18th and Fairfax

 Harvey was a very fun movie and I'm glad I got the chance to see it. This movie was a very interesting movie and the characters really are what this film is really about. It's also obvious that this movie has had a profound effect on film and television since its creation. This film used comedy in a different manner than most of the other movies that we've seen during the course of this semester. This movie didn’t have me laughing out loud, or even chuckling, I don’t think that the movie was trying to even convey this kind of humor. The humor was in the situation, it was a subtle humor that can be found in the everyday life of most people. The humor that was conveyed in this film was mostly about piquing people’s interest and most of the outward humor that I saw revolved around Harvey and people’s perception of Mr. Elwood and Harvey. This is a humor that revolves around unexpected situations and reactions. The other subtle humor used was in the interactions between the other characters. These two different types of comedy are in contrast with each other, but at the same time, complement each other.

The humor that revolved around people and how they interact reminded me of a Wes Anderson film, at least in my perception. I saw this because again, it is subtle as well as quick. The exchanges people have in this film are comical in the content in which they speak about, such as Veta’s various conversations with Judge Gaffney. When she’s talking to him in a hush-hush tone at the beginning of the film, it’s funny because she’s whispering so low that she’s not saying a single thing, and neither is the Judge, but yet they’re communicating somehow. It also is humorous because it’s an awkward moment for Veta. She is trying to act out her front stage behavior in front of her guests as well as try to keep Elwood from returning home. This humor serves the purpose of pushing people into awkward situations and making them look foolish. The other more situational humor surrounding Harvey isn’t really in how people are communicating, but how they react and how they’re not communicating (mostly the beginning of the film). People don’t know how to react to Elwood and Harvey, and their reactions to him are funny, of course because people don’t really expect to see a grown man taking to an invisible 6’ tall rabbit named Harvey.

Both these different types of humor are part of the same general theme that stitch together quite seamlessly, both types of humor come together to bring people out of their comfort zones and see how they react outside of their perceived notions of how the world works. This comes full circle and becomes what this movie really is about, pulling people out of their shells and helping them to see others and get to know others that they would otherwise neglect, case and point, Dr. Sanderson and Kelly.  Overall this film was very fun and held my attention very easily and I think that the concepts of the film were very easy to relate to. 

Worst Thing I've Written So Far

 This movie was a very interesting movie, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. How the film simulated a sort of breach in the fourth wall between two sets of characters, was a very interesting dynamic. This film is centered around the viewer knowing film and knowing people who have something in their lives that they use as an escapism. This movie had some diverse characters, but none of them were really proclaimed as “the star” of the film. Like in the actual film “The Purple Rose of Cairo” one character can really have a larger impact on the film as a whole, and not be the focal point. This idea actually pushed one of the themes this film addressed, how one character can make or break a film, even if they are thought to not be necessary to the plot as a whole. Cecilia was a pretty weak main character that was easily swayed by anything that gave her attention, she also represented a person who just wants to get away from real life to be whisked away in a fictional world. Even though she was a weak character, her presence in the film was important to the entire plot. Her character was downplayed and her lack of decision making is what made her the main character for this movie. This is so, because it again fits into the theme of a movie that doesn't need a center star to have a strong presence or plot. 

This movie was a very intriguing movie and there was a lot that was going on, and things that can be interpreted within. Unfortunately, This movie isn't given justice by the horrible garbage I just forced myself to write. 

Fight the Power!

            Harold & Maude was a very interesting movie, and it carried out completely differently than I thought it would. The humor tended toward the darker side, and wasn’t really a laugh-out-loud type of movie. The humor was much more subtle in this movie and could be missed entirely if the viewer isn't really looking for it. This movie was definitely more of a character driven movie; the plot was a little lacking and hard to follow. Harold & Maude had a similar message as The Life of Brian and probably had its share of controversy as well. Throughout this film, the ‘do-whatever-you’re-going-to-do’ Cat Stevens song would play and carried the same weight as Brian’s lecture to the multitude and the ‘give a whistle’ song from The Life of Brian rolled into one. This movie wasn’t really that appealing to me, and trying to think of a target audience for this film was a little difficult, until I remembered the era in which it was made. This movie’s main message was basically to “fight the power” and the two main characters did exactly that… in every way possible. This point could be made in a mocking gesture, considering again, the time in which it was created and the extremes this movie goes to in portraying Harold and Maude's railing against the society in which they live is rather comical. Although, I think that the humor as a whole, is made at the expense of those in places of authority. 

