of the film, Hynkel’s words amount to nothing more than gibberish. When the dictator speaks intelligibly, the audience still senses malevolent babble.

The chapter supports the thesis as it illustrates Chaplin’s intentions to mock Hitler his film. It also demonstrates the striking contrast between the dictator and the barber. The dictator appears foolish as a result of Chaplin’s work while the barber remains relatively silent and pure (until the end). After developing these distinct characters for two hours, Charlie utilizes his first sound film to let out his own voice in the final speech, bashing hate and calling the soldiers to unite in the name of democracy and peace.

Comic Mind: Comedy and the Movies.

Mast, Gerald. The Comic Mind: Comedy and the Movies. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1973.

In the Chapter “Chaplin: Sound Films”, Gerald Mast analyses a few of the comedic moments in Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” and how this comedy effectively criticizes the Nazi regime. Mast compares Hynkel’s globe scene (see tag on World War II and the American Film) to the scene immediately following of the barber shaving a customer. Mast discusses the ridiculous slapstick nature of the globe scene and the fast yet precise nature of the shaving scene and illustrates the contrast between the dictators fixation on world domination to the barbers human work. Mast also refers to Hynkel’s ludicrous speeches in which the dictator flails his arms about wildly and barks so vehemently the microphone cracks and seems to melt in his hands. During these speeches, Hynkel pauses intermittently to pour water down his blazing throat and down his pants.

This chapter directly supports the thesis as it demonstrates how Chaplin utilizes slapstick comedy to attack the Nazi regime. The succession of the globe scene to the shaving scene demonstrates how the barber succeeds where the dictator fails. Additionally, the contrast is made more stiking as the barber succeeds in the shave using a sharp blade, while the dictator's dellusion of grandeur comes to a crashing halt as the globe of the world explodes in his face. Mast also conjectures the Hynkel’s “wet” speech scene reveals how Hynkel’s private parts are burning as much as his throat suggesting that the Nazi propaganda has more to do with sexual energy and gibberish than with meaningful ideas.

Indelible shadows : film and the Holocaust / Annette Insdorf.

Insdorf, Annette. Indelible shadows : film and the Holocaust 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2003.

In the Chapter “Black Humor” Annette Insdorf discusses how the element of humor can be effectively utilized to bring illumination to the Holocaust that is not possible with a more serious approach. Insdorf analyses Hynkel’s grandiose speech scene in which he flails his arms about as he snarls wildly into the microphone. She notes the ubiquitous salutes that are reminiscent of the Nazi salutes. Hynkel seems to salute several times per minute, and the audience is equally as excessive with their salutes. Even the statues, including the conventionally armless Venus de Milo, salute. Insdorf points out that these basic sight gags not only amuse the audience but also serve a deeper purpose in suggesting that the art and culture in Germany has been polluted into the Nazi image. Insdorf also recognizes Chaplin’s clever use of the double cross to represent the swastika throughout the film. She comments that the double cross symbol is “an all-too-perfect mark for what Hitler was doing to Germany”.

This chapter directly supports the thesis as it demonstrates how Chaplin effectively uses humor to criticize the Nazi regime. The reshaped statues are an exceptional example of Chaplin’s skill in demonstrating the pollution of the Third Reich on all aspects of German life. Chaplin masterfully deforms the Nazi swastika into a double cross. This use of a switched object indicates Hitler’s betrayal of Germany.

Is Life Beautiful? Can the Shoah Be Funny? Some Thoughts on Recent and Older Films

Gilman, Sander. "Is Life Beautiful? Can the Shoah Be Funny? Some Thoughts on Recent and Older Films". Critical Inquiry, Vol. 26 No. 2. (Winter, 2000): 279-30.

There has been a good deal of debate regarding how filmmakers and other artists should represent the Shoah (Holocaust). In this article, Sander Gilman discusses how the Shoah has been represented in the arts, focusing on comedy and film. Charlie Chaplin’s film “The Great Dictator” uses comedy to attack the Third Reich and to represent the beginnings of the Shoah. Gilman asks whether the terror during of the Shoah and the Nazi regime can be understood through such comedy. “The Great Dictator” was one of the first comic films to deal with the Nazis and their treatment of the Jews. While the film touches on the initial stages of the Shoah, it was made before the real horror and genocide began; the satire’s main target is the Nazi Regime. Gilman asserts that laughter is appropriate in films like “The Great Dictator” that deal with the Nazi regime as the enemy, leaving out the horrors of the Holocaust. In effect, this targeted treatment of the regime assures the viewer that they are stronger than the Nazis.

