Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Dr. Rich Edwards

What is Slapstick? A Discussion of Definitions

Recommended Posts

I agree with post #18, richiehybrid. The reaction by the person on the receiving end must be in line with the action that just took place.

 

​I'm new at these posts. Can anyone tell me how to reply directly to a comment? Thank you in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the definitions, to a point. I also believe slapstick can be more subtle. To meet the definitions, I think of Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football. Classic slapstick. its all five elements. But what about the subtle missed high five that I just watched the two anchors on the evening news perform? Meets four of the five elements, just not very violent. Is that slapstick?

Precisely, and I hope that we shall arrive at this point later. I believe that "slapstick" has evolved, thanks in part to film, thanks in part to stand up comedy, and has developed a more subtle, non-violent expression. See "Seinfeld."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, all 5 elements come to mind when I think of slapstick, yes even violent. Even looking at the short film from Part 1, the gardener getting water spot in his face can be considered by some to be violent. Him chasing after the kid and dragging him back to the hose could also be considered violent as well as him then spraying the water at the kid. While subtle overall, violence, in a way, plays a very big role in slapstick comedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I've always had trouble relating to slapstick because of the violence. I appreciate the physicality of the performance, but the violence has always been something that has turned me away from some of the performances and made me not like the comedic aspect of it. I try to find it funny, but I can't. I am taking the course in order to find a new appreciation of the genre. I think that it will help me to understand (and perhaps give a chuckle) to this great craft.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I've always had trouble relating to slapstick because of the violence. I appreciate the physicality of the performance, but the violence has always been something that has turned me away from some of the performances and made me not like the comedic aspect of it. I try to find it funny, but I can't. I am taking the course in order to find a new appreciation of the genre. I think that it will help me to understand (and perhaps give a chuckle) to this great craft.

 

I understand your point, but I think you have to go into the film in a certain mindset. While I do not care for violent films (I certainly do not watch films that practice violence for it's own sake), the cartoonishness of the violence is what makes it funny to me. Obviously, when the Stooges fall down an elevator shaft and are only in pain for a few seconds and then get up and continue with the film, that helps to make it funny. If they fell down the shaft and lived but broke their legs, the humor is gone. Comedy is how it is approached by the viewer. I think it is key to view the violence as make believe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually found out that slapstick doesn't just have to be in comedy, sometimes it could wound up in other genres with comedic elements. Such as Horror: ex. Evil Dead 2 (1987) and Army of Darkness (1992) with Bruce Campbell since they evoke the early days of slapstick in movies from the 1930s though the 1950s. Or Action: Shanghai Noon (2002) or Rush Hour (1998) with Jackie Chan since his stunts were inspired by Charlie Chaplin and he provides humor in his own films. The one director that I think of when it comes to absurdity and you can argue about this is Paul Verhoeven, because in his movies from Robocop (1987), Total Recall (1990) or Starship Troopers (1997) since they display a lot of violence, they can also be seen as absurd comedies, if you were to look and listen very carefully.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that struck me in today's reading was the question of how changing technologies affected slapstick humor.  Maybe I'm jumping way ahead, but I think CGI is very much destroying it.  A good slapstick gag just isn't funny to me when I know it wasn't achieved in-camera.

 

For instance, there is simply nothing funny about this for me: 

 

 

 

So in a way, there's a certain realism that has to be present for me to appreciate the gag.  I'd rather see them use cheesy, floppy-limbed dummies than CGI.  But then again, I've always had a special place in my heart for dummies in slapstick.

 

Not sure how that gels with the definitions of slapstick put forth by our masters.

Totally agree with you on this. When we see the front of a house fall on Buster Keaton, it's thrilling because it's a real house falling on a real person, what Walter Kerr called "a fantasy of fact". There's no emotional investment in CG.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternnon, all.

Love reading so many wonderful takes on these questions; much food for thought. I'm not sure I have anything new to add.

The Overall Questions, first.

1. Do you agree or disagree with these definitions?
  I basically agree with the definitions stated and find them as being excellent spring boards.