In the scene after Harold announces that he is getting married, the viewer is shown in a first person manner how every person in authority in this film disapproves his action. The psychologist, the Father and his uncle all chastise Harold while there is a photograph of a person of power behind them. The Father has the picture of a saint behind him, the psychologist has Sigmund Freud and Harold’s uncle has Nixon behind him.  This, of course, symbolizes authority and puts these men as the authority figures that Harold and Maude are fighting against. Obviously the one character they would try to do the most damage to would be the army man that supports war and has a portrait of a president behind his desk. 

What really intrigued me about this film was the imagery and how each scene was seemingly set up carefully and precisely for each character. As an example, The first time imagery and visual symbols became obvious to me, was the first appointment Harold has with his psychologist. His office was very clean, very symmetrical, and how it was arranged worked against how a typical psychologist’s office is portrayed. Harold and his psychologist would sit in chairs that didn’t even face each other, but faced the lounge sofa like it was a television, or piece of art to behold. Whenever we saw the interaction between these two, there really wasn’t much discussion or progress being made, at least from the psychologist’s point of view. Whether it was making fun of protesters or those in authority, or both, Harold & Maude was a movie that fits perfectly into the era in which it was made, and probably hit the chords that it wanted to when it was released, 

Something To Do With Black And White.

     This movie was a different pace than the last couple of movies i've seen in this class, the style was also very interesting. Young Frankenstein was a movie that mostly used folklore as a vehicle to comment on and explore the idea of identity. In the beginning of this film, doctor frederic corrects one of his students on the pronunciation of his name and is very upset about being related to his grandfather and his work. Even eyegor pronounces his name differently to distinguish himself from his father. As the movie goes on, these characters add their own flair onto the classic tale of Frankenstein.

     Each character undergoes a change or crisis of identity in their own way, and they also battle with the idea of destiny and what they feel they have to do in their lives. Even though he was very opposed and loudly rejected his grandfather and his work, Frederic lapses into his grandfather's work fairly easily, seemingly after his nightmare in the beginning of the film. as others have stated, The black and white style of the film added its own characteristic that gave insight to the characters within the film. In a way, it simplified the characters into extremes which the characters did fall into a lot of the time.

     Frederic wore his emotions on his sleeve and lost control of himself quite easily, he was either calm or completely off the wall, he was never in between. This style also presented identity in a similar way, at least from the perspective of children following in their families footsteps; they either follow or they don't, they're successful or they're failures. with frederic denying his grandfather's work, and eyegor wanting distinction from his dad. Identity is the major theme that this movie revolves around, and is basically what it's really about, showing people's true colors. 

An Idiot's Reh-jeem

An Idiot’s Regime

            I had never heard of Idiocracy before this class, so I had no idea what it was going to be about. When I started the movie, I was pretty sure it would be really stupid, but by the end, I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn’t horrible. To me, it resembled the tv series Futurama in that it was about a person that got cast into the future. Both this movie and that tv show are about “normal” people who are forced to live in a completely different world. Besides that, the notion of intelligence is addressed in both of the movie and in Futurama. I also initially thought that both Idiocracy and Futurama are based around social commentary, but I found that Idiocracy seemed to be more about making fun of a social commentary. This movie plays with the idea of intelligence and stupidity, and plays with these ideas through the use of fallacies. I wasn’t looking for fallacies when I started watching this film, but as soon as I identified one fallacy, I noticed that the entire movie utilized different fallacies to demonstrate the stupidity of the future people or to push the plot forward.

The entire plot of the movie is even based on fallacy; the narrator of the film states that because “stupid” people reproduce much more than “smart” people, the entire world would of course be filled with stupid people in 500 years. This statement isn’t even one fallacy; it rolls a slippery slope and a genetic fallacy into one concept. Considering the type of movie this was though, I actually thought the use of fallacies to be intentional, which made the comedy even more appealing to me. As the movie moves forward, the viewer is brought to a place where they understand the future people to be stupid not only because of their speech and their actions, but because of how they reason. When Joe is brought before the court, his trial is based purely on how he speaks and is called a “fag” which leads the court to erupt in laughter and then leads to his incarceration, the people base their reasoning for Joe to be guilty because of his character, not the fact that he doesn’t know how to operate in the future. This ad hominem fallacy is used very often throughout the movie, especially with whatever trouble Joe gets himself into. Every time he does something wrong, he is accused on the basis of him talking like a fag or, as written on one sign at his rehabilitation, he’s guilty because “he’s a dick”. Even though putting millions of people out of their jobs probably wasn’t the best decision Joe made, the only way the future people were able to put his wrongdoing into words was through this fallacy.

