I want to know Harvey

Harvey was quite possibly the most meaningful film I have seen in this class, and very well one of the most I have seen in my life. It is centered on a man, Mr. Dowd (Elwood P.), and his less than imaginary friend, Harvey. Unfortunately, usually only Mr. Dowd can see and talk to Harvey, which makes him a little hard to take seriously. Even more unfortunate is the fact that Harvey takes the form of a 6 foot (or 6 foot three and a half inches, if we're sticking to the facts) human sized rabbit. Anyone in their right mind would tell you that Mr. Dowd is absolutely crazy, at least in the beginning of the film. It seems as though he is really the only crazy one of all the characters. At least, he is the only one that is different. Everyone, like Vita Simmons, Dr. Chumley, Dr. Sanderson, and the judge are always so caught up in worldly possessions.
Vita is always concerned with her money and her friends' opinions. She even goes as far as to commit her own brother into a mental institution, even after she plans on suing the same place.
Dr. Chumley is always worried about his reputation and the reputation of his establishment. We see this when Dr. Sanderson tells him about a "serious error." Chumley replies by saying that "this institution does not permit errors." He has obviously worked very hard to get the hospital where it is today and he may even be scared of any problems that arise. Instead of concerning himself with the error right away, he tries to turn his back on it and ignore it, claiming that it must be false.
Dr. Sanderson cares A LOT about his job. We see this when he frantically tries to talk Mr. Dowd out of a situation that Elwood doesn't even know exists. Sanderson is constantly kissing up to Chumley and going out of his way to track Mr. Dowd down.
Finally, we see how much the judge cares about Vita and the position of Elwood. Throughout the entire film, we see how the judge, or Gaffney tries to appeal to Vita. It is very clear how much Gaffney is attracted to her, so he does pretty much anything she asks without question. He goes where she wants to go, he sues who she wants to sue. I thought it was funny how Vita says she wants to sue Chumley and right away Gaffney agrees, without even knowing what wrongs Chumley had pursued.
As a result of these temporal desires, all of these characters seem to possess a certain quality of unhappiness. They are so caught up with the things of the world that they lose all focus on what really matters. And that seems to be what Elwood P. Dowd knows the most about. He is the only character in the film who seems to care about everyone more than he cares about himself. He is the friendliest, most out going man I have ever seen. He never seems to show any rude behavior. He is always extremely polite to everyone he meets, even strangers. And there in lies the whole meaning of Dowd's existence. That is, to make friends. In almost every scene we see Elwood in, he is making a new friend. And that is really what it's all about, isn't it? We're all just trying to make it through this life with the people who make us happy. So, in a way, Elwood P. Dowd was not crazy at all. In a way, he was the most sane character in the film.
For me, these two quotes sum up the whole meaning of the film:

Dr. Sanderson: Think carefully, Dowd. Didn't you know somebody, sometime, someplace by the name of Harvey? Didn't you ever know anybody by that name?
Elwood P. Dowd: No, no, not one, Doctor. Maybe that's why I always had such hopes for it.

Elwood P. Dowd: Years ago, my mother used to say to me, she'd say "In this world, Elwood, you can be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.

Oh and please do excuse my tardy participation in this assignment. I won't make an excuse. I'm just a tad irresponsible. But aren't we all?

How to Fly Out of the Nest... Or... Birdcage...