2. Do you have an alternate definition you would like to propose?
  Under the "Violent" umbrella; "slapstick comedy bits and gags can make members of the audience squirm, make them uncomfortable, make them look away from the screen." I take these to be generally negative, however, I find just as strong of a positive emotion elicited. I want to stop them or I find myself empathizing and cringing for that reason...  So, I might tweak this definition to say, " Slapstick often evokes a strong audience reaction;  negatively (squirming, looking away, etc.) as well as positively. It draws you in.. and may move you instinctively either from or towards the action."

"...transform acts of willful maliciousness.."..  that's pretty strong. Stan and Ollie, Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, the "Dennis the Menace" character all come to mind when you say Slapstick, but "willful maliciousness" does not. "Willful mischievousness" or perhaps "Willful mischievousness sometimes bordering on maliciousness" ... that would cover the gambit of The Tramp to the villains tying the damsels to train tracks.

 

3. Do you believe slapstick comedy has to include all five of the conditions I discuss?
No. I do not.  If our dear little "Sprinkler" is indeed to be taken as Slapstick, then the five proposed aspects do not need to be present. In my opinion, there was no indication that this was "make believe" nor the absurd, nor was it exaggerated in its violence or demonstration of physicality requiring prowess.  The only "ritualistic" aspect I felt was the Gardener looking into the hose..  at 45 seconds long, there was not a lot of opportunity to "repeat" anything. ;)  

 

I looped the two "Sprinkler" shorts together, to better help my pea brain discern the difference and similarities, and they tell a marvelous story. Their similarity of set, props, actions and costumes then plays into the "ritualistic" aspect :) It was only then that it really struck me (no pun intended) as meeting the Slapstick criteria.

I think perhaps that the more flamboyant, exaggerated, Slapstick is what we've come to expect and that our "Sprinkler" is only categorized as Slapstick because we are so keen to label everything. It would be easy to see where Slapstick could easily evolve from it. It is, by any categorization, a "classic". it is hilarious and transcendent of language, culture and time.

 

*****

...five conditions that must be met for comedy to be considered slapstick comedy.
and the questions associated with each point.

 

#1: Slapstick involves exaggeration ~ there was no question in conjunction with this.

#2: Slapstick is physical
a. how does cinema influence slapstick comedy?
The ability to hone and deliver a perfectly presented outlandish gag or complicated skit (Keaton's falling house w/ the perfectly placed window or Stan's hat wafting into the mist shrouded, shadow laden graveyard) is development unattainable on the stage. Cinema and special effects, in any of their incarnations, allowed / allows the over-the-top, unfettered creativity which IS slapstick!


b. Do the technologies of cinema change slapstick in some way?
I'd have to vote "yes" on this in that the level to which gags may be taken has changed (bigger, more exaggerated and absurd),  but "no" as far as the overall content.
The accepted conventions and requirements have not change.

Just a personal example. We watched part of "The KIngsman", a 2014 film which met all the prescribed Slapstick criteria!  The filmmaker took what could have been a very gruesome, several minute long, blood bath, in a church, and made it hilarious.

By utilizing
absurd and outlandish killing techniques (impaled with a plastic spoon) and then having the entire exaggerated scene of wholesale slaughter (70 people or more) explained away with a (hopefully!) non-existent, make believe, mind control device, the filmmaker stopped forward progress of the story. I will say, he added to it at the same time.

 

This was achieved not only through advancement of cinematic technology (slow motion & the Matrix-style camera techniques) but through our understanding of technological advancements as well. You have to stay at least one step ahead of the audience for something to be unbelievable / make believe, at least in this case!