The fallacy that I initially noticed in this film was when Joe had his first meeting concerning the crops after seeing that they were watered with that electrolyte Gatorade-like drink; brawndo. When Joe was trying to argue in favor of water, the argument kept circling back to water being gross because it comes from the toilet, a genetic fallacy, and brawndo having “what every plant craves, its got electrolytes.” When Joe asked what was so important about electrolytes, his cabinet just kept talking in circles, saying that electrolytes are used to make brawndo because brawndo has electrolytes.

These different fallacies, as well as some others are used to help the viewer identify with the stupidity of the future people, and to help sympathize with Joe’s frustration in dealing with them. The use of these fallacies really added to the comedy of the film, as well. Overall, this movie was actually very funny and it helped me to identify and see the different uses a fallacy can have.

On Football Games and America

 MASH was one of the more interesting movies I've watched over the course of this class although, it wasn't exactly the best movie I've seen. The biggest problem I had with this movie was the plot, it was practically nonexistent, and the humor felt specific to the era in which it was made. The major themes that I was able to associate with this movie was communication, the lack thereof and the lack of power those in authority actually had. From the opening scene to the end credits, the main characters walk all over every person that outranked them or was outside of their “clique”. This was humorous because it plays with the power structure and highlights how poorly things are communicated between practically everyone. The main characters, in turn, have figured out how to play that in their favor which lets them do practically whatever they want.

Overall, this movie seemed to bring a lighthearted approach to different aspects of the military, giving people a way to vent frustrations they may have had, especially those that have been in the military. The situations and archetypes presented were made to be relatable so people can identify with them. As we've discussed in class, the way this movie portrayed the military and its various facets is a way that we can bring it into the realm of humanity and strip away some of its power.

The theme of communication is prevalent in this film in nearly every scene, when the movie opened and the head of the MASH camp is giving what seems to be orders to the character, Radar, they're just talking over each other and Radar runs off before the commander finishes talking. Another example of communication is with the dentist, when he reads some sort of article that leads him to believe that he's turning into a “fairy”, and he believes it without the slightest hesitation, even when the others know that it's a ridiculous notion to believe wholeheartedly, he still believes it. The announcements that come on over the camp's speakers throughout the movie are also quite misleading, even the speaker steps over his speech, fails to read some announcements and immediately retracts other statements he makes, which again lends to this theme of miscommunication. These different scenes also show how communication can break the chain of command, when people don't really understand what's being told to them, the order falls through the cracks in the floor.

One thing that confused me was the Japanese radio station that played over the speakers in the camp. I was under the impression this movie takes place in Korea, so I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything, other than foreshadow two of the main characters short visit to Japan. The characters trip to Japan was a turning point in the movie that signaled the rapid dissolving of what little plot line this movie actually had. As a symbol, the football game symbolizes the characters complete triumph over the military entity. Other than this symbolism, the football game at the end of the film really didn't seem to serve much purpose besides adding length to the film and a way for the characters to make a quick buck.  

The Gods Ought Not Lose Their Wits Again

When I started this movie, I didn’t really know what to expect or what direction it was going. For the most part, this movie was very unorthodox even for the time in which it was filmed. The way it was edited, and how the scenes were sped up and cut drastically changed the way some elements of this movie were presented. The style the movie had, lead me to believe it was older than it actually was. The scenes that were intentionally sped up added a more comical effect and made them seem both more lighthearted and seemingly less significant. Obviously some of these scenes were sped up for time constraint, watching Mr. Steyn chase his “anti-christ” car around would have probably taken a much longer time and wouldn’t have had the same comical effect if the scene had been left at regular speed. In my opinion, the car chase scenes between the guerrillas and the various governments were sped up for similar reasons, but more for time constraint than comical reasons. The style of humor in this film was a little different than the other movies that I’ve seen in this class. It took a mix of physical, slap-stick humor, with a little deeper “intelligent” humor that took a longer time to set up. The movie took a longer time to set up most of its humor, in general.

