[Discussion of the First Slapstick Film: "L'Arroseur Arrosé" (1896)]

One of the immediate things I'm thinking of when watching the film, and thinking of slapstick in general, is what keeps it slapstick and not cruelty? I think part of that is in how we categorize the activity: I notice people in the forum are using words like mischief in reference to the boy rather than mean.

 

Although there is misfortune, we don't believe the person on the punchline part of the gag is really suffering, in the permanent, irreparable sense, making him part of the joke that we can all laugh at together. The sprinkler in the face made me think of Daffy Duck having Elmer's gun go off in his face: Daffy is hurt but not 'really' hurt so we laugh.

 

Towards this, the second film seems to bear this out better to me, with the spanking of the first one seeming to bring it more in line with seriousness; punishment as consequence; reality. While the first one keeps it in slapstick land throughout, with the "joke" continuing through the whole film.

 

Of course, the first one may depend on the audience and on how spanking is viewed. seems like I remember a great many katzjammer kid strips where the end panel was a spanking that presumably was supposed to be funny and still part of the 'joke'.

I, too, wonder about the psychology of slapstick and when the humor has crossed the line.  Why do I laugh every time I see Chevy Chase in the attic in Christmas Vacation as he whacks his head with the floor board?  Shouldn't I be concerned that he'll get a concussion?  What role does humor, in general, play in our lives?

[Discussion of the First Slapstick Film: "L'Arroseur Arrosé" (1896)]

This short little clip is fascinating on so many levels.

 

First, what is my reaction to watching the snippet?

 

My tendency is to look back at this through the lens of 120 years of history. The conclusion, by modern "standards" and looking back through those lens, the clip is outdated and the joke elementary. It's trite, cute, and not as sophisticated as the product we demand for today.

 

Of course this always leads me to a second consideration, wondering what the reaction might have been for first time viewers? And this is where the richness of this clip comes in at full display.

 

What was it like for all those people watching these moving images for the first time? What did they think? What was it like for them to sit in a darkened room filled with friends and strangers watching these images flicker and unfold on a screen?

 

Walter Lippmann (1889-1974), political commentator, wrote of his fascination of the "mesmerized" audiences he encountered in the motion picture theaters and how they "breathlessly awaited" the outcome of what they watched. While the new moving picture technology was truly a sight to behold, Lippmann was more fascinated in the effects the viewing experience had on the public and used his influence to persuade movers and shakers to use the new technology towards that end.

 

So while "The Sprinkler Sprinkled" seems primitive and ineffectual to our visually oversaturated world, when one considers where we've come from, one can't help but walk away with an abundance of appreciation for film and comedy beyond the realm of nostalgia.

 

That is, if we attempt to look at them anew.

Your comments about the audience's reaction had me thinking that this class would be even more fun and engaging if we were viewing the films together.  There is nothing like someone else's chortle to get me giggling.  That shared experience heightens our engagement.

[Discussion of the First Slapstick Film: "L'Arroseur Arrosé" (1896)]

I found the moment of suspense the most intriguing. That anticipation of the climax the most thrilling. The act itself was comical, yes, but the moment before seemed to hold the most emotion. Then the release was in the laughter at his plight. And the longer that moment is held, the bigger the realise. It seems simple in retrospect.

The pace of the music set the suspense.  The dramatic pause before the water squirted out at the gardener made me feel like I was looking down the barrel of the hose wondering what was going on.  But I also was in the audience and knew what was going to happen and was waiting for the gardener's response.

[Discussion of the First Slapstick Film: "L'Arroseur Arrosé" (1896)]

Hey everyone! So excited for this class and for interacting with you all, learning and watching some amazing comedy greats together!!

 

I am an actor and a fellow Improv student, haha, so I am so thrilled to be learning even more about comedy in this class!

 

I really enjoyed watching this very first slapstick film. What I noticed right away, and what my first opinions/impressions were, is first of all the sinister and sneaky trait of the antagonist.

The way he hid from the gardener, like a sinister cat, and the gardener never detected him until it was too late.

The element of surprise, as alot of you have also been saying. Is comedy funny because there is always a surprise to it?!

The act of revenge- the tables are truly turned by end of this film! And is this not at its very core one of the top traits of slapstick, or even comedy in general? You slap me, I slap you back, You hit me with a pie, I trip you as you walk triumphantly away, etc? A thought.

Also, the music added alot to this little film. As an actor and a movie snob, I am always reminded of the true power of music in film. It adds to the emotion like no other element does. What would this little comedy have been like completely silent, without the jaunty music??

Interesting point.  Would we have thought it was as funny if the gardener hadn't caught the boy and soaked him?  I think I would have felt sorry for the gardener and a little annoyed at the boy.  But since the gardener evened the score, the humor remained.