felipe1912t

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About felipe1912t

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday
  1. I'd like to take this space to thank all of you envolved in one more exciting online course about some of the best works Hollywood has ever done. Last year we were all amazed by film noir, and this summer slapstick made us laugh and - most importantly - LEARN a lot. Thanks to TCM, Canvas, Ball State University and, of course, Prof. Richard Edwards. Your commitment with us was a great value as always, and the modules couldn't be clearer and easier to use. Hope to see you again next year!
  2. Woody Allen is more satirical than physical, so this specific clip doesn't seem to have any kind of clear reference to his job. Only some lines, linkd with the present (TV channel) may be considered an approach to both works. The fight showed on the excerpt exaggerates the situations by parody, and in that way we have much influence from Mel Brooks's job. Finally, ZAZ is clear referenced when we bring parody to a level almost over the edge of make-believe. After all, we have a little of those three influences on the clip (with more or less presence). The cameo adds another comic element that works here to support the parody by strenghtening the funny situation. Is one more strong element of slapstick throught times. Leslie Nielsen seems to be the bigger influence because of the parody element. None of the classical coemdians had this deepness in movie parody that we would see in Nielsen's job. Speaking of movie studios, it seems to me that Hal Roach would be the best place for a comedian like him to work if we were in 1930s. I'd like to add here my pleasure to be a student in a TCM course one more time. Thanks to Ball State University, Prof. Richard Edwards and TCM for bringing us so enlightenment about this subject! Hope to see more nest year (how about horror movies)?
  3. The short clip exemplifies how the movie parodies police/investigation genre. The first thing we see is Leslie Nielsen arriving the station by parking his car the worst way possible. Justa few moments later, the clumsy inspector is unable to watch on the microscope, in one more clear demonstration of how the movie is constantly spoofing with another genre. In that way, I can say that the whole movie is a succession of spoofs on a exaggerated way, making it a true parody. It seems to me that yesterday's Daily of Dose had more respect to the original reference. The movie was shot in black-and-white, used real sets and so on. So we had a homage to Frankenstein with lots of gag scenes on it. ZAZ's approach on this case is much more cynical, exaggerated, based on visual gags. Text doesn't have the interest to be faithful to another movie. So today's clip doesn't concerns so much to be a homage to anything. It's more free to construct the situations. Inspector Clouseau still has the make-believe characteristic to make audience believe that all those situations, although exaggerated, are plausible real. Frank Drebin jokes a lot with that concept, and we see that clearly right on the beginning of the clip with the parking car sequence: air-bags couldn't be like that, neither the explosion and so on. Probably because of the parody aspect, Leslie Nielsen's character permits himself to go over the edge of what's beliavable or not.
  4. First of all, the scene is shot in black-and-white in a time practically all movies were already colorful. Gene Wilder plays a crazy professor that does not seem to have any credibility althought the scenario suggests we should have. And, of course, the professor's last name is "Fronkensteen", which clearly parodies the classic Universal movie. As the clip goes, we can watch two different moments taking turns on spectator's attention. In one hand, the subtle writing full of references from the original Frankenstein movie that both does a homege to the classic and parodies it. On the other one, clear visual gags more linked to the silent era of slapstick: the scalpul punch, the demsntrations from the first part of the clip, etc. I see here an organic balance between the two sides that make it work perfectly. Maybe some gags could work if the movie was shot in color, but much of its parody would certainly be lost. Part of what makes it so interesting is the fact that the creators made a homage to the original movie, trying to make it as close as possible to it. That makes great part of audience to remember the old movie and be attracted to the new one by its references. As color was one of the most important elements from the original Frankenstein, the choice to preserve it that way was truly right.
  5. It is a slapstick once we have the concepts of make-believe to the audience, as well as exaggerating situations. On the other hand, it is really clear to any spectator that the whole situation (a huge bar order) couldn't be acceptable with the world's regular rules. So we have a make-believe situation in terms of construction (a man goes to the bar and makes an order) but an impossible movement towards the greatness of the order. In the end of the clip we still see a verbal gag that makes jokes on the political situation, showing the audience some satire as well. It seems to me that Sennet's style isn't as muck linkd with Allen's ones. Woddy Allen is not a clown paid to make people laugh out of nothing; he achieves that with clever storytelling. The Great Race, although, is a movie visually exagerated by choice. The visual concept is important to achieve the goals we're intended to. They're, in fact, much different to each other. And it seems to me that Sennet's intentions are much more inclined to the 1960s comedy movies. But it is good point that I haven't watched any of the movies, so my analysis may be clearly mistaken.
  6. felipe1912t

