• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SV1992

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  1. 1. This scene successfully parodies the old Universal horror films, outside of the obvious black and white, by taking place in a seemingly serious medical setting. That's where most of these movies took place or started- in a serious medical setting that would seem plausible. 2. This scene moves between comic subtlety and slapstick humor very fluidly. When Gene Wilder is speaking he moves into the insults without changing his tone or missing a beat and the next thing you know he knees the old man in the groin. He goes from the subtlety in his words to his actions portraying slapstick humor. This happens again at the end of the clip where he's arguing with a student and then stabs himself in the leg. 3. No, I do not think this film and its gags would have worked as well in color. This film is supposed to be a parody of those old Universal horrors, so right off the bat you have to shoot in black and white since all those films were. It gives it the right feel. Then without props sticking out with their color or the flashing lights of the machines, I feel more is relied upon in the dialogue and the actions. People pay more attention to those things since that's the only thing to focus on in the movie.
  2. 1. This scene looks and feels like a live action cartoon for a couple of reasons. The first reason is how the characters were dressed. Even though everyone in the movie was dressed period correct, Jack Lemmon was dressed in all black with a mustache to symbolize he was the bad guy. Tony Curtis was clean shaven, dressed in white and pristine to symbolize he was the good guy. Colors were used as a contrast between the two characters which is something only normally done with cartoons. The second reason are the characters' actions, mainly Jack Lemmon's. The way Jack Lemmon talks and generally moves around in the film imitates that of a cartoon character. Boris from Rocky and Bullwinkle or Wile E. Coyote come to mind. He does it so perfectly that it's on that fine line of being too much. Tony Curtis doesn't stray too much from his normal character portrayal in this scene or film, but if you pay attention, you can see that he tries to take extra care to do everything just perfectly in order to be that white knight. 2. I feel this scene pays homage to early slapstick comedies by the pure physicality of it. The Great Leslie does not talk in this scene, so you have to watch his actions in order to understand his part of the story. Professor Fate and Max bicker back and forth, but they're relying on their actions to tell their side of the story for this scene. Throughout the movies it's their actions that make you laugh more so than what they say. 3. I touched on this in the first question, but Blake Edwards depicts The Great Leslie as being the definitive hero by dressing him in all white, having his look pristine no matter what he does, having him succeed in everything he does, through his "good guy" actions, and in the end by getting the girl. Blake Edwards depicts Professor Fate as being the definitive villain by dressing him in all black, making him grouchy, failing at everything he does, and the fact that he only has beating The Great Leslie at something on his mind.
  3. 1) I don't know if I would fully agree that the period of 1912- 1930 was comedy's greatest era. I would say no because the comedians in movies and on TV from about the 1940s- 1960s married slapstick and sound together very well. The greatest example of this, in my opinion, is Jerry Lewis, but there were others like Dick Van Dyke, Carol Burnett, Lucille Ball, etc. With comedians like that, you laughed just as much at what they did with their bodies as you did with what came out of their mouths. With that, I would say that era was comedy's greatest era. However, without those like Chaplin and Keaton who came before and made slapstick an art form, these comedians might not have been so great. It really is a back and forth for me, but by just a hair I would have to disagree. 2) I do completely agree with the narrator that gags have completely disappeared. As previously mentioned, comedians like Jerry Lewis are just as funny with or without sound. They were able to pair the gags with sound so perfectly that nothing was lost from either. That form of comedy has disappeared because comedians today rely only on sound. On the whole, they probably didn't grow up watching silent films and learning from them like the comedians from the 1940s- 1960s did, so they didn't take away the importance of the gags. Yes, there are a few that have carried the gags with them, but on the whole they haven't. 3) Honestly, I don't think documentaries, essays or compilation films have that great of an impact on the opinion of silent film. Most people today won't watch a black and white movie, let alone a silent one. So anyone watching or reading material on the silent film era is doing so because they already have an interest in it. Sure, there are probably some that are turned on to silent films from material such as that, but I don't think it's a very large majority.
  4. Exaggeration is definitely a key element in slapstick comedy, whether it's through sound or physical motions. These comedians performing slapstick, for the most part, are going through the motions of seemingly normal routines. In order to make them funny or highlight the ridiculous, exaggeration is needed so that the audience catches it and finds the humor in it. However, this is not an easy task because if something is over exaggerated, it is no longer funny, it just comes off as stupid or annoying. As mentioned in the module, it takes these comedians many years of performing to get it just right. To get into the grove of just how much to exaggerate a routine. There are way too many examples out there to list of comics who got the exaggeration just perfect.
  5. This first slapstick film, in essence, really is no different than the movies that came after it, especially those immediately preceding it in the silent era. Those making comedies in the silent era had to make their films exceptionally simple because they only had actions to portray it. "L'Arrouseur Arrose" portrays something so simple and something we all have done, which gives the audience the ability to connect to the film and that in turn makes it all that much more powerful. Comedy should be simple because if you have to explain it, then it isn't funny.

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:


Having problems?

Contact Us