Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by felipe1912t

  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 th
  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-a
  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
  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
  6. 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 f
  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
  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 sce
  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,
  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 traill
  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 onl
  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, ther
  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
  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,
  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.
  16. It seems to me that the only condition not satisfied on this clip is the "violence" one. We have all the situations, yet ordinary, exaggerated to be funny. We see Chase's physical efforts to get ready by preparing himself in several ways. Each step of his preparation flirts with repetition of barriers/difficulties that he must transpass (and that's a condition I wouldn't realize until watching several slapstick movies). And finally, the make-believe point is there from the beginning to the end. I agree with the exasperation point well quoted by Mast's. It is clear to see how potty he gets
  17. All three clips are amazing for its funny construction, and I'd point that the Leslie Nielsen's one is clearly one step higher compared to the other two. Of course, it seems natural to me that new slapstick talents search for higher comic achievements on the field to get notest. I'm Brazilian, so baseball here isn't popular at all. Any way, it is clearly an American institution and to have it on those clips are really delightful. The first clip (Lloyd's) is the type of gag that still works today, in many ways, if you just do it the same way. And I'd say that even action films make use
  18. It is always wonderful to watch film clips with a deep analysis of its modus operandis. Thans Mr. Edwards for that! The clip itself is interesting not only because of its visual frame, that makes us belive no one can possibly enter on the room anymore; but also because of Groucho leading the overcrowded space with his verbal/cynical interventions Great example od the early slapstick talkies!
  19. Lloyd tries to extract his gags from common and ordinary situations. It is the common man amusing himself on the park and having to face a great sort of moments link any other man. The crab on the first toy bites everuone, not just him. The slide we see is ordinary, so what makes it funny is the way he goes down on it. Any ordinary man eats at the park, but the exaggerated amount of food makes us laugh of him, even thinking he became sick after that on the lung's toy. And finally, the last act relies on an accident that could be a problem to anyone on the park. Again, Lloyd uses the park's ins
  20. Again, we have here exaggerated situations. The piano seems to be light when the first man carries it, but we see it is actually really heavy when Keaton tries to carry it. And it's weight will pave the entire narrative from this point on. Camera is placed normally in wide shots, so we can see all action as an organic succesion of events that are related to each other. Film editing is there but only when needed. Not too much cuts at all. It seems to me that Keaton's comedy tries to be more visual, bigger, more impressive than Chaplin's. Keaton's phisycal abilities are one step further from
  21. I agree with Canby's point of view. As we can see on the selected clip, there are few editing cut points on the sequence. All the narrative perspective is based on a set where we can watch clearly all the elements we need in order to have an appropriate understanding of the gag. And it is just as funny as a 'modern' movie with a lot of cuts. Sometimes it feels that the lack of ability on today's comedians make them need to overcut the movie just to make thins work artificially. Besides the middle-distance camera, we have all important elements placed near the center of the screen (the guy
  22. Honestly I don't feel I've watched or even studied sufficient movies from this period of time to say that we had a golden age of comedy or not. It seems to me that a golden age is the best period ever of something: the best artists, the most significant pieces of art (movies), the most influences lasting years after it's end, etc. The silent era was undoubtedly really important for comedy as a genre. If it wasn't for names like Chaplin, Lloyd, Keaton and Langdon we wouldn't watch a so great development of it, who were masters in many ways for the future generations. But I wouldn't call it the
  23. I must confess that Horld Lloyd was not under my radar of great comedians from early american cinema, but this two clips show us that his narrative ability was as mature as Chaplin's or even Keaton's ones. An artist who knew how to prolong a funny sequence by making a whole situation out of it. The first clip is a quick gag, which starts and ends in a matter of seconds. Lloyd's development is deeper and makes us watch a serious os consequences from the first situation. Really good!
  24. It is just amazing - and almost unbeliavable - how Mr. Keaton took major risks doing his films. As one of the classic characteristics of slapstick is exaggerated situations, it is known that this kind of scene is common on the genre. But the iconic scene of the house falling with just a small hole to save him from serious injuries is capable of make people creepy nowadays! I've already watched "The General" and must say that it is one of my favorite's classical comedy movies of all time!
  25. An interesting point remembered by Mr. Edwards on this first episode is that the first two clips were made by Chaplin as an employee, so the liberty he had at that time was really limited. When he achieved a point of artistic independence he was able to develop his character and go deeper on the slapstick situations, creating scenes that would last generations and make him one of the greatest of all time. All the situations shown here were really physical, based on real-living situations and exagerated to give the audience the laugh they are expecting (or sometimes not). A brief - but
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...