    Breakdown of a Gag, Episode 8: Spoofs since 1970

    By watching this final episode we can see clearly that some motifs for comedic situations are present on its genre since the early days. What we can see is that some kind of skills start to being much more explored in a particular period of time. Parodies, for example, are much more present on cinema from 1970s and on than decades earlier. Young Frankenstein and Anchorman are both delicious movies, with great references and great interpretations. If we go further, I'd even say that teenage movies lige Scary Movie also are part of that kind of humor. After all, they're almost all parodies from the beginning to the end! My final reflection about this lovely journey: is slapstick glued to its origins? Don't we have any kind of revolutionary skill to keep the audience interested in comedy? The course itslef puts all body of work from 1970s on on the same space, maybe because what we can see from that point on is too much linked with what we saw earlier. Perhaps that why the silent age is commonly remembered as the golden age of slapstick! Anyway, it was a privilege to be among so many talented names for the second year in a row, watching spectacular movies and hearing some of the great masters of film in US. Thanks to Prof. Richard Edwards and TCM for that! Hope to see you next year in another course!
  7. The plot, the charcaters and the action could easily be short cartoons from Warner or even Disney. We have the exaggerated villain trying to cheat on someone, but it actually does not work at all and they bite it otherwise. It is clear to me that this scene approaches much more to the old-fashioned slapsticks than the "new wave" ones. Almost all five of the characteristics we've set at the beginning of this course are there and technology works to the movies' old style. The hero and the villain are well defined once the hero has super abilities, he does what anyone can. the villain, on contrary, works on a sabotage to harm him. Besides, the clothing and acting in both cases make thing clear on which one is what.
  8. The Three Stooges were a great comical influence to me because Brazilian television broadcasted them until the 1990s frequently. Laurel & Hardy were another major influence with its movies running frequently on Sunday afternoon TV, and it is really interesting to see how their kind of comedy was really close to whats was being done in 1930s. The clip explored on this episode makes it really clear. The second clip is a little bit different because we see the movie director exploring what he can in terms of technical possibilities for slapstick. A lot of color, major editing job, big scenarios and so on. In the movies, slapstick was becoming bigger than ever. And that was happening to all kinds of Hollywood movies in generall, it is good to point it out.
  9. I think my favorite gag on this scene is the moment when the inspector tries to get out of the room and misses the door. It is visually perfect because at this point we've already seen Clouseau in a series of misfortunes, some of them even predictable ones (like the bent stick, which obviously isn't going to end well) and the action is highly unexpected. Things get even better because of his later observation about the house's architecture, which obiously is an attempt to run away from his own responsability for the punch in the face. Laughing a lot until now! Clouseau has a strong accent, is clumsy, proud-spirited about his beliefs and his actions are somehow a repetition of visual and/or verbal gags one after another. We don't know exactly what will come next, but we're sure someting wrong is gonna happen! With that in mind, we have at least two of the five main slapstick characteristics clearly visible on him (ritualistic routines and make-believe). In a time when visual slapstick didn't have as much physical tone as decades earlier, we can say for sure that this is a genuine slapstick. I think one of the key new-elements relies on the fact that the police/detectives may be wrong as much as anyone else. While in the past gerat part of gags was based on visual and physical situations, Clouseau personality give shape to the character as well. We definetely don't take him seriously!
  10. I think the main particular fact is that the addition of color set a clear paralel between the warm, secure and comfortable trailler environment against the outside world and its rainy mood. When Lucille Ball falls on the dirty mood we just see her covered with dirt, almost all "black". If we weren't in a technicolor era, certainly the visual impact of the scene wouldn't be the same. The time "I Love Lucy" was produced almost 100% of its scenes were set on studio, with that perfect scenario and light. On this scene, on contrary, we have some elements that go the other direction. The trailler is almost toppling, so we have assimetric frames compared with television. It is still possible to note shadows and dark areas on cinematography, something that was not common at all on TV. Finally, I still can say that we have wider shots even in a small interior place. Not a single close-up on the face of our cast is presented here. Lucille Ball is one of the first major TV stars that brought her ability on gags to the movies, and high-succesfully! I think one of the most notable of her charcateristics is the ordinary-situation ones, which turn to be stronger and funnier because of her exagegrated reactions (like verbal met). Again, sometimes is hard to recognize some of its important points because "I Love Lucy" was never broadcasted here in Brazil.