This article agrees with the thesis as it argues that the use of comedy in “The Great Dictator” effectively undermines the Nazi regime. More than that, Gilman addresses one of the principal criticisms of the film, namely the incompatibility of laughter and the events of the Holocaust. Critics often claim that the use of comedy in the film lessens the horrors that took place. Viewing “The Great Dictator” today may give us this impression. However, as Gilman discusses, Chaplin was ignorant of the extent of Nazi terror simply because the film was produced pre-Shoah. Indeed, post World War II, Chaplin asserted that “had I known of the actual horrors of the German concentration camps, I could not have made The Great Dictator; I could not have made fun of the homicidal insanity of the Nazis.” In the historical context of the film’s production, the film accurately and effectively utilizes laughter to challenge the Third Reich.

An "Old Man's Film": On Chaplin's Limelight

Silver, Charles. “An "Old Man's Film": On Chaplin's Limelight.” MoMA. (Spring 1989): 2+9.

In this article, Silver reviews Chaplin’s 1952 comedy “Limelight”, comparing it to the entertainer’s previous works including “The Great Dictator”. In particular, Silver notes how like “Limelight”, “The Great Dictator” reflects Chaplin’s courage as a filmmaker for challenging the Nazi regime in a time when such confrontation was risky. Silver also commends Chaplin’s method of delivering his message in these films. The article juxtaposes Limelight’s unexpected pauses to argue a point with The Great Dictator’s last scene which abruptly takes a serious tone. In this last scene, the soldiers predictably mix up the barber with the dictator Hynkel and the barber is pushed on stage to address the world. The speech that follows is a reflexive break from the film’s comical tone. In this rousing speech, the barber bashes the Tomainian dominance in the world and yells that the soldiers should unite and fight for democracy, freedom, and peace. Silver argues that the abrupt and discontinuous pauses do not weaken these films but rather enhance their value. Silver writes: “Chaplin had made enough films of self-evident artistry that he knew he had gratified us. As in a post-orgasmic moment, he was now determined to talk about the meaning of that gratification.” In this way, these out of character, lecture-like moments, allow Chaplin to fully embrace the attention his films capture in order to make an important commentary on society. “[A]s our lover for forty years,” writes Chaplin, “he is entitled to our attention and indulgence.”

Silver’s article agrees with the thesis as it demonstrates how Chaplin effectively utilizes his classic comedy to seize the attention of his audience. Critics often attack Chaplin for the speech scene. Lewis Jacobs (see tag for World War II and the American Film) shows how these commentator believe that the scene spoils the continuity of the film. Silver discredits this notion of chaotic filmmaking and demonstrates how Chaplin precisely utilizes such pauses to communicate his antifascist message.

What's Wrong with Anti-Nazi Films?

Mann, Klaus. “What's Wrong with Anti-Nazi Films?” New German Critique, No. 89, Film and Exile (Spring - Summer, 2003): 173-182.

As its name suggests, this article is a multifaceted critique on Anti-Nazi films. Klaus Mann argues none of the anti-Nazi films have been successful in clarifying the German situation during World War II or in inciting resistance against the evil regime. He provides a particularly harsh assessment of Chaplin’s The Great Dictator: “It has no style, no continuity, no convincing power. It is neither funny nor serious, while it attempts to combine both elements (178)” . Mann goes on to criticize several of Chaplin’s visual gags as out of line. He describes the scene in which the barber is forced to swallow four coins as highly amusing yet utterly irrelevant in Chaplin’s anti-Nazi message. Further, Mann expresses his disappointment in Chaplin’s failure to demonstrate the anti-Semitism that took place involving non-Jewish minorities and to express the extent of Hynkel’s (Hitler’s) evil in the film.

Mann’s article counters the thesis as it criticizes the effectiveness of Chaplin’s comedy to communicate its ultimate anti-Nazi message. The characterization of the film as unstructured and lacking continuity is his main blow to the “The Great Dictator”. As previously argued in this project, these abrupt shifts from comedy to seriousness do not lessen but rather significantly enhance the value of the film. By providing his audience with engaging comedic amusement, Chaplin is able to capitalize on a wholly attentive audience by quickly infusing his anti-fascist message. Further, Mann’s criticism of Chaplin’s failure to exhibit the extent of Hitler’s evil is correct when the film is viewed from a postwar point of view. However, it is important to note that during the film’s production in the 1930’s, the most appalling crimes have yet to take place, accounting for Chaplin’s perhaps too lenient depiction of the dictator.

