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. 

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. 

 

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. 

 

      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

      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

 

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

 

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. 

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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 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.

    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 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 Boriss ridiculous experiences in the army, his marriage to his childhood love, Sonja (Diane Keaton), his attempted assassination of Napoleon and his eventual execution. The film is mainly a parody of Russian epic novels by Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, but it captures ideas and references to philosophy and film. The films humor is straightforward at times, but at others it relies on the viewer's knowledge of the original works being parodied. Allen's film attempts to derive the meaning of life (and death) through a combination of references to literature, film, philosophy and Allen's own quirky personality. This unique synthesis of ideas creates a hilarious film that relies heavily on parody. The film's outlandish ideology can be summed up by the following interaction between Boris and Sonja: "But judgment of any system or a priori relation of phenomena exists in any rational or metaphysical or at least epistemological contradiction to an abstract and empirical concept, such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself or of the thing itself." - Sonja "Yes, I've said that many times." - Boris

Chapter 6: Love and Death (1975)

    This work analyzes the various themes that seem to be emulated in many of Woody Allen’s films.  Love and Death is an interesting film for this analysis because of how obviously he meant to parody Tolstoy’s War and Peace.  This theme gets fleshed out immediately in the title and Allen expounds on this idea amongst many others as the film progresses.  Lee points out that while the film is comedic at its core, (even slapstick at some points) it tackles many deep philosophical questions.  Allen clearly understands the philosophical contributions of many philosophers such as Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.  In spite of this, Allen uses complex jargon to essentially say nothing.  The conversations are reminiscent of the great thinkers, but on their own the conversations boil down to “clever gibberish.”(31)  
    Lee claims that Allen is trying to illustrate in Love and Death and many of his other films that it is impossible to resolve the fundamental questions of human existence through abstract argument and theorizing.  These questions that Lee is referring to are common themes in Allen films including, the existence of God, death, ethics and relationships.  In this film Allen addresses each of these issues, but he never truly gives a coherent opinion on any one of them.  The only point at which Allen makes a moral decision is when he decides to not kill Napoleon – which would trigger the end of many wars and countless deaths.  The viewer never learns the reasoning behind his change of heart, but he is sentenced to death for his singular moral stand of the movie.
    After being put to death Boris offers a final monologue about what he has learned through the whole dying experience.  The viewer soon learns, that Boris has no more compelling insight into life or death than he did while he was alive.  He leaves the viewer dancing away with Death himself.

This book analyzes Woody Allen as a philosopher and tries to discern his overall message.  This particular chapter analyzes the influence of the great Swedish filmmaker, Ingmar Bergman, on Allen.  The author begins by questioning what the lively, joyful comedies of Allen have in common with the dark, moralistic films of his Swedish counterpart.  The films of Bergman tend to be extremely serious and deal with death and misery, yet Allen cites him as one of his biggest influences.  
    The author begins by exclaiming that they are both filmmakers, as opposed to directors who control all aspects of the film.  Their films largely focus on dialogue, many times infused with philosophical ideas that can unravel the source of a main characters current situation.  The films of both artists focus largely on women and family interactions.  At many points in each of their films, large family meals and gatherings are portrayed that at many times contain a grand showing of family members singing, dancing or playing music.  The films tend to take place in the everyday lives of the characters.  The “normal” days of these characters get caught up in the happenings of mass culture where the main character gets thrown into situations that look more like fantasies as opposed to realistic depictions of the events.
    Love and Death is a film that clearly derives inspiration from Bergman films including The Seventh Seal and Persona.  Boris has an early encounter with Death as an actual character early on in the film as a boy and at the end of the film we see Boris again dancing with Death; both of these are clear references to The Seventh Seal.  Allen also uses many other aspects of Bergman films mentioned above.  There is a large family meal, with eating, singing and dancing.  Boris then finds himself caught in many realistic events (fighting in the war) with fantastic outcomes (being the most inept, cowardly soldier, yet being the only survivor.)