(( At the time we watched this film, we both thought it original and fresh.  Now I realize it was Slapstick in its purest form...   Wait until I tell my husband! ))

c. How do the famous visual gags of vaudeville get re-interpreted through the lens of a camera in the silent film era?
The camera techniques would increase the possibility of the absurd.. people popping in / out, etc. It's easy to see where tried and true vaudeville gags could be easily adapted and "enhanced" and extended in length and scope.  I hope this is something we cover in more detail, later!  It has the potential to be a fascinating historical window.

d. How do these same gags change on screen with the advent of sound?
When looking at our two "Sprinkler" films of the late 1890's and the one from 2014 (

) the only change is that the newer one is longer and aspects are more drawn out. There's calming, mood setting music, tension building sound effects, humorous chase music which leads to a longer chase... but all of the original elements are there.  It's the same, merely longer,  Is the newer one better? Not really. It doesn't have the charm of the original, in my opinion.  ( see below )

e. Of color?
Hmm..   In this respect, I'm not sure how color would impact Slapstick. However the technique of hand tinting film frames could have been (?) used to highlight an action in addition to the audio sound of the slapstick, I suppose.  I do not know if this is the case... but I can see where it would work.
 

I should think the advent of color to slapstick might have made it more difficult to produce. It's another aspect of the mundane or familiar which needs to addressed and dealt with.

Color made the 2014 "Sprinkler", feeling more familiar to me than the two 1890's versions. That familiarity could make the entire "make believe" issue more difficult to deal with...in fact, there was nothing which indicated the scene was "make believe", just as in the original. 

The audience, who was trained to accept the slapstick's sound itself as an indicator of "make believe", could also be trained to do the same with a particular color.  I know silents often did this with blue being used as an indicator of night scenes, green or yellow for daytime, purple for moon light, etc.

#3: Slapstick is ritualistic

a. it is worth paying attention to when certain gags, gestures, or moments repeat in a slapstick comedy. What does its re-appearance mean for us as viewers?
I think, sometimes, the re-appearance of something evokes a feeling of familiarity. We expect Stan to take off his hat and tussle his hair. When he does it's reaffirming. When a gag is repeated, to the point of us waiting for it, craving it and it finally takes place, the moment is special, as though we are directly involved. Hence the universal appeal of, "Wait for it. Wait for it. BOOM!"  which elicits a smile and sigh. It's worth paying attention to, but at the same time, it's inherently understood.


#4: Slapstick is make-believe
a. The question for you to explore is how do these slapstick films let the audience know that this is all just "make believe?"

I'm guessing we're coming to this. I did not see this aspect in either version of the two "Sprinkler" films and the others, indicated, have not yet aired.

 #5: Slapstick is violent - There was no question associated with this.
 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm most interested in characteristic #4:  Slapstick is make believe.

 

I posted earlier about whether slapstick is a "body genre" (as defined by Linda Williams). In the genres she discusses, horror, melodrama and porn, it seems like horror is the one that most attaches to this quality of slapstick--while theatrical viewing (or even viewing at home) may immerse the viewer in the horror experience and cause the viewer's body to have physical reactions (grimace, sweat, turning away), we always expect to be delivered back to reality, as in "it's only a movie" and "it's still daylight outside in the real world" or, "nope, there is no one under the bed."

 

In other words, both slapstick and horror, in order to comfort us or at least not leave us at a pitch of awful (as in "awe-filled) excitement, use a range of devices to deliver us back to reality.

 

The connection I'm making has some problems, but I think I remain convinced that slapstick belongs with Williams's body genres.

 

The full-text of her essay is here for anyone who's interested:

http://faculty.complit.illinois.edu//rrushing/470j/ewExternalFiles/Williams%E2%80%94Film%20Bodies.pdf

 

R. Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Slapstick is defined or thought as being "on purpose" or violent. But I feel it could also be accidentally wacky happenings that uh... happen to someone. The comedy is done to and for certain effects, in film. However, in life you can sense the Slapstick and without harm, sometimes. Whether a fall, a mess made, or a misunderstanding,(if no one is hurt) you may look back and laugh at the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all of the definitions (I thought they were excellent), but exaggeration and ritualistic are the most interesting to me. When I hear the word "slapstick", my mind tends to go straight to the exaggerated facial expressions in connection with some kind of violent act we see from someone like The Three Stooges. However, some of my favorite slapstick comes from Buster Keaton, who with his stone face is known for his lack of exaggerated facial expression. The exaggeration in his films is expressed more through his incredible stunts and crazy situations in which he finds himself, such as the giant boulder avalanche and the "bride" mob he has to escape in Seven Chances. It feels like his dedication to that stone face created a necessity for him to be exceedingly inventive in creating his gags. That inventiveness makes his comedy all the more appealing to me. Keaton's lack of facial expression also plays into the ritualistic aspect of slapstick, which is super interesting because it isn't even really an action, but it's something that any Keaton fan loves to see from him. The same goes with Chaplin - who doesn't love seeing him shrug his shoulders, scrunch his nose, and adjust his oversized-shoe-clad feet? I love how these rituals allow the viewer to get to know the character's personality; it makes everything they do that much funnier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love slapstick in which the gags are character-driven and/or plot-driven.  Slapstick in which the gags are thrown in arbitrarily with no real motivation, leaves me cold.

 

Consider the pie-fight.

 

When Laurel & Hardy's "The Battle of the Century" was being written, one of the writers proposed ending the film with a pie-fight.  Even then (1927), this gag was considered old-fashioned, overdone, and the sign of a writer who couldn't come up with anything better.  Then, Stan Laurel had an idea:  What if you made it the pie-fight to end all pie-fights, with each pie thrown for a reason, and landing in an original and clever way?  Why, this would change everything!

 

And it did.

 

It had logic, rhythm, pacing (building gradually from a tiny misunderstanding to an **** of destruction involving the entire day's output of the L.A. Pie Company), variety, and a real motivation for each person to join in.

 

For me, the best moment in the film is a subtle one.  A pie lands on the sidewalk, and a haughty flapper (Anita Garvin), slips and sits right down on it.  Though her skirt flares out around her, hiding the pie, her reaction tells us exactly where it is.  For a moment, she's puzzled.  She doesn't know what in the world she's landed in, and she doesn't WANT to know.  She glances around to see if anyone noticed her embarrassing fall, then carefully stands up.  The pie is no longer on the sidewalk. As she gingerly walks around the corner, she delicately shakes one leg...silently telling us where the pie is. 

 

The best part of this:  It wasn't in the original script.  Stan just thought of it, that morning, asked Anita (who was working on another picture on the Roach lot) if she would do a quick little gag for him, during her lunch-hour, and she was delighted to oblige.  She did it in one take, and it stole the picture.

 

In 1965, Blake Edwards included a huge pie-fight in "The Great Race", as a tribute to Laurel & Hardy.  But it was more Mack Sennett than Laurel & Hardy.  Sheer mayhem and excess with no rhyme or reason.

 

Compare the two, films, and you'll see what I mean.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with you on this. When we see the front of a house fall on Buster Keaton, it's thrilling because it's a real house falling on a real person, what Walter Kerr called "a fantasy of fact". There's no emotional investment in CG.

Sometimes, having a low-budget is the best thing for comedy, because it forces you to be creative and use physical means to achieve the gag.  "The Red Green Show" is a great example of this, especially in the "Adventures With Bill" segments.

 

Partly because they didn't have a huge budget for digital effects, and partly because they knew and loved the old slapstick filming techniques, the show's creative team did almost everything the old-fashioned way.  They'd toss around dummies, use wires to manipulate objects, set off real explosions, and make the most of camera-angles and the illusion of reduced depth of field.

 

The show's editor, Ava Stokl, edited all the bits together, building in the rhythm and pacing, so every gag was perfectly timed.  She once told me that she'd spent a whole day, editing together belch & **** jokes, and thinking, "This is the BEST JOB EVER!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear.

 

It appears we're not allowed to use the words (4 letters, wild Roman party) or (4 letters, flatulence) here.

 

Considering the earthiness of slapstick, this censorship rather limits our discourse, don't you think?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question put forth was, "How do these same gags change on screen with the advent of sound?"

 

It had slipped my mind, until a moment ago... but the addition of music or a specific soundtrack can put a film over the top. 