I thought this movie was surprisingly fantastic. I didn't really know what to expect from a film staring Robin Williams AND Nathan Lane AAND Gene Hackman. I really was at a loss, trying to imagine what such a movie would hold. To be honest, I was kind of expecting to be let down. But I was not, let me tell you. The movie had me laughing the whole time. But, this being a movie I had to watch for class, The Birdcage is so much more than just an entertaining movie. The overlying theme of the entire film has been something that the United States has been dealing with since longer than most of the class member have been alive. Homosexual culture and acceptance. Personally, I had never thought that the issue of gay rights has been a problem for so long. I had only paid attention to what had happened in my lifetime. But it is very interesting to see another scope of argument portrayed through this picture.
Even though it takes plays nearly 20 years ago, The Birdcage bares a striking resemblance to todays America. That is, half of the country is pro gay, half is against. Or, as most of the characters say, half liberal, half conservative. Half get along with everyone, half get along with no one. And this is partly true and apparent in todays political world. The only reason we can't really get anything done in America today is because there is so much opposition against everything. Abortion is bad because it kills children. But no, it's good because it gives women a choice. Guns are good because they offer protection and security. But no, they're bad because... They kill children... Gay rights are good because all men are created equal. But, again, no. They're bad because they wither away tradition, which is something that this country was founded upon. Every argument that is presented in the U.S. seems to always have an equally supported antithesis, if you will. And we see this in the film.
Val loves his parents and supports their homosexuality to the fullest. Yet, he wants them to shun their orientation so they will be accepted by his fiancé's parents. Barbara, or Barbie or whatever, does the same. Even the senator, who is the founder of the "Coalition of Moral Order" accepts the help of Albert by dressing up as a drag queen to escape the press. It's almost as if no one really knows who they are or what they want in this film. (Especially those conservatives. What a bunch of idiots, am I right? You could pull any wool you wanted over their eyes.) This is again the same with todays society. So many people are so flip-floppity about what they support and what they don't. Today, people seem to change their minds more than their socks.

Harold and... Maude?

I think I've started off every one of my blogs stating how different each one of the films has been. But my goodness. So far, this one takes the cake. I tried to grasp the meaning of the film, but was left absolutely and utterly confused. And, not to step on the instructors authority, I have no idea what this film has to do with anything we have discussed thus far in class. I would hardly call it a comedy. In fact, I would most definitely not call it a comedy. If anything, it was a drama, with maybe one or two relief jokes spread thin throughout the entirety of the film. I'm not saying it was a bad film, per say. It just really threw me a curveball. There was definitely an ever present theme existent.
Death. Or rather, the fear of death. Now I know I discussed fears in my last post about Young Frankenstein (because I know EVERYONE read that...), but the fear of death is extremely prevalent in Harold and Maude. And everyone deals with some sort of this problem. First, we start with Harold's mother. We know she is terrified of death because of her reaction towards Harold's "attempts" at suicide. She always brushes it off, telling her son to stop messing around. She never shows real concern, or confronts the problem directly. This is because to do so, she would have to face death. And let's be honest, she must be too good for death, or so she thinks. She even goes as far as to buy Harold a brand new Jaguar, in hopes that he will use it to replace the hearse that he adores so much.
We also see a fear of death with some of the "online dates" suited for Harold. The first girl nearly has a heart attack when she see's who she thinks is Harold set himself on fire in the courtyard. And, or course, this is completely understandable. I would hardly be able to compose myself if I witnessed someone burn to death. The second leaves pretty much on the same basis, when Harold removes his own hand with a cleaver. Again, understandable. The last suitor is the only one that seems to tolerate death. But even as she plays along with Harold, she doesn't really accept death because the whole scene is a charade.
Harold, the one who seems to accept death the most, is probably the character most afraid of it. I say this because throughout the whole film, he seems to pretend to commit suicide for attention. Like Mr. Serio said in class last week, if someone truly wants to kill themselves, they do it. They don't seek help. They don't look for someone to talk them out of it. They just do it. And Harold never really does it. As fascinated as he is with death, he never seems to conquer it. He always looks for reasons to live. Which, I guess, is what Maude was trying to teach him. Life is worth living, if you can find what makes you happy.
And that brings me to the last character, Maude. I will admit, it is unfair of me to say that everyone in the film fears death because out of everyone, Maude is the only person who doesn't. She is the only one who actually dies. She is the only one who conquers the fear of death, which is ironic because she lives everyday in the manner that she wants. She found what makes her happy, and lives to enjoy it. I think she knows the sorrow of death, because she is (or was) a Holocaust survivor. Being constantly surrounded by death must have resulted in acceptance, and courage even. And because of this, Maude, the crazy old lady, was the only character with no fear of death.

Frankenstein 2

I remember watching this film when I was younger, not understanding any jokes or innuendos, and laughing as either a result of the simple slapstick comedy (which is so abundant), or because my older siblings were laughing. Now, I am so glad that I have matured to the level at which I can understand and appreciate the humor in this film. Young Frankenstein has SO much to offer. From its slapstick jokes, of which I mentioned earlier, to its plethora of sexual innuendos (I had no idea what a "role in the hay" was when I was seven, thank goodness), this movie seems to never disappoint. One theme, however, that seemed to be constantly re-occurring was that of fear. Everyone in the film was always afraid of something, with exception to the generous blind man, of course. But no one seems to portray more fear for anything as much as Doctor Frankenstein himself.