    The book Woody Allen on Woody Allen chronicles the life and filmmaking career of the filmmaker.  He discusses aspects of his life ranging from his childhood, to his anxieties, but he most notably discusses his films and his inspirations.  In the seventh chapter of this book he discusses his film Love and Death with author Stig Bjorkman.  This chapter begins by examining the process for producing the film.  Woody discusses the reasons for shooting the film in various European settings.  He exclaims that the film obviously had to be shot in Europe due to the nature of the script and that many scenes were shot in Hungary because it was much cheaper than being on location in France.  Allen goes on to describe his surprisingly democratic cast selection process.  He claims that he had no preconceived people in mind for any role and that he worked on a veto system with his casting director.
    Allen continues to discuss the more intellectual aspects of the film including composer selection, his various inspirations and his general attitudes on country life versus urban life.  Stravinsky was Allen’s first choice for the film’s score, but he found the music to be too “heavy” which made the film “seem unfunny.”  They decided to switch to Prokofiev which “lightened the whole mood, it was brilliant and gay.”(71)  In regards to his humor style, Allen wants his characters to always be speaking in jokes like Groucho Marx and Bob Hope.  There are purposeful parodies to major films by Bergman and Eisenstein along with a general plot that he claims takes place in the world of Russian literature.  A parody in Allen’s mind, is a work “done out of affection”(72) for an artist.
    This chapter on Love and Death helps the viewer enter the mind of the director.  It enables them to understand the basic processes of producing a film along with the numerous and purposeful places in which Woody Allen finds his inspiration.

Yacowar, Maurice. “Annie Hall.” Loser Take All: The Comic Art of Woody Allen. New York: Continuum Publishing Company, 1991. 171-186.

    In Yacowar’s chapter, similar topics are addressed concerning the functions and success of Annie Hall: Alvy’s inability to enjoy life to the fullest, the contrast between Alvy and Annie’s upbringings and identities, and Woody Allen’s use of narrative and humor. The start of the chapter involves a summary of the film, with mention of some of the key elements which make it such a success. The piece is essentially a description of the main themes of the film, most significantly that of the relationship between art and reality. Yacowar first addresses the reoccurring idea of Alvy’s “sifting the pieces” of his relationship with Annie, which results in the blossoming of Annie and the continued confusion of Alvy. He then suggests that Alvy’s “sifting the pieces” is displayed through freely associated memories and ideas that Allen constructs through his use of narrative. It is argued that the narrative employed is what best expresses Alvy’s inability to balance his desire to confront and avoid troubling memories or issues from throughout life. Thus, this chapter, like other chapters and articles, investigates Alvy’s own investigation of his personality and its problems. Alvy cannot handle Annie’s outgrowing of him because he fell in love with his own creation and then lost it, similar to the Pygmalion myth. The chapter then transitions into a more in-depth exploration of the points of climax in Annie Hall and how they differ according to the two main characters’ experiences and personalities. This description further displays how the two characters, regardless of being in a romantic relationship, are individuals interested in their own personal ambitions and issues, first and foremost. Further dramatizing their differences, Yacowar makes use of the dinner table example, where a split screen shows the differences in each family’s habits at dinnertime, to show how the situation is simply “like oil and water.” Yacowar notes that in order to place more emphasis on contrast, Allen places contrast scenes in parallel spots in the plot. By doing this, Allen suggests Alvy’s narrow interests and his eventual alienation by Annie as a result of their differences, as well as the idea that Alvy can never survive any romantic relationship due to his handling of his personality. Yacowar concludes by delving into the topic of art versus life, transitioning by saying that the parallels of Annie Hall point to the fact that art and life are continuous forces. To him, the primary theme of Annie Hall is that art has the power to compensate for the limitations of life. As this is the primary theme, Alvy Singer employs the art of comedy to make up for the immediate and deeper issues complicating his life, such as his obvious differences from Annie.

    Yacowar correctly pinpoints Alvy’s artistic use of comedy to substitute for solutions to the issues in his life. Similar to Alvy, many people use a particular talent or habit to avoid handling larger issues in life, and thus audience members could relate to Alvy’s habit when the film premiered. Alvy’s use of comedy is so continuous and so unique that it pushed the film to succeed on many levels.

Gehring, Wes D. American Dark Comedy: Beyond Satire. Westport, CT: Greenwood P, 1996. 1-14.

