PennTags Feed for /tag/parody

When Is Parody Fair Use?

This article actually argues against parody being included under the fair use clause, saying that the treatment should be very narrow and should not include my definition of satire (or works that parody others to attack a third). Posner claims that use should only be fair when the costs of transacting with the copyright owner over permission to use the copyrighted work would exceed the benefits of transacting. Posner argues three specific points:

1. Fair use should only provide a defense to infrigement if the work is a parody, not a satire.

2. The parodist should not be allowed to take so large a fraction of the copyrighted features as to make the parody a substitute for the original work.

3. The fact that a parodist appropriates a small amount should not be relevant to fair use.

Interestingly, Posner writes: "If all but one form of intellectual property is priced, dumping the remaining form into the public domain, where it can be used without being paid for, may cause the priced forms to be even more underutilized from a social standpoint. Underutilized and also underproduced, as potential buyers of this intellectual property switch to its free competitor."

However, if parody can be protected by fair use and satire cannot, Posner's argument suggests that everyone will switch to parody rather than risk or pay for satire.

JSTOR: Columbia Law ReviewVol. 56, No. 4 (Apr., 1956), pp. 585-606 [PART 1]

The part of this piece that is important is the exploration of “substantiality”, what exactly it means and how it is used in the courts in regards to copyright infringement. The author explains that there are multiple connotations that “substantiality” takes on in court. The first connotation of substantiality as a “criterion of infringement involves the ‘ordinary observer’ test.” Under this test it must “spontaneously and immediately” appear to the average person that the newly created work used or was based on the original. This test is rough for obvious reasons. Also, it would be almost impossible to ask the “average person” to tell right away the difference between material that is appropriated and that which is simply similar to the original. The second connotation involves economics and has no relation to my thesis. The third connotation is almost the opposite of the first and is based on “literary analysis or classification,” or in other words an ‘expert opinion.’ This connotation is helpful in making ‘substantiality’ qualitative rather than quantitative, but not so helpful in that it often leads the court into “abstract literary speculations unrelated to the ends of the copyright law.” The final connotation is that of ‘substantiality’ as a quantitative test, though this connotation is rejected. The paper then goes on to show how these connotations of substantiality relate directly to parodies through examples.

JSTOR: Duke Law JournalVol. 42, No. 6 (Apr., 1993), pp. 1233-1272

While much of this document is useful for my thesis in a peripheral sense, the section of most interest discusses parody. It defines parody as something that is not just humorous, but critical. It goes on to explain that “specifically, it is parody's criticism of the expression of the original that makes parody eligible for protection as fair use.” Important to note is that satire and parody are not interchangeable, and the document offers the court case of Rogers v. Koons as an example of a time when the court failed to make this distinction and it changed the outcome of the case. This example shows how important it is to make such a distinction.

This document will be helpful for my thesis in defining my play as a parody. First of all it explains how important it is to formulate a clear definition. Furthermore it provides the tools necessary to make that distinction. It clearly defines exactly what a parody is, and goes on to make the specific distinction between parody and satire, something I can model my argument off of. The document also offers an example of defining a parody based on the four points of the fair use test which can also be helpful in defining my play as a parody that is protected by fair use.

LexisNexisB. Academic Document: Weird Al's Parody Tips, The Toronto Star

In this article, Weird Al offers some advice for successful parodying. He speaks of 1) good writing that can sustain a gag, 2) humor that endures, even to those who don’t know the original work, and 3) video details that mimic the original well.

Although he focuses on songs and videos, the tips can easily be extrapolated to forming a parody in the form of a play. I attempted to use these tips while creating my parody of Hotel California, though since I am an amateur I was clearly nowhere near as successful as he. I feel that tips from Weird Al can be important as he is mostly a successful parody creator in that he evades copyright issues on a large scale (though not all the time, of course). In other words, these are skills that can be used to create a good parody that is most likely not a copyright infringement.

Nov 4: Keller and Tushnet, "Even More Parodic than the Real Thing?"

In this article, Tushnet and Keller define parody and satire, and how such strict definitions can lead to problems. Like Long, they argue that such a clear definition can allow the court to almost choose which genre the works fall under, and therefore indirectly suppress what works are allowable. They go through a history of cases, including copyright and trademark, but I will concentrate on copyright as specifically relating to my project.

Therefore, Tushnet and Keller argue that the current mutually exclusive definitions of parody and satire should be forgotten. Instead, it is the critical insights that should be examined, without judging the merits of those insights the way parody or satire might. Otherwise, parody is favored unfairly over satire, suppressing one form of expression and promoting the other, which is not the purpose of the copyright laws.