JSTOR: The Journal of the Society of CinematologistsVol. 4 (1964 - 1965), pp. 1-8

This artice deals with the chase scene so often found in silent comedy. In it Donald McCaffrey explores the evolution of the chase, and how specific comic dealt with the trope in their films. Essentially, McCaffrey believes the chase sequence became more elaborate over time, moving from a general fomula repeated over and over, to unique scenes with inventive gags. Chaplin is considered pivotal in this movement, and the author describes how he acheives a sense of originality in his chase scenes by carefully crafting the gags around a larger theme, such as a game of hide and seek. The author then argues that longer films further refined the chase, and names The General a "new high" in the history of chase scenes, for it is the central theme of the movie, and is sustained for a long period of time.

Since The General is essentially a chase movie, it is vital to understand how it is similar, and how it differs from other chase sequences. This article explains the way chase scenes usually function, and how Chaplin, Keaton, and others altered the chase formula. The article also makes clear the sheer amount of chase scenes in existence. That is, a huge number of comedies featured chase scenes, and the author suggests that Chaplin, Keaton, and the other major comedic stars tried to refrain from using what was so commonly seen. In considering why The General failed to acheive any critical acclaim, this perspective, that is, looking at the film as a long chase sequence, offers new possiblities. One could argue that the chase sequence was over-used, and thus unappealing, especially when it forms the entire film. To more modern audiences unaware of the previous popularity of chase scenes, The General may be exciting and different. The article ultimately helps in further identifying what makes Keaton's film different.

McCaffrey, Donald W. "The Evolution of the Chase in the Silent Screen Comedy." The Journal of the Society of Cinematologists Vol 4 (1964-1965): 1-8

JSTOR: Film QuarterlyVol. 12, No. 1 (Autumn, 1958), pp. 10-15

In this article, Christopher Bishop discusses the ways in which Keaton's comedy differed from other comedians, and focuses especially on his syle of acting, and specifically, his "stone face." The author describes how Keaton's face is what most remember from his films, and analyizes the effect vaudeville had on his comedy career. Bishop argues that this physical training increases the effectiveness of Keaton's films, for he does not rely on editing tricks, but rather, is able to physically perform the stunt in one shot. Furthermore, this training also leads to a keen awareness of the possibilites of facial expressions and other movements, and the author argues that Keaton is the most effective at utalizing expressions and movements for comic effect. The author then reminds the reader of Keaton's fascination with machines, and suggests that Keaton used his own body in a mechnical fashion. Finally, the author argues that the goals in Keaton's films are "metaphysical and implicit." In other words, Chaplin's films are concerned with social commentary, and thus, are rooted in that historical time period. Keaton's films, however, are more concerned with great natural obstacles, and rarely offer solutions.

In understanding why Keaton's comedy was relativley unpopular compared to Chaplin, it is important to understand how Chaplin worked. This article does a nice job of describing how Keaton works, or how he behaves in his films, and also compares the films of Chaplin and Keaton. Thus, one gets gains a better understanding of how Keaton differed not only from the wildly popular Chaplin, but from other comedians of this time as well. It also provides a great deal of Keaton's history, and providest the reader with the early activities that would shape Keaton's acting style. In this sense, one gains a better understanding of why Keaton developed films the way he did.

Bishop, Christopher. "The Great Stone Face." Film Quarterly Vol 12 No 1 (1958): 10-15

Buster : a legend in laughter / Larry Edwards.