Call#:  PN1995.9.C55 G42 1996

    In this wonderful book, Wes Gehring analyzes dark comedy as a genre in both literature and comedy as well as film. He defines black humor as a "genre of comic irreverance that flippantly attacks what are normally society's most sacredly serious subjects - especially death." He notes that comedy's ability to personalize in the viewer a mixture of conflicting emotions is meant to reflect the on-the-edge absurdity of modern life. Comedian Dave Barry is quoted as saying that humor is based in "the fear that the world is not very sane or reliable or organized and that it's not controlled by responsible people. Anything can happen to you, and it could be bad, and you have no say in it." The author states that dark comedy as a genre is still considered more of a post-1960s phenomenon. Black humor became an aspect of the libertarian, idol-shattering side of the sixties. He also notes that dark humor is a mostly American genre - American writers on the whole appear to be more articulate about it, and American audiences more susceptible to the form.
     The Graduate is certainly a dark comedy due to its plot about a young man having an affair with a married woman yet still providing comic relief despite the grave topics involved. Dustin Hoffman's awkward yet lovable character is hilarious in that he is much too young and inexperienced to know what is going on in the affair. Various times in the movie writers Buck Henry and Charles Webb provide comic answers on behalf of Benjamin Braddock to serious questions. For example, when Benjamin describes his plan to marry a girl whom he has neither asked yet or even likes him, he states "No, dad, I think [the idea] is completely baked." Also, in an intense scene when Mrs. Robinson asks Ben if he finds her attractive, he replies "I think you're the most attractive of all my parents' friends." Finally, director Mike Nichols uses various funny scenes to address serious issues. When Benjamin's parents make him scuba dive in their backyard pool, everyone is smiling and cheering while Benjamin is drifting in the water totally dissatisfied with his present and his future. The Graduate is a fine example of 1960s dark comedy.

The "girl-next-door" was most notable for what she wasn't: Marilyn Monroe. Seductress Monroe represented one end of the spectrum of 1950s female roles, and she was decidedly at the opposite end of the girl next door. In a time of national crisis (first World War II, and later the Cold War), the girl next door offered a wholesome and patriotic image. Harvey argues that the Marilyn-type was on the decline, starting in the 1940s, in favor of the girl next door. The 1950s ideal was "nicer, simpler, younger...more girlish than womanly." Harvey argues that already famous stars of the period, like Lucille Ball, adapted themselves to fit into this model.

Hepburn, who was just becoming famous, didn't have to adapt, but she certainly did fit the part. In Sabrina, she was innocent to the point of being child-like, also reflected by her demure wardrobe and polite way. Her thin body is the opposite of Marilyn Monroe's ample curves, embodying the "girlish" part of the girl, not woman, next door. Harvey argues that this image is emblematic of most female stars, aside from Marilyn Monroe, in the 1950s, an opinion also echoed by Potter (see "I Love You, But..."). Harvey doesn't really get into the implications of this stereotype, or why Monroe was allowed to remain outside of it, but he offers many examples that give a picture of a casting and acting trend of the 1950s.

Harmetz, Aljean. "Billy Wilder, Master of Caustic Films, Dies at 95." New York Times 29 March 2002, A2+. Lexis-Nexis Academic, 1 April 2006. <http://hdl.library.upenn.edu/1017/6973>

---

biblio.

 

Potter sees the cold war as the most important feature affecting 1950s films. The post-World War II rapture had faded, leaving an all-encompassing but largely invisible fear. For this reason, Potter argues, people focused on making themselves happy in areas of their lives that, unlike foreign affairs, they did have control over: home and family life. This sense of escapism clearly manifests itself in Sabrina's fantasy quality.

People became concerned with living in the suburbs and owning the latest commodities, while civil rights issues, like women's role in the workforce or race and class issues, seemed to evaporate from the national conscience. We see this in the emphasis on the suburban Larrabee family's opulent wealth in Sabrina, and the absence of ambition for Sabrina to do anything but fall in love with one of the powerful Larrabee brothers, rather than using her new education and sophistication to further her individual lifestyle. Women in the 1950s were expected to remain domestic, or at least quit their jobs upon marriage. Any woman who did not adhere to this was said to have a "masculinity complex." These ideas were also shaped by Dr. Spock's baby boom child-rearing advice.

In movies, Potter saw women's roles converging to fit into one of the two studio-promulgated stereotypes of the era: virgin or whore. Hepburn's Sabrina would be classified as a textbook virgin, and was thus only allowed to "exude a vague air of flirtatious sexual promise." Men had more power than women, but also had to fit into molds of upstanding masculinity, like John Wayne, the honest and fatherly cowboy, or laid-back sexual suaveness, like Rock Hudson. Humphrey Bogart's Linus can clearly be read as in line with what Wayne represented.

Using Potter's historical information, we can understand and read films in their proper context.