Unfair Use: The Lack of Fair Use Protection by Adriana Collado

In this article, Adriana Collado summarizes the distinction between parody and satire and the interpretation of this difference in fair use cases over time. Collado goes on to discuss the present state of the law, what the law should be, and possible solutions and compromises for satire, which is not currently mostly included under fair use provisions.

However, Collado also argues that by Supreme Court's own definition of fair use works ("for purposes such as criticism [and] comment"), satire should already been included. Satire has been defined as a commentary or critical work, one of the uses specifically enumerated in the Fair Use Doctrine, so it should technically be protected.

Since satire is currently not included under fair use, Collado discusses potential solutions and compromises, although none are very promising. Collado quotes Tom W. Bell, who suggests that copyright owners and secondary users should be able to opt out of copyright law and contract under a fared use system, although he fails to mention what would happen for satirists if copyright owners refuse to license (which would probably happen due to the self-esteem issue). Collado adds another possibility of courts requiring unauthorized satirists to pay copyright holders for actual damages sustained from the use of the copyrighted work, but understands that such a method might still dissuade satirists who cannot predict such a number in advance.

What is Fair Use? a blog by Peter Friedman

This blog on fair use, written by law professor Peter Friedman, covers many elements of fair use, including satire and parody. This page deals specifically with blog entries covering satire and fair use, including an excerpt from Andrew S. Long's "Mashed Up Videos and Broken Down Copyright," written for the Oklahoma Law Review. Friedman discusses how parody has more extensive coverage than satire under fair use, including the recent example of Little Brown's Good Night, Moon. Similarly to Dr. Juice's satire on The Cat and the Hat and the O.J. Simpson murder trial, this book will probably not be defensable under fair use due to its satiric rather than parodic nature.

Long's article includes a section on the effect os the parody-satire distinction, which discusses the confusion similar to Bridy's article about hybrids of satire and parody. Long even suggests that "this seemingly arbitrary distinction allows judges to find parody when it suits the results the wish to achieve." Hardly a promotion of progess that the Copyright Act is supposed to protect. Long also argues that the distinction between satire and parody ignores that satire must also transform the original work, which adds new, transformative meaning.

Miss Scarlett's License Done Gone!: Parody, Satire, and Economic Reasoning by Michael Einhorn

Michael Einhorn, Ph.D., suggests that licensing arbitration is preferable to the existing "all or nothing" method of fair use that currently exists for works that add new interpretation to existing works (ie parody and satire). If we vacate such rules, Einhorn argues, owners of intellectual property would be guaranteed compensation, producer incentives are great without the worries of punitive uncertainites, and collecting societies and licensing agents may emerge when tradable rights are defined. These would perhaps more effectively promote the progress of arts and sciences that the copyright laws are designed to do.

This argument follows Judge Kozinski's argument about changing the rules for satire, and not trying to apply fair use to the genre. Otherwise, the two options are too extreme: one party ends up getting the worst end of the deal, and the other party walks away almost unscathed.

What's So Fair About Fair Use? a lecture by Judge Kozinski

Judge Kozinski delivered a lecture for the 1999 Donald C. Brace Memorial at Fordham University School of Law on November 11, 1999. His speech was published in the Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA in the summer of 1999.

In this speech, Kozinski addresses one of the controversial decisions of his court, the Ninth Circuit, about the case Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books. Penguin published a book about the O.J. Simpson trial, which was illustrated and wirtten to resemble a Dr. Seuss picture book. The Court ruled that Penguin's book was not fair use because it was satire rather than parody, meaning that it did not comment on Dr. Seuss's book but only used it as a springboard to comment on the O.J. Simpson trial.

Judge Kozinski, however, indicates that had he delivered the decision, it might have been different; although he does not want to criticize his colleagues, he doubts he "would have decided the case the same way." He examines the tradition of fair use theory in dealing with intellectual property, questioning when its protection starts to defeat the purpose of having it.

The most relevant part of his speech to my topic is when he discusses the importance of form to satire, even if the satire does not necessarily comment on the original work. As Supreme Court pointed out, restraining the form suppresses content; furthermore, he argues with the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, who claimed that satire attempts to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh. Instead, it takes "some creativity and work to write a sustained satirical pastiche that people will enjoy enough to pay money for." The satirist cannot latch onto any work to achieve their purpose, either, because something about the original fits or doesn't fit the subject.