In the beginning, I thought this film was going to strictly be about the bushmen, then it splintered off and talked about various people groups and governing bodies. The story sort of takes a hit with all of the diversity the filmmakers tried to throw in. What started as a commentary on modernization essentially destroying the beauty of life, became a bland love story that mingled with a senseless pride war between a rebel group and one of Africa’s governing bodies. After looking a little closer though, the theme still carries through. The evil that is represented as a glass coke bottle and the innocence of the bushman change forms throughout the film. The first shift that can be seen is the guerrillas attack on the government building, where the coke bottle is the government and the guerrillas are the bushman. This comparison can be made when they retreat back into the banana forest, the guerrillas are hiding out in the brush, while the governing officials recuperate, get dressed and retaliate from their office. Another contributing factor in this scene is the government's military giving chase to the guerrillas in a Mercedes (I think that’s what that car they commandeered was), while the guerrillas flee in open aired jeeps. The military even comments on the gas guzzling vehicle when it breaks down while in pursuit of the guerrillas. Another throwback to consumption and waste.

This change in form is made more official when the bushman is arrested for shooting a goat in another man’s pasture. When the bushman is arrested, he drops the bottle as he is carried off in the paddy wagon; I think that this is a symbolic shift. Throughout the entirety of this movie, both the innocent bushman and the corrupting coke bottle are symbols represented by different elements in the film at different times during the film. At the beginning the symbol of innocence represented by the bushman shifts to the rebels, but then shifts back to the bushman. Later, the innocent bushman symbol is then shifted to the Botswana people and the rebels become the representation of the corrupting coke bottle. The defeat of the rebels is the end of the symbolic corruption. These symbols then revert back to the bushman and the bottle, where the bushman prevails in finding the end of the world and disposing of the evil bottle once and for all.

Overall, this movie seemed very scattered and unorganized, but latching on to the bushman and coke bottle being merely symbols of innocence and corruption helped me to understand this movie on a level that might have been completely unintentional, but helpful nonetheless. 

Give a Whistle

The Life of Brian was a very interesting movie. I’ve never seen it before, so I didn’t really know what to expect. After hearing about the controversy this movie apparently incited, I was actually kind of disappointed. To me, this movie wasn’t very controversial, even from a religious point of view. I actually found the jokes and themes of this movie funnier for having known the bible and the culture it made fun of. Obviously the humor of this movie is more directed at the people who are familiar with the themes addressed, therein.

            The main joke this movie makes at the religious community, I think, is blind faith. This movie really makes a point to show how ignorant people can be, under the excuse of religion. As shown in the movie, people don’t even try to think for themselves, even when told to do so. They will always think what’s being “preached” applies to other people or to those around them, but it doesn’t apply to them. In the scene where Brian addresses the “multitude” from his bedroom window, I saw a theme of groupthink. This process started after Brian fell out of the window of the official headquarters for the people’s front of Judea. Brian’s ramblings started with the people taking everything he said with a grain of salt, and ended with people gobbling every tiny thing he did up. When Brian shouts at the people from his bedroom window that they need to think as individuals, they reply as a hoard. This illustrates the idea of groupthink pretty well, and under this circumstance, people don’t think as individuals and just blindly go along with whatever the others around them are doing.

            Another theme I found really funny, was the rebellion and the different groups of Jewish people who were trying to overthrow the Roman rule. With all these different factions that war more amongst themselves than against the common enemy, and war for something that isn’t really explained, in the movie, at least, was another theme I found to be very interesting. When the PFJ is making plans to kidnap Pontius’s wife, and the head of the faction says “what have the romans ever done for us”, he is met with discourse of all the advancements and improvements to their civilization, the romans did bring. This brings up the notion that the Jewish populace might actually be biting the hand that feeds them, and shows the cost of what their rebellion would bring about. In this movie, the Jews start reflecting on the things they have and although it’s not stated, things they will more than likely lose.

Something I personally found extremely funny was when Brian was painting “romans go home” in Latin on the walls of Caesar’s palace. Having studied Latin, it was really funny watching the roman guard correct Brian’s misuse of the different classes of nouns and grammar he was using. This just reinforces some of what the rebellion brought up at their meeting, that they might be biting the hand that feeds them. This brings up the human condition that is tied to such dramatic acts that will upset the way people live. People can continue to go on in their lives where they have some nice things, but are probably being mistreated, or they could try to turn things on its head and possibly lose what they do have. This movie brings that to light with this meeting, even though they do (seemingly) go through with their rebellion, there is doubt.