Interestingly, this is another article written about The Graduate by Roger Ebert for the Chicago Sun Times. He approaches his review slightly differently here, through the lens of comedy. In his later review of the film, he discusses the blandness of the characters, but alternately in this article, he discusses their subtle humor. In some ways, he relates these two things implying that the humoristic gawkiness of the characters comes from their quiet mouthed, simple minded personalities.  While The Graduate is not a film that is readily recognized for comic aspects, they are very much present.

            Firstly, Ebert's article makes an important point about comedy in general. It does not have to be drawn from obvious punch lines, but can come from quirky points of view. He discusses a new type of British film, popular at the time, which incorporated this new style of comedy. Rather than having characters react to funny situations, "the movie itself reacts by what it shows next." In The Graduate, some of the humor is derived from the honesty and embarrassment of the characters.

            The real comedy, though, comes when audiences are able to step back and realize the outrageous story that they are watching. Ben is seduced by his parents good friend in their strict suburban society, and ends up falling classically (almost) in love with her daughter, Elaine. He bangs on the church doors to stop Elaine from marrying the wrong man and rides away with her on the back of a bus. It is simple descriptions like this that show the true humor of the plot.

An interesting detail about this film that is often overlooked is that fact that Buck Henry, who plays the hotel clerk, collaborated with Nichols and in addition to adding comedy on-screen, he added a lot of humor to the script. (Buck Henry is now one of the countries funniest comedians.)

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

Sander Gilman toils with the confusing emotional relationship between horror and humor, investigating the links between the two in regard to the Holocaust.  He sets up a distinction between the reality of the Holocaust, which demands seriousness, and the representation of the Holocaust, siting scholars such as Terrence Des Pres, who believes that humor can be used as a coping mechanism. Gilman looks at various films about the Holocaust and the works of various Jewish comedians in order to propagate that approaching the Holocaust by way of humor is rarely attempted, as laughter is not the socially constructed reaction.  Films that have been successful in political mockery of World War II Fascism such as Charlie Chaplin’s, The Great Dictator, date back to pre-Holocaust production, before such use of comedy was deemed taboo or by a conspicuous Jewish director.     

Gilman turns to Life as Beautiful a successful integration of comedy and the Holocaust because of its human not Jewish appeal and uses Jakob the Liar by Jurek Becker as a means of highlighting its success.  Gilman suggests that the film is “quasi-autobiographical” as it implicates Benigni’s father’s experiences, an Italian non-Jewish soldier.  Gilman speculates that the success of the integration is due to the film’s non-Jewish world that separates the Holocaust from the past and the future. Moreover, the laughter is encouraged because it confirms the success of Guido’s actions to save his son, the more we laugh the better job Guido is doing in protecting his son and if our expectations are fulfilled we feel good about laughing. 

Despite several differences and parallels, Benigni’s film unlike Becker’s, was made in the 1990’s and by a self-conscious non-Jew.  His emphasis on the human tragedy of the Holocaust regardless of religion is something Gilman believes makes his integration of humor and holocaust feasible.  

 

The Serious Humor of La vita e bella

 

Millicent Marcus defends Benigni’s use of humor in Life is Beautiful this piece.  He believes that the limiting Holocaust art to historical record only permits documentary accounts as representations in which case the humanistic and moral nature of its history is lost.  He believes that Life is Beautiful is presented as a fantastical yet biographical account of the Holocaust in which Giouse is conscious of the fantastical nature yet acknowledges its message to future generations.

Marcus points to the film’s spoof of fascism and Guido’s unique fantasy-infused humor as its “antidote.” He points to the first half of the film’s elegant 1930’s mese-en-scene particularly in the ball scene as an indication of the film’s social commentary. He highlights Guido’s courtship of Dora and his mistranslation of the German soldier in the concentration camp as two examples of his ability to use his whimsicality as authority. 

Moreover, Marcus assess the reality controversy by calling attention to the Guido’s split audience with the inner being Giouse, and the outer being the viewers.  Marcus believes that Giouse’s perspective establishes “childhood innocence” as the standard by which the film is judged. Even more so, the viewers’ bond in their knowledge of Guido’s fantasy, again recognizing the rift between fantasy and reality.

Finally, Marcus assess Benigni’s own “game-work” humor in which he must use improvisation to alter Giouse’s perception of the concentration camp.  Marcus applauds Benigni’s capacity to flawlessly shift from his typical slap-stick comedy of the first half of the film to a more constricted yet still humorous version in the second half.