Lastly, Judge Kozinski points out that our fair use laws leave something to be desired: either we deny fair use and enjoin the work out of existence, or we claim fair use and the work remains and the copyright owner has to pay the attorney fees. He suggests a remedy outside of the fair use doctrine, a question of appropriate remedy rather than fair use. In the end, the effect would be to "strip copyright owners of their right to control the uses to which their work is put, while strengthening their right to demand compensation for the value they create."

Sheep in Goats' Clothing: Satire and Fair Use After Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, Inc. by Annemarie Bridy

In this journal article, Annemarie Bridy discusses the history of satire and parody throughout a variety of cases, concentrating especially on the Campbell case. She argues that Justice Souter's decision entitles parodists more than satirists when deciding how much and what kind of borrowing is appropriate for fair use arguments. So, what happens when a parodic work "shades into satire?" Is it no longer classifiable and therefore defensible as a parody?

In order to answer this question, Bridy draws upon literary theory and the distinction of "indirect satire" and "direct satire" to argue that some satire (direct) is definitely not permissible under fair use, but others (indirect) should be. As is, the definitions of parody and satire seem to be mutually exclusive, which can draw unfair consequences for indirect parody. Instead of employing such a distinct definition between satire and parody, she argues that the distinction should be drawn between two types of satirical parody, eliminating the problems that result from a hybrid of satire and parody.

Gulliver's Trials: A Modest Proposal to Excuse and Justify Satire by Daniel Green

Daniel Green discusses the statuses of parody and satire under current Supreme Court guidance, including the uncertainity and variance among courts. He argues that satire is unequivocally the underprivileged of the two for fair use cases, although it is allowed in certain circumstances. For his article, he had three purposes: to differentiate between parody and satire, to prove that protection for satire under fair use is important for both copyright law and the First Amendment, and to recommend some methods to incorporate this view while leaving all current precedent (although his methods may be a bit extreme, due to his satire of Gulliver's "A Modest Proposal."

One of his crucial arguments occurs when he discusses the Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin books case. Green argues that the Court overly criticized the satirist because the satirist followed traditional satire, and that his point of transposing the childish style and moral content to the world of adult concerns was an important juxtaposition. It is difficult to conceive The Cat NOT in the Hat! harming Dr. Seuss Enterprises because the books appeal to entirely different markets; only because the book was satirical did it not earn protection. Satire is still a valuable social criticism, just like parody.

Green goes on to outline five more guidelines that should be used to determine fair use, including subjective intent of infringer, manifested effects on the market, injury, "value" of the satire, and relevance or necessity of appropriated work to the satire. This way, perhaps, satirists will be able to deliver their modest (or perhaps not so modest) proposals without having to become parodists.

Court Opinion: Fisher v. Dees

In this 1986 Court case, Marvin Fisher and Jack Segal brought a suit against Rick Dees for infringing their song "When Sunny Gets Blue" with a parody song entitled "When Sonny Sniffs Glue." Besides infringement, they claimed unfair competition, defamation, and product disparagement. The Court decided that Rick Dees did indeed deserve fair-use protection because it was a parody.

The important points in this case are that every instance of parody defense must be considered individually, that a humorous or satiric work deserves protection only if the copied work is at least partly the target of the work in question, and that parodists will seldom get permission from those whose works are parodied. As they state, "The parody defense to copyright infringement exists precisely to make possible a use that generally cannot be bought" since "[s]elf-esteem is seldom strong enough to permit the granting of permission even in exchange for a reasonable fee." I would argue that the same is true of satires, even if they do not specifically comment on the original work, so they also need some form of protection or compromise for when the rights are denied. This follows Judge Kozinski's logic, so that satires are not stifled simply due to the nature of their work.

Court Opinion: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. filed suit against the members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew and company, claiming that 2 Live Crew's song "Pretty Woman" infringed their copyright in Roy Orbinson's rock ballad, "Oh Pretty Woman." Supreme Court ruled that 2 Live Crew did not infringe on "Oh Pretty Woman" because their song was a parody, and did in fact fall under the fair use clause.

This 1994 case is extremely important to my topic because it was one of the first to differentiate between satire and parody and how they deal with fair use. According to the Supreme Court's definition, parody is "the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create one that, at least in part, comments on that author's work." It counts as fair use due to its critical nature. If the commentary "has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition," on the other hand, it is satire, which does not have the same protection. In the Supreme Court's mind, satire should be able to stand on its own, and borrowing of another work is just to "avoid the drudgery of working up something fresh."