This book is essentially an overview of Keaton's career, and is useful for understanding his style and his significance to the film world. In particular, there is a section on The General, which provides much useful information about the making of the film. Futhermore, the author, Larry Edwards, discusses the signifcance of The General, and how it differed from other comedies of the time. The author first discusses the history of the film, mentioning its horrible box office failure and its then historically high budget. He also explore Keaton's possible motivation for the film, noting that Keaton, though not formally educated, was an avid reader. Keaton was especially fond of History, and had a strong interest in trains and other technology. Futhermore, the author believes Keaton was partially inspired by the Civil War photos of Mathew Brady, and a story written about an actual train robbery called "The Great Locomotive Chase." Interestingly, Keaton changed very little when formulating his plot, so in a sense, his film is a depiction of an actual event. Naturally, as a comedian, Keaton added the humor and the romantic elements, but the actual story is very much the same. In analysing the film, Edwards notes what makes the film so different from other comedies of the time. First, the story is not told or motivated by intertitles. Listing all of the intertitles for the reader to examine, it becomes clear that they make little sense when read out of context. The story then, is motivated by the visual aspects of the film alone, and in this sense, the author argues that the train is actually a bigger star in the film than Keaton. Futhermore, Edwards notes that the gags are very different from other comedies in that they are often very subtle. Again, the narrative is the most important element, and it overshadows all other elements of the film. To the author, this emphasis on narrative is what sets The General apart, and contributes to its praise today.

This book is incredibly useful in understanding the history of The General, that is, how it was made, how much it cost etc. The book is also useful in understanding the motivations of Keaton, as it explores his passions and interests. But beyond the facts, the examination of the film is important in understanding why the film is so revered today. The author clearly describes how the film is so different from most comedies of the time, mostly in that it focuses primarily on a coherent narrative that is not driven by intertitles. The book is an excellent source for understanding how The General is unique, and clearly exlplains the elements of the film that contributed to its initial failure. These same elements are what now account for its near universal acclaim.

Edwards, Larry. Buster: A Legend in Laughter. Bradenton, FL: McGuinn & McGuire 1995

Pgs. 75-97
Call#: Van Pelt Library--4 East--Temporary Location Annenberg PN2287.K4 E38 1995

World War II and the American Film

Jacobs, Lewis. “World War II and the American Film.” Cinema Journal 7 (Winter, 1967-1968): 1-21.

This article discusses the evolution of American films from the years preceding World War II through the postwar years. Jacobs discusses that prior to 1942 most American films were escapist in nature, focused on distracting audiences from the expansion of Axis powers in Europe. Jacobs argues that Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” was one of the most important films released before Pearl Harbor in rousing American public opinion against fascism. Further, Jacobs demonstrates the effectiveness of Chaplin’s visual comedy in communicating his anti-fascist message. The fictional character of the tyrant Hynkel in conjunction with visual gags provided a devastating blow to Hitler. Jacobs comments that "with almost surgical precision [Chaplin] laid bare all the recognizable traits of Adolf Hitler in a ridiculous Adenoid Hynkel: the affected hand salutes, the ludicrous attitudes, the sudden maniacal fits of rage, the quick starts and jumps of piano-playing, the weeping, the delusions of grandeur, the mesmeric bursts of guttural oratory (a compound of double talk and nonsense)". Jacobs argues that Chaplin takes on Hitler’s seeming invincibility and reduces the dictator to an unstable prepubescent child.

This essay agrees with the thesis as it demonstrates how Chaplin’s depiction of the dictator Hynkel demonstrates Hitler’s madness and vulnerability. The globe scene is perhaps the most memorable of such scenes ridiculing Hitler. The scene begins with Hynkel hanging in the air from window curtains like a paranoid squirrel in a tree. He then clears the room and a love scene ensues between the dictator and a globe of the world. Hynkel caresses the globe, laughing wildly, and roaring unintelligibly about ruling the world. The lunacy continues as Hynkel slow dances with the globe in hand delicately tossing it in the air. As the scene comes to a close, the air filled globe explodes in Hynkel’s face and the dictator breaks out into tears. This scene demonstrates Chaplin’s effective use of visual comedy to mock the Nazi leader and to exhibit his inevitable demise.

The (Un)Timeliness of Satire: The Reception of the The Great Dictator in West Germany, 1952-1973

Krämer, Peter. “ The (Un)Timeliness of Satire: The Reception of the The Great Dictator in West Germany”. The British Film Institute online. 2006. <http://chaplin.bfi.org.uk/programme/conference/pdf/peter-kramer.pdf>

This article discusses the rerelease of Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” to German audiences in 1958. Krämer talks about German attitudes in 1950’s postwar Germany. The widespread rerelease of the film across Germany was unpopular, selling poorly at the box office: “The Great Dictator was left far behind by many American films and much of the German competition.” Krämer illustrates why German audiences did not welcome Chaplin’s antifascist film. While anti-Semitism and fascism saw a gradual decline after the war, they were still widespread. In a poll asking about Hitler’s statesmanship, 41% of people responded positively in 1959. A 1958 poll revealed that 22% of respondents did not welcome Jews living in Germany. Krämer also suggests that the Nazi regime just a decade earlier was still too much of a horrific reality for cinema satire. One reviewer commented that Chaplin’s satirical comedy demonstrated how “apparently the Nazi terror has already been forgotten”.