Marcus closes with his praise of the final moments of the film when he believes the mixture of hilarity and grief culminate.  The tank symbolizes the coming together of World War II history and Guido’s fantastic game. In sum, the film effectively fuses humor and the Holocaust into a “ground-breaking” film.

 

Ten sources that discuss Billy Wilder's Sabrina from a variety of perspectives.

Penn's favorite Arts & Entertainment DP Thursday insert is online!

The seventh article in the novel, titled Classical Hollywood Comedy, this article (p.123-146), analyzes the screwball comedies of the 1930s and 1940s. Karnick argues that although the plots for these comedies were inherently similar, the humoristic elements in these films helped to distinguish themselves. Along with the similar plotlines, these films have common narrative structures that are further complicated by humor. Humor, according to the author, is the result of incongruity between what is expected and what is actually seen onscreen, and is eventually followed by resolution. This relationship of incongruity and resolution is thus a way to break up the narrative and lessen the predictability of the film.

Karnick also utilizes Vladimir Propp’s methodology of the establishment of genres to analyze screwball comedies. Propp’s work, which compared the themes of 150 Russian folktales by separating parts of tales into “functions,” “spheres of action,” and “moves,” showed that while characters’ names changed between the stories, their functions and actions within the actual narrative did not. Karnick thus uses this theory and applies it to the screwball comedy to explain the recurring plots, but different elements of humor. Karnick is thus able to categorize screwball comedies into two general groups, “Comedies of Commitment” and “Comedies of Reaffirmation.” Commitment comedies, such as Bringing Up Baby, tend to focus on the establishment a central couple, whereas reaffirmation comedies concern the reestablishment of a couple (131). According to Karnick, commitment comedies actually have multiple plotlines. In the case of Bringing Up Baby, Dr. Huxley is concerned about obtaining financing for his museum, but also about searching for the last bone to complete his dinosaur fossil. Commitment comedies also tend to exhibit the clashing of social classes—Dr. Huxley is a highly-educated man who is paired with Susan, a wealthy young woman with no need for a career. The promise of marriage at the end of the film is another characteristic of commitment comedies. In addition to these common themes, Karnick argues that this particular category shares character roles as well. There is a “first partner” (Huxley), an “initial partner” (Miss Swallow), a “second partner” (Susan), a “conscience figure” (Sarah, Nick, Ned), and a “blocking figure” (Mr. Seton). (133).

In the last part of the article, Karnick addresses the reaffirmation comedies, which she argues are essentially continuations of commitment comedies. Thus, like commitment comedies, this particular category also shares common themes, plotlines, and character roles as well.

 

            In Loser Take All: The Comic Art of Woody Allen, Maurice Yacowar traces Woody Allen’s transformation from a “cult favorite into America’s foremost humorist” (1).  The turning point of this transformation is generally attributed to the success of Annie Hall.  Not only did Annie Hall do phenomenally well at the box office, but it was also nominated for five Oscars and won four, including Best Picture, Best Screenplay, and Best Director, all which could be directly attributed to Woody Allen.  Yacowar asserts that just because comedy is lighthearted in nature, there is an underlying seriousness and significance inherent in humor, especially in the case of Woody Allen, which makes it essential to critically study his films.  While humor can initially seem dismissible due to its comedic and blithe nature, Woody Allen instills such meaning and honesty in his humor that it often holds more meaning than dramatic counterparts.  This humor is apparent in every single one of Allen’s films, although some to a greater degree than others.  Allen is able to consistently convey meaning about serious topics such as loneliness, anxiety, love, and existentialism through his humor.  Allen also explores the relationship between life and art through this humor, and it is through such humor that the viewer is able to define the meaning and implications his work.  Yacowar specifically addresses each of Allen’s individual films and demonstrates how they uniquely use humor to create and communicate deeper meaning.  Due to the chronological structure of the book, Yacowar shows how each film influences and leads to the next film in Woody Allen’s repertoire.  One major issue in Annie Hall is the blurring of reality and fantasy.  Allen makes it difficult to discern to what degree the film is autobiographical and therefore a realistic portrayal of his life and thoughts.  This ambiguity is further compounded by his direct addresses to the audience.  This blurring of the line between reality and fantasy manifests itself multiple times throughout the film, thereby repeatedly challenging the viewer.