  11. It seems to me that the clearest thing about Hulot is serenity. He walks up to his apartment in a constant, quiet and conformed pace, going through the actual maze that is the way to his door. That analogy is, by the way, a good way to analyze some of the main characteristics of his personality. Never mind the steps or the tortuous way to get someplace, because I'll keep on my way. He also shows on this short clip that he is against any kind of conflict (with the salesman, with the neighbors) even when a dog seems an element to misfortune his day. Finally, I'd say that he's methodical. Not only the staircase is always walked the same way, but even the window must be placed somehow he judges being the best one to make the bird sing louder. The building is literally a maze (tortuous on his way until the top), which is opposed to Hulot's main characteristic of being methodical, serene, conformed. The comedy here does not rely on quick gags, but on more contemplative sequences that oppose themselves against each other frequently. The building clearly opposes to Hulot in many ways, reinforcing his comic skills and characteristics.
  12. Again, it is important to register that as a "foreign" student, a great part of personal references and cameos aren't so well-known around my country. However, it's just so interesting to see how television took a huge part on slapastick movies frojm 1950s and on. Here in Brazil, I must say, a lot of comedians also go from TV to make movies, and generally they go well in terms of public attendance. I remember watching "Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" once and the movie is just delicious. A lot of jokes, gags, references and important comic faces that make time speed. When you realize, there were more than 3 hours with the clock running! One of the most important in american slapstick history in my opinion. The other two clips are interesting as well, and it's important to note that slapstick continues to evolve itself from other media since its beginning. Jim Carrey, for example, is much more a character than an actor in great part of the 1990s (before he tried to enter in drama). History sometimes repeats itself.
  13. Groucho and Chico's style had more intensity, more velocity, more verbal strenght. The Abbot and Costello's style seen on the clip prefers to build an emotion with the audience by exploring several cinematic instruments like: the art direction, cinematography and music score. They talk less, although the result is extremely effective in both cases. I think that nowadays we have great comedians working, so I wouldn't say that the entire generation suffers from the lack of taste and timing. But yes, it seems like the great mojority of them prefer to speak high (almost scream) to get public's attention. And as seen on this clip, this is not the only way to get what you intend to. Something less is more, and on the specific case of comedy: timing is almost everything. I'll fail to answer the third question because, unfortunately, my knowledge about their career does not go much further than this short clip. Here in Brazil they are not much popular, unfortunately, so even the distribution of their movies aren't regular around here. Glad to have the internet helping to solve this kind of problem nowadays!
  14. The last two videos presented at Daily Dose of Doozy were much verborragical driven by its main characters. Charley Chase was trying to solve a personal problem and had control of the situation and The Marx Brothers were arguing about a contract on their own way. On this particular case, W. C. Fields keeps himself resigned to the path the other characters point him. He has no active voice, so his verbal contribution here is almost passive one. His lines are there to contribute to the plot, not to drive them. "Sounds like a bubble on the bathtub". The sarcasm and irony here is really clear, and it is one of the characteristics pointed by Dale's definition. We have at least one more of it clear through the clip: the strong accent of Fields. A deep analysis of the hole movie, however, would point more elements other than these ones.
  15. Alan Dale's definition of verbal slapstick fits perfectly on this clip of Marx Brothers. Of course not all the characteristics are there, but a great part of it. The whole scene is based on the verbal talking here presented: no violence, no physical. Slapstick is evolving in front of our eyes. Some of the present characteristics are: sarcasm, the comeback that that turns the first speaker's words around, pun, a little bit of slang, mispronunciation and double entrendre. As a native portuguese speaker some of these characteristics can be more difficult to identify, but they are all there. For me, exaggeration is the condition that remains operative in verbal slapstick. We can even make a brief analogy with the use of voice and the other four conditions, but what's pretty clear is the exaggeration one.

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us