We first get a good understanding of Frankenstein's past. Without too much thought, the viewer can easily conclude that this character is, or was, related to the infamous Dr. Frankenstein of old. From the movie, we are informed that the original Dr. Frankenstein is Gene Wilder's grandfather. Of course, new Dr. Frankenstein, or Frederick as I will refer to him for the rest of this blog, is asked about his grandfather non stop. This introduces us to his first fear. Frederick is terrified of his families past. The original creation of the monster has haunted Frederick for his entire life, for some reason. Perhaps it is because he knows that he can do the same.

On another note, we discover another fear when introduced to Frederick's first lover. As funny and odd as it sounds, the audience can tell that Frederick is horrified by this woman. And who wouldn't be?

However, the fears do not yield here. Frederick travels to his grandfathers castle, and ultimately creates a duplicate of his elder's creation, losing a bit of his mind in the process. Why does his make his monster? I don't really know! He's terrified of it! This demonstrates how obsession can lead to demise, I suppose, but I would rather not change subjects. The creation of the monster marks a new beginning for Frederick. It is after the creation that he starts to conquer his fears, the first being the beast. Completely against his common sense, he decides to lock himself in a room with the creature, in hopes of... I dunno. Getting mauled to death apparently. However, he does manage to relate to the "man," and after a while, the fear is gone.

If only it would stay away. Once he exposes his creation to the world, a new fear arises. He is terribly afraid of the public’s view towards himself. So much so that he, instead of learning from it, teaches the monster to dance, in hopes of pleasing an audience. Somehow in the end, it seems that Frederick finally beats all of his fears, but at the same time, he cycles back to the man he was at the beginning of the film, as if the entire experience had no effect on his life. And I suppose a moral is in there somewhere. Perhaps you should not try and beat your fears, as much as try to live and cope with them. Conquering them may be, well, useless.

Idiocracy

This film was strange. Different from all other movies the class has viewed thus far, and definitely more modern, being made only a short time ago. I guess 9 years isn't that recent, but it sure is closer to this day and age than Modern Times is. With the more modern creation date comes much more modern humor. From this standpoint, I related Idiocracy with the last film we watched, MASH. Both are rated R, but I found little to no similarity in material between the two. Sure, MASH had a few glimpses of nudity, some drug use, and a few curse words. But nothing I would deem R rated material. Idiocracy, however, is soo much worse. The film is coated with extremely crude humor involving sex, drugs, violence and, of course, foul language. This comparison relates directly to the main theme I found in the film.

That is, a criticism on humanity as a whole. In the film, everyone who lives 500 years in the future is unbelievably stupid. No one knows practically anything. It is surprising to me that the human race still existed. If it wasn't for the presence of the machines doing basically all of the work, I don't think there would be a human left on Earth. The main feeling that I experienced throughout the entire film was complete frustration. Every time Joe tried to explain his situation, he was either ignored or mocked for his use of civilized language. No one could understand him. I cannot imagine what I would do in a world where no one could answer a single question I asked. To be honest, I would have an extremely difficult time not going crazy. I felt myself losing a little sanity just watching the movie.

But, I digress from my point. While the film appears to be highly exaggerated, is it really? let me revert back to my comparison of MASH and Idiocracy. As I stated, MASH was filled with little one liners that, on average, would take at least a few seconds for the normal viewer to understand and enjoy. MASH made you think. It wasn't just in your face. I feel as though a lot of the films in earlier times were like this (with exception from a few.... Life of Brian........). Most films, Like Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter, had intuitive humor. Films today, as so clearly demonstrated by Idiocracy, do not. Such films portray humor that the dumbest of dumb understand and laugh at. Jokes such as flipping Fudruckers into Buttf*ckers don't require any thought at all. I think that was actually a joke that I laughed at... When I was in middle school....

As we can see, a dumber world is not a as ridiculous idea as the more educated populous would like to hope it is. We are on the track for becoming a stupider world. So I suppose that this criticism is not so much a criticism at all, as much as it is a prediction. And a scary one, at that.