The most interesting aspect, however, is footnote 14, which allows that satire may in certain circumstances also fall under fair use (although these circumstances are much more narrow than for parody) if "there is little or no risk of market substitution."

Court Opinion: Roger v. Koons

In this case, Jeff Koons used Art Roger's photographs of his wife and eight puppies to create a group of 20 sculptures for a 1988 exhibition. Koons acknowledged that his source matieral was a notecard of Roger's "Puppies." Not only did he use Roger's idea, he also copied the expression: the composition, the poses, and the expressions. Koons claims that his work is fair use because he argues that "his scuplture is a satire or parody of soceity at large. He insists that 'String of Puppies' is a fair social criticism." The Court, however, ruled against him, saying that it does not comment on the original work.

For my essay, I will highlight the discussion on satire and parody. The Court agrees that both are "valued forms of criticism" and foster more creativity protected by copyright law. However, the Court also argues that the parody or satire must comment on the original work or there would be no limitation to fair use; credit must be given to the original work. The Court does not prevent Koon's expression, but says that Koon must recognize any such exploitation requires "paying the customary price." I agree with this assesment, and wonder if satire could somehow incorporate acknowledgment of its source, could it be treated more similarly to parody, ie as applicable to the fair use clause?

Words and Music - Google Book Search

This book is at the opposite end of the spectrum, so to speak, from the previously-mentioned source. In this book, Williamson and the other authors discuss music from an expertise on the art itself. There is no mention of digital music, sampling, file-sharing, or other similar topics to be found anywhere in the book. In their places are excerpts from sheet music and examples of lyrics. They offer their expert commentary on subjects ranging from Chopin to Snoop Dogg, from Dante to the Beatles, and each is approached with the same level of intellect and scholarship. Multiple chapters cover the creation of music from scratch – as told from the songwriter’s point of view, and it is this unique perspective that offers a new form of insight into the practice of digital sampling.

Another important factor in this work is the chapter entitled “Mimesis, Gesture, and Parody in Musical Word-Setting.” This chapter not only explores the implications that a parody has on an original work but sets the framework for parody with an historical narrative about its origins. At first, this seemed to be irrelevant to the topic of digital sampling and copyright law, but after further inspection, it became apparent that this knowledge is very important to the understanding of parody and its stance in copyright law.

Words and Music discusses at length many different styles and genres of modern music, primarily “gangsta,” or hardcore, rap. This genre is a unique example because not only is it arguably the heaviest on lyrical content out of all kinds of music, but also because it is notorious for its sampling practices and is quite possibly the realm in which the most copyright infringement cases take place. Reading a scholarly assessment on such genres is especially helpful for this topic seeing as it provides a critical, but not condemning eye on the subject. This is all-to-rare in today’s academic and scholarly publications, and to have a source such as this is very useful in the terms of this research paper.

Jeff Koons: Fair Use, Appropriation, Parody and Identity

In the April 1992 case of Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons, Koons infringed copyright in his work String of Puppies which was a three dimensional color copy of a photographic original of Rogers' that he found on a postcard in a tourist shop. The sources I have researched question the boundaries of art and when it is and is not fair use, and in which ways the guidelines can really have a great effect in shaping this gray area. Koons is sometimes referred to as an appropriation artist: an artist who quotes elements from other works and creates a new version of the original. In the case I choose to focus on he does not alter the change enough, it is arguably an exact copy of the original with minor changes. I use a later case in Koons' career - Blanch v. Koons - as a source to highlight what is fair use, and the development of our understanding of it. In my final paper I would like to use this as a comparison. Identity and Koons' call to parody are also central to the fair use argument and thus I have chosen some sources that discuss these important aspects, as a means to both strengthen and weaken Koons' argument (that his work is based on parody).

The Limits of Copyright: Property, Parody, and the Public Domain

This article is an important source bringing together the ideas we have been discussing in class about ownership, parody and the public domain. It would be a very important source in discussing and interpreting the Koons v. Rogers case in more depth in terms of the public domain, the economic factors, and the First Ammendment Act. The test for economic harm is whether the copy takes so much from the original that it "serves as a replacement for that original". A photograph of String of Puppies in a gift store of an art gallery may very well do just that. In other words people may be more incline to buy a postcard of the more famous artist, Koons' work, than from some less well-known artist, such as Rogers.