The 1927 Laurel and Hardy film, "Putting Pants on Philip" was restored and had a new soundtrack put in place.   

Philip (Stan) is fresh off the boat, from Scotland and in a kilt. Ollie has to get him into pants..  you can imagine the rest.

The new soundtrack was done by Robert Israel and is comprised of acoustic versions of 18th and 19th century Scottish folk tunes which actually FIT the action of the film... not in just the tempo, but in the lyric content as well.  

 

It's simply amazing to watch.... providing of course you know the lyrics to the songs. lol

 

I messaged Mr. Israel, on Facebook, and commented on the perfect marriage of music and action throughout the film and he was floored ANYONE even noticed.

 

I've seen the film w/ your standard, Silent film soundtrack, and while it's funny it's far enhanced by the Israel soundtrack... right down to the gag sounds and special effects. 

.......just my two cents.

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  1. "Slapstick is violent" "Violent" is a strong word. That tells me that a performer is willing to do harm. There should be a better word. Maybe "painful". Most slapstick is accidental. Man vs. machine (Electric shock), Man vs. nature (Wind), Man vs. self  (tripping on shoe lace). On the Dick Van Dyke Show there was a lecture on how pain is not funny. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  1. "Slapstick is violent" "Violent" is a strong word. That tells me that a performer is willing to do harm. There should be a better word. Maybe "painful". Most slapstick is accidental. Man vs. machine (Electric shock), Man vs. nature (Wind), Man vs. self  (tripping on shoe lace). On the Dick Van Dyke Show there was a lecture on how pain is not funny. 

 

 

Yes, I remember that "lecture" on The Dick Van Dyke Show: I think it was the episode when Rob Petrie visits his son Richie's class for "What My Father Does for a Living."

 

One of the things I loved about The Dick Van Dyke Show was that the humor was so good-natured: No matter what the joke, it wasn't "at anyone else's expense." Behind it all, it was obvious that every character liked the others.

 

Could that be what others are struggling with when it comes to defining the "violent" part of the definition for slapstick? I know I struggle with it. I do think there's some truth to slapstick containing violent elements, but does it have to include pain of a physical and/or emotional nature?

 

I would answer no to my own question!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make a VERY good point that knowing the movie is a comedy going into it helps us rationalize the violence as comedy and make believe.

 

Bingo! As a child, it was always obvious that the Stooges gags were just that and as such it was not violent in any way. Now I am from an older generation where parents spent a good deal of time with their kids and reinforced what was real and not real by participating in what we viewed. We were not raised in the time of ultra violent video games and action films that profess reality so perhaps our perspective is different. I do however offer that my 26 year old daughter watched the Stooges with me, loves them to this day and never thought a real person could or should do any of those things. It was humor, it was staged, and she was clear on that fact.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with post #18, richiehybrid. The reaction by the person on the receiving end must be in line with the action that just took place.

 

​I'm new at these posts. Can anyone tell me how to reply directly to a comment? Thank you in advance.

Lawrence, to reply to a comment just click on the Quote button at the bottom right of the comment. A box will appear with REPLY TO THIS TOPIC. I hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the definition, which works for me. Exaggeration, Physicality, Ritualistic, Make-believe, and Violent. I'm one of those people who doesn't respond well to the "violence" and was glad to see so many other folks on the boards who, like me, are in this class to try to figure out the appeal here. So let me turn to one aspect that doesn't seem to have been covered in the definitions. Is Slapstick Funny?
  I think that the idea that Slapstick is funny is just assumed. People will say that they couldn't help laughing, or it's just funny, don't try to understand it. I agree that we often cannot control our laughter, and it functions in sub-conscious and un-conscious ways. But humor is very much a learned behavior, too. And cultures are taught what is funny. If everybody else laughs when somebody slips on a banana peel, you eventually laugh, too. But I never picked up the habit. If somebody accidentally gets hit in the face, I feel sympathy. I don't think America's Funniest Home Videos are all that funny, either.
   So going back to the definition offered, where does humor fit in? Is exaggeration automatically funny? Maybe big clown shoes are funny, but a large person can be frightening. Physicality and athleticism is admired, but it doesn't make me laugh. Make-believe, Ritual, and then violence... none of this implies Humor. Some situations are in fact exactly the opposite. Hanging on a flagpole over the street fills me with terror. I am afraid not necessarily for the character in the film, but for the actor who is taking risks.
    I know that it can be a huge drag to explain why something is funny, and very uncool if you don't just automatically "get it." But we've started to explore gender differences in the appeal of slapstick, and I'm sure there are cultural differences as well. The Hoser Hosed didn't make me laugh at all. My dad (who loved Laurel & Hardy beyond belief) taught me to be the straight man, so I know there's lots of room in slapstick for humorlessness. But I will be disappointed if we don't stop and ask why "we" laugh. 