Throughout the film, Chaplin switches between slapstick comedy and serious drama. Krämer’s article is relevant to the thesis as it sheds light on the question of whether satire was an appropriate medium for a grim topic like Nazi Germany. The lousy box office result in 1950’s Germany is an indication that “The Great Dictator” that the satire was inappropriate and ineffective in communicating its message. From a contemporary viewpoint, I would argue that this is correct. Knowing the extent of Hitler’s Holocaust today, Chaplin’s comedic medium appears to trivialize one of the most horrendous offenses against mankind. However, it is important to understand Chaplin’s general ignorance of the stark situation in Germany during the production of “The Great Dictator” in the 1930’s. I would argue that the satire was effective and appropriate upon its original release as previously demonstrated; however, its ignorance of the true extent of Nazi Germany would make this a highly controversial film if it were (originally) released today.

Disregarding the Suffering of Others: Narrative, Comedy and Torture

Henderson, Schuyler W. “Disregarding the Suffering of Others: Narrative, Comedy and Torture.” Literature and Medicine. 2005. University of

    Pennsylvania. April 2008 <http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/literature_and_medicine/v024/24.2henderson.html>.

   Henderson analyzes torture beginning with a photograph from Abu Ghraib that shows a man naked and in an uncomfortable position with underwear on his head. What is torture? To classify an act as torture, there must be long-term sufferings. It is a method to extract information from, punish, or intimidate a victim. The word torture draws a red flag, and the government and media have worked out ways to tone a situation down using narrative. For example, Henderson points out that Abu Ghraib occurrences have been described as abuse instead of torture, which renders the act unofficial, and therefore politically uninvolved. As far as the act itself, torturers smile during it. The purpose is to make it seem more acceptable and to “retain their humanity” by incorporating the smile – a universal understanding of being human.
   In Animal House, the Omega house tortures its pledges as a ceremony of induction. Neidermeyer literally spanks the pledges, who are bent over and clad in only underwear, in a room ominously lit by candles. The pledges must respond every time with, “Thank you sir, may I have another?” All the while, Neidermeyer has a sadistic smile on his face. Can this be considered torture, for there is a loose form of consent. Though the pledges have no say in what happens to them, they choose to join the fraternity. However, from the look on Kevin Bacon’s face, it is not a case of masochism. From the definition of torture, which makes Henderson question, “who exactly is evaluating the victims’ pain and psychological suffering,” this scene does not exhibit torture. However it does have the characteristics of a smile, secrecy and intimidation. The victims do not smile because they “are less than human…animals.” Animal House makes men into animals in the form of debauchery and tomfoolery, in addition to torture. However, the film plays down the frightening issue of torture by rendering it humourous. In reality, as politics uses the word abuse instead of torture, fraternities use the term hazing. Henderson notes that someone described the actual torture as “Animal House on the night shift.” This in turn minimizes the seriousness of actual torture.

"When Films 'Quote' Films They Create a New Mythology" by Roger Copeland

    Copeland starts off by saying that when filmmakers grew up as film-watchers they don’t create films about the “real world,” but a world “mediated” through other films. He claims that George Lucas’s Star Wars “makes so many references to earlier films and styles that it could just as easily – and perhaps more accurately – been called ‘Genre Wars.’” Many young directors from this era (the mid-seventies) such as Lucas and Scorsese create films out of nostalgia for Hollywood’s past.   He says that the first filmmakers to make films that dealt with reality as much as they did with old films were French new wave filmmakers such as Truffaut and Godard. He says it is no mistake that these great filmmakers were well versed in the history of cinema and spent their early careers as film critics. Copeland calls the films by Scorsese and Lucas the “Americanizing of the New Wave sensibility.”
    Allen according to Copeland is “not as cinematically knowledgeable” as his counterparts from the era. However, he discusses all of the points from Allen’s films in which he references other great films of the past. He discusses the references to Bergman, Eisenstein and Bogart in his various films from the seventies. The references in films to other films trickle down into our daily lives, which creates a world where not all of our actions are necessarily original. In some ways, many of us emulate our favorite characters in films; it’s not just great directors copying other directors, but people copying their favorite characters. Past artwork has become the foundation for which new artists can build. These ideas being recycled through film and our daily lives creates a new mythology.
    Woody Allen draws from the ideas of past works to mold them into his films. Love and Death is no exception. It builds upon ideas of past filmmakers and intertwines them into parody. Even though many of the ideas and scenes in the film seem ridiculous, it takes an intelligent viewer to read beyond the laughs and into the past artists that shaped them.