Legal Guide for the Visual Artist: Koons and Parody

This book expresses clearly why Koons defense lost on the account of parody as fair use. It goes through the four factors of fair use and explains why it breaches the doctrine comparing String of Puppies directly with the original black and white photograph by Rogers, Puppies. It clarifies first and foremost that the copied work is not a parody of the original, as no one would have any idea of the object, Puppies photograph that Koons is parodying. Secondly, fair use is more applicable to factual than fictional work, and Roger's work is a fictional piece. The third factor, the amount and substantiality used are certainly breached, because Koons work is an almost exact copy of the black and white photograph. Fourthly, whether the copy would affect the market of the original also seemed to fail meeting fair use standards.

Most importantly it clarifies why String of Puppies is not parody, and it points out why Koons v. Rogers is such an important case in the discussion of parody and what is fair use.

Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates - AltLaw

This is another court case focusing on parodies as they fit under fair use. Air Pirates was sued by Walt Disney Productions for creating "a rather bawdy depiction of the Disney characters as active members of a free thinking, promiscuous, drug ingesting counterculture." Walt Disney Productions won. One of the points that added heavily to the decision was that “the defendants here could have expressed their theme without copying Disney's protected expression.” The importance of this point is further discussed in the following paragraph.

The aspect of this case that is most important to focus on is the actual subject of the parody. In other words, this case highlighted the importance of clarifying whether or not the newly created work actually parodied the original, or used the original to parody something else. This could be used to argue that my work is a parody that fits under fair use definition. Since the lyrics to Hotel California are used in my play Hotel Bermuda to create a parody of the song Hotel California rather than just to use the song as a medium for creating something funny parodying something else, it would be considered a ‘fair use’ parody.

Fisher v. Dees

In Fisher v. Dees, Rick Dees is sued for using portions of Marvin Fisher and Jack Segal’s song “When Sunny Gets Blue” in his song “When Sonny Sniffs Glue.” It is upheld that Dees’ version is a parody which is defendable under Fair Use. In arguing this case it was noted that the labeling of a work as a ‘parody’ does not single-handedly defend it and that it “must be considered individually, in light of the statutory factors, reason, experience, and, of course, the general principles developed in past cases.” The main arguments against Dees in this case included the subject of the parody, the propriety of Dees’ conduct, the purpose and character of the use, the economic effect of the use and the amount and substantiality of the taking. All of the previous arguments were rejected with sufficient reasoning and the court decided Dees’ song “is a parody deserving of fair-use protection as a matter of law.”

This is relevant to my thesis in determining whether or not my work is a parody that falls under Fair Use. The arguments used in Fisher v. Dees can be applied to my work to help in the decision. Fisher v. Dees is most often cited as an example of a case where the economic issue was important, specifically in respect to whether or not the newly created work “fulfills the demand for the original.” It presents this as one of the more important factors involved with regards to parodies. Using this argument would support a claim that my work is a parody that is protected by fair use as my work (a play) does not “fulfill the demand for the original (a song).”

"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.

"Parody and Style" by Seymour Chatman

    Chatman’s paper outlines the new emergence of parody as a stylistic form. He begins by declaring that parody is most often praise for the original work. Parody in his opinion is a postmodern genre that has earned its own legitimate place in society by the lawsuit. It is no longer the clever exercise of intellectuals to be used for their own entertainment in small circles. Parody’s place in American culture has recently gained attention all the way up to the Supreme Court, in litigation mostly involving fair use doctrines. The eventual ruling of the court in one particular case stated that, “parody’s art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin.’’(28)
   Some works have stated that all works of fiction are in fact parodies, while others claim that parodies are simply different methods and forms of satire. The parody can vary in simplicity from the “Darwin” Jesus fish to complex literary juxtapositions of ideas or sentences from one work into another. These parodies can be intelligent word games and puns or even serve as a vehicle for inappropriate and sometimes vulgar imitations. Chatman does clarify however that in his opinion parody does not need to ridicule the original. He replaces the term ridicule with irony, which serves as his definition for something parodies try to achieve. The author concludes by stating that good parodies are at their core imitations. These imitations can pervade into the style of the new piece in anything from the rhythm to the broadest subject matter of the original piece.
   Love and Death indeed embodies Chatman’s idea of the parody in many ways. Allen’s film is homage to many areas of study ranging from literature to philosophy to film. The film captures the broader aspects of plotline from Russian literature, but retains many smaller nuances that imitate more obscure images such as the juxtaposition of the faces at the end of the film to parody Bergman’s Persona. The film achieves an artistic level that serves to capture parody with irony as opposed to ridicule.

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