M*A*S*H-ed potatoes

For me, MASH was a major curve ball. I felt as though he entire style of the movie was way different than any of the other films we have seen for this class to date. For one, I did not feel that it was a comedy. Sure, there were a bunch of jokes spread all over the place, but it seemed as though such humor might be present in any situation where there are men. I guess they did take it to the extreme on occasion, like when Hawkeye and Trapper go to Japan for surgery, in complete golf garb. But I do not think I can recall a time where i was actually laughing at anything that happened. Second, I had a very hard time finding any sort of plot in the entire movie. Nothing was consistent, the characters sort of moved and acted upon their own devices, and there seemed to be little to no organization. Because of this, I think the audience has a very hard time focusing on what's happening and, in my case, completely losing interest in the film as a whole.

The entire film was very anti-climactic. The football game was the most exiting event that took place, and that did not support the film's structure or "plot" at all. This is quite odd, because the game itself takes up a lot of the movies screen time. However, I found that the anti-climactic mood of the film was very important on the whole movies theme. That is, war itself is anti-climactic. It is almost never like the movies we see where the group of heroes embark on a mission, fight a final battle, lose a few main characters, and go home legends. No. 99% of the time, soldiers experience exactly what the surgeons in MASH did - get deployed, serve their time, get sent home. No slow motion explosions, no heroic acts of valor. Just the monotony of surgery. I saw this exact same theme in the book, The Things They Carried. In it, a man was drafted to serve in Vietnam, so that's what he does. Sure there are some firefights and exiting parts, but that happens to a front line soldier. Before you know it, O'Brien, the main character, is sent home.

This brings me to the idea that the book and the film were not made exclusively for the public’s enjoyment. I feel as though they were created to bring our perspective of war down to reality. It is not always about honor and heroics. Most of the time, it is monotonous, routine, and absolutely horrible. Hawkeye had to operate on men who were going to die anyways every single day, as did all of the other surgeons. O'Brien often recalls the one and only time he took the life of another human being, and how it haunted him every day of his life. It is very important that we as civilians are constantly reminded of the reality of war. That way, we might understand how truly awful war is. Even while sometimes necessary, it is never an easy thing to experience. And with that, I close.

Dr. Strangelove

The first time I saw this movie, it was an assignment from my high school English teacher, and I remember how how much I liked. This would be the second, and I liked it even more. The entire film is filled with comedic appeal including slapstick and satire, yet equally includes the incredibly serious topic of nuclear war. Because of this, Stanley Kubrick managed to make a film that is quite enjoyable while also memorable even to this day. As sad as it is, people today can relate to the theme. Nuclear war has become an even more real possibility with the evidence of countries like North Korea and Iran obtaining the ability to build and fire nuclear weapons. Instead of just troubling over the likelihood of war, this movie can turn a positive spin on the whole situation, and make us laugh. For example, the use of irony. I mainly observed this twice in the movie. The first being the gunfire and fighting next to the billboard that reads “Peace is our profession.” I also saw irony in president Muffley's claim “You can't fight in here! This is the war room!” Such antics make the film hilarious

Of course with every movie we watch in class, as well as pretty much any movie ever, there are some hidden and not so hidden messages involved. First off, I noticed a huge criticism on the governments of the worlds nuclear powers. The entire plot was brought forth because of the United States' inability to control their own military force. Once Plan R was set into motion, there was nothing that could be done by the president or his uppers about the situation. They had to end up fighting and killing their own men to gain access into their own airbase. This also introduces the topic of corruption in the military. Ripper, despite being a high ranking military officer is also insane. This is a huge hit on the U.S. Army.

However, broken government is not limited to the United States. The Russian leader, Dimitri, is not such a great leader himself. From what we can tell, Dimitri is always drunk, partying, and doing little or nothing to support his country. From my point of view, this is a huge critic on Russian government as well.

Perhaps the largest theme, aside from war, was the danger of miscommunication. Throughout the entire film, no one can get in contact with anyone. All the radios and phones are down for the people who need them the most. This, in my opinion, was a criticism on us as a whole, and how much we rely on technology. Apparently, once a few radios are turned off, the world turns to nuclear war. It's almost as if technology is bad for us, which is a theme we observed in “The Gods Must be Crazy.” According to these movies, Technology will be the death of us.

Overall, my favorite move so far. (My appologies for being a tad late... )

Them Crazy Gods

