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

 

    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.

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.

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.  

 

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