"What is Film Humor?" Harry Schein

    Schein wants to make sure that the reader understands that his article is not speaking of “the humor typified by physiological reflexes such as smiling or the gleam in the eye. This article deals only with the kind of humor that releases laughter.”(24) The film humor genre may have begun with the Lumiere Brothers film about the gardener. It has evolved away from its sadistic beginnings, but much of the humor that is still present involves maliciousness. Schein claims that humor depends on the audaciousness of the humorist and how much a person can identify with the victim. “Humor’s first rule is that the humorist may lose neither his tempo nor his temper.”(27) One area of humor in film that Schein discusses is the parody. He says that “to parody a film in a film presents enormous possibilities.”(31) In contrast, he says that to parody a novel in a film is very difficult and can leave the viewer in “a blind alley.”(31)
   Schein analyzes the qualities of humor and tactics used by such film humorists as Tati, Chaplin and the Marx brothers. Of all of their styles he seems to enjoy Tati’s the most. Schein comments that the film’s humor works with predominantly visual material that seems to be purely intellectual at the same time. Every sequence in the movies also contains many formal associations. Tati combines these factors with “a casual nonchalance that is master proof of a humorist.”(32)
   Harry Schein would have liked the humor in Love and Death for a variety of reasons. The film does not simply make the viewer smile to himself, but it contains many moments of hilarity that force the viewer into convulsions of laughter. Allen’s film never loses its tempo and provides many situations in which the viewer is able to relate to Boris as a victim. Tati’s style of comedy is emulated by Love and Death. The film at its base contains the visuals of Tolstoy’s Russia and uses this as a springboard for intellectual conversation and humor. These factors combined with the references and associations that Allen makes to many other works yield what would be “master proof” to Schein that the film is a great work of humor.

"The Aesthetics of Parody" G.D. Kiremidjian

    According to Kiremidjian a parody must have three basic characteristics of structure and behavior. First, a parody must originate from the original in its form and content and focus on the duality between the two. Second, it must raise the question as to how the original relates with the parody. The viewer must be forced to think about how the aesthetics of one relate to the other and whether or not the viewer receives something from the new version. The third point is that in the Aristotelian sense parody is not really art. (It imitates another work, not real life.) This is problematic for the author, who arrives at the idea that parody imitates art, which in turn reveals something about the original piece. He exclaims that parody does indeed become an art form in its ability to examine the original piece and exploits it for the purpose of self-exploration and curiosity.
   Once Kiremidjian establishes that parody is indeed an art form that can be benefited from he examines what makes for a good parody. He states that an artist “must grasp the essentials of the style of a given author or a school of authors, and then proceed to concoct an outlandish episode which is expressed in that style.”(235) Parody must then act as a critique of some sort of the original work. This can only be done effectively, if the artist has a strong grasp of the original work(s) and has a purpose for creating the parody.
   Following the philosophical logic of Kiremidjian, Allen’s Love and Death indeed qualifies as art and as a parody. The film manages to provide the viewer with the impression that Allen has a strong grasp for every facet of the works he is parodying. The references to a multitude of works are clear. His critique of these works emanate a sense of purpose with humor that is clearly outlandish in its content.