 

 

In my view, the more current reality based shows like Americas Funniest Home Videos and the genre is really trying to evoke a cringe with the wipe outs they display rather than a laugh. I don't find those appealing as someone is actually being hurt and although it was an unintended consequence of another activity, it is real. Slapstick is clearly not real and since it is/was staged, one can laugh with impunity as no one is really getting hurt.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually found out that slapstick doesn't just have to be in comedy, sometimes it could wound up in other genres with comedic elements. Such as Horror: ex. Evil Dead 2 (1987) and Army of Darkness (1992) with Bruce Campbell since they evoke the early days of slapstick in movies from the 1930s though the 1950s. Or Action: Shanghai Noon (2002) or Rush Hour (1998) with Jackie Chan since his stunts were inspired by Charlie Chaplin and he provides humor in his own films. The one director that I think of when it comes to absurdity and you can argue about this is Paul Verhoeven, because in his movies from Robocop (1987), Total Recall (1990) or Starship Troopers (1997) since they display a lot of violence, they can also be seen as absurd comedies, if you were to look and listen very carefully.

 

Excellent point and there have also been slapstick elements in other types of film as well. A great example is in Raiders of the Lost Ark when Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) is being chased in the Bazaar by a man with a knife, she grabs a cast iron skillet and runs into a doorway, he chases her in and all you hear is the tell tale kerplunk and she runs back out. That gag lightened the scene and actually removed some of the tension regarding the potential for a violent outcome for Marion. Would that gag have been so impactful and funny if hears of similar gags had not shaped our expectations to already know the outcome?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the definitions of slapstick given as it does help to define the genre of slapstick and what makes slapstick, slapstick. I also enjoyed learning about what a slapstick really is and how they used it in vaudeville which really should be considered the early days of sound effects. I do not think that all of the elements mentioned need to be involved to make it a slapstick comedy. Even if only one or two elements are present it would still be a slapstick comedy to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen a great many comments regarding the violence aspect of slapstick and it most certainly is there. I do not believe it is required in every case and a number of posts point out examples of alternatives to it. Physical comedy displayed by people like Cary Grant in Arsenic and Old Lace can be classified as slapstick but no one is hurt on screen. Acts that displayed violence in some scenes and not in others are also prevalent such as WC Fields in It's a Gift where he sits at a picnic lunch and tries in vain to throw away a feather. In the WC movies, he was generally the one getting hurt (always fleeting and never seriously). Many acts ran this balance and it worked.

 

One final followup on the Stooges, they are polarizing for a number of reasons and many people have pointed out in the post what they do and do not like about them. There is one characteristic about them that was not mentioned that I find to be one of the reasons they worked. No matter how zany the situation, no matter how stupid their approach or solution to the problem or job they addressed, they owned it. They always felt they were being smart, logical, and doing the right thing the right way. The classic picture you will see of them in their golf togs; look at their faces. They look like they totally rock this look and are expecting admiration for their fashion sense. The ability to carry that off in short after short and always be no only completely unaware they were being idiots but remain absolutely confident that they were not it amazing and one of the keys to their genius. That is very hard to do.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...