            I found this movie, as well as most Monty python films, to be about human nature and the times when we act just plain stupid. On every level, in every class, people can be ridiculous. From the entire view of power, or in this case, the Romans, the half-baked rebellious factions and the incorrigible nature to blindly follow things, people can act quite dumb. And this movie serves to showcase that, bring to light some of the things we do that are ridiculous and make light of it in a well done, comical way. 

Good ol' Rocky

This film was very interesting from the start, I really like when movies do things out of the ordinary, and how this one started was very unique. I immediately understood the tone it had and the direction it was taking with its humor and what it was joking with. Slightly similar to the feeding machine from Modern Times, the products that were showcased at the beginning of this film set up the idea of an overzealous attempt at streamlining and oversimplifying life. The products shown were also indicative of the times, people wanted (and still want) money, so incomplete, or just utter garbage products were released. At the same time, these beginning ads were also trying to show that it’s hard to come up with something different that grabs and holds the attention of their target audience, a rapidly changing American public.

            Rockwell Hunter, the main character, is what he and the movie itself define as a “normal man” he’s not famous and he sees himself as unsuccessful. This theme of success flows through the entire movie, the humor of the film is also mostly derived from this concept as well. What Rock defines as successful is being a vice president or even president of a company. He cares about the status more than money in a general sense and this is evident when he says “…I could be a vice president, and maybe even get a raise” After finding Rita Marlow. Because being an executive in a company is success to Rock. It also shows the stinginess of the company, and adds another, relatable level of comedy.

            This movie showed a lot of different aspects of humanity, but focused primarily on the undesirable traits. It showcased our obsession with fame, showcased the shallow nature of people, and portrayed the struggle we have as “normal” people to keep up with the famous and successful people. This movie showed that even when people seem like they have all they want in power, fortune and fame, there is still something else they’re missing, or need. Each character was missing something, or pining for something and this movie forced these underlying struggles into the light. The boss, mr. la salle jr., for example didn’t even want his position, when Rock thought that he was utterly happy with his life.

            Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter did a very good job of conveying and portraying different character types. It made them understandable and easy for the audience to recognize what it was poking fun at. It also made an interesting statement about what we want out of life, and gave rise to the question of what success really is. 

Modern Times

Modern Times was a very interesting movie, I always love to watch old film and this was no exception. This movie had many layers and things it addressed, and one thing I noticed right away was some of the serious situations that were presented, things like: death, overworked and mistreated workers, political and labor riots, murder, drug use, depression and harshness of the times and the frailty of life. The harshness of times and the frailty of life especially, were very apparent in this film. The other things in this list were subjects that I, until this point in time, had thought were things that were swept under the rug during this time period and not addressed, especially in film. This movie might have been made to lighten these situations, and as others have written, to show that there is still something to laugh about and a reason to continue on with life.

Through the lens it used, Modern Times portrayed the times and the themes of this time, very well. It took a lighthearted approach to show some of the harsh things people went through and saw every day. Through this lens of humor, this movie showed people what was going on, and gave a character that went through some of the same things they went through. Also, using this positive type of vehicle to showcase different situations, it did give hope, at least to me. Even though there probably wasnt much joy to be found in being out of work and resorting to extremes to make ends meet, there still could be a positive outcome, or at least something to smile about.

Another thing about this movie that caught my attention, were the cuts in the scenes, how they moved from one situation to the next, which might have just been a time constraint, but was something that resonated with me. What seemed at first to be somewhat jumpy came to be something that I viewed as part of the style and the pace of life. Things happen, and they happen hard and fast, as with most of the unfortunate events that happen in the film.

Being a comedy film, this movie obviously appealed to the viewer through emotion. Through camera work, imagery and the characters, this movie had many means to connect to its viewers. Using different angles of shots and how people were framed played a role, especially when showing the main female character. She seemed to always be in downward angled shots, which I perceived to be a means to show her as a potentially weak or troubled character, which was true to her being troubled. Charlie Chapman’s character, however, was mostly shot straight on or fully framed in the shot, probably because he was the main character, but also because he portrayed a different emotional disposition than the female lead.

Overall, Modern times was a very interesting movie and it addressed the issues of the world around it very well. The lighthearted nature of the film complimented the issues and made them more relate-able and approachable. Something that is hard to do, no matter the genre or style of movie.