The Comic Mind: Comedy and the Movies by Gerald Mast

    This book attempts to chronicle film comedy from the silent era all the way through the end of the 1970s(when the book was published.) The work covers the first crude attempts at humor by Edison and Lumiere through Allen’s Annie Hall. Mast analyzes the different structures, techniques and values that have transformed cinematic comedy over time. He discusses the evolution of these techniques and how they appear and reappear in various pieces throughout silent and more modern film.
   Mast claims that while some film comics like Mel Brooks simply move from one parody to the next, Allen has transformed his comedic style from the purely parodic to a more personal, psychological and emotional film style. Allen’s films are more “French than American” in that they are “very conscious of themselves as conceptions for the film medium.”(313) According to Mast, Allen’s films are a mix between the “anarchic clown tradition” of the American style and the “ironic tradition”(313) of the French. Allen balances the line between “intellectual awareness, psychological astuteness” and the bizarre gag and parody. Mast argues that each of the main characters in Allen’s films, are essentially all the same because they display those same features no matter what situation they are thrown into.
   Recurring themes in Allen’s films include, neuroticism, sexual desire and self-discovery. Each of these themes get examined from a serious tone, but in films such as Love and Death, these serious ideas become the butt of many jokes. Mast continues to say that these topics continually develop in Allen’s later films as the director continues to explore himself. The psychoanalysis that Allen undertakes and his new understanding of himself provides for more humorous and profound ideas in his later films.

"The Causes of War and Peace" Ermanno Bencivenga

    The main work that Allen seizes his material from is Tolstoy’s War and Peace. The title alone, Love and Death, is a clear parody of this work, but the inspiration dives much deeper. Tolstoy’s novel examines the actual role of leaders in large events such as war and how much impact they could possibly have on specific occurrences. The role of speeches and words is touched upon by Tolstoy as well. Tolstoy’s novel focuses on ideas regarding free will and for what reasons men would go to fight a war behind a leader such as Napoleon.    Bencivenga also examines the use of Aristotelian syllogistic logic in the novel. He claims that “Tolstoy rejects the practical syllogism as an explanation of individual or collective action.”(6)
   Allen’s Love and Death intelligently uses many of the ideas from Tolstoy’s novel. The film is a clever parody that is able to incorporate obvious ideas such as the title and war with Napoleon. It explores further though to include Napoleon’s role in the war and the decisions at hand for the general. There is a scene at the beginning of the film in which Allen parodies the lack of free will Boris has in his decision to go to war along with the exhilaration of his brothers at the prospect of fighting.
   At many points in the film, Boris uses syllogisms to examine and parody life’s supposed truths. For example, “A. Socrates is a man. B. All men are mortal. C. All men are Socrates. That means all men are homosexuals.” This ridiculous logic mocking syllogisms comes right after a much more coherent moral predicament in which Boris weighs the idea of murder on his conscience. Allen manages to mock and satire different aspects of the writings of Tolstoy, even to the point of slapstick humor, but he combines the intelligence with comedy.

"Tolstoy and the Moral Instructions of Death" by Dennis Sansom

As Ivan Ilych (the title character of Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilych) nears the end of his own life he wonders, “What is the right thing?” After a life full of experience he realizes that he has not come close to understanding the meaning of life. Before Ivan neared his untimely death, he lived an ordinary life that “flowed pleasantly.” He never dealt with adversity and simply followed the path that was set out for him by his parents and society. “Tolstoy shows that Ivan’s life, though simple and ordinary, was truly terrible because he had no sense of the tragic dimension of life.”(8) The reader comes to understand that failure and inexplicable suffering happen whether a person has behaved rightly or not. As Ivan lies in bed slowly dying of his illness he has two visitors. His servant comes to visit him and teaches the reader that a common peasant is able to help Ivan even more than any doctor. His son also comes to visit him and portrays how no one should have to suffer such a painful, unwarranted death. This moment raises great questions about God’s will, destiny and justice.

As should be expected with a parody of Russian literature, Love and Death examines and satirizes many of these ideas. Many scenes in the film analyze theories on death and dying, but after the death of Boris the viewer gains a glimpse into what life and death have taught the hero. In The Death of Ivan Ilych the main character comes to the realization that he has learned nothing about morals or the true meaning of life. In contrast, the parody these ideas show a character, Boris, with seeming omniscience flaunts such tidbits of knowledge like, “there are worse things in life than death…I mean if you’ve ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman, you know exactly what I mean.” This film also provides a satire on the bedside drama that takes place in Tolstoy’s novels. As opposed to meaningful events taking place that enlighten the hero to life’s truths; Boris encounters ridiculous people from his past. One such person is Boris’s father who produces a package size parcel of land with a monopoly sized house on it and exclaims that he has finally built.

Love and Death written and directed by Woody Allen

Love and Death is a 1975 film written and directed by Woody Allen. The film is a satirical take on Russian epic novels. It takes place in Russia during the Napoleonic wars. Boris played by Allen himself, is a coward and pacifist scholar who is forced to enlist in the Russian army. The film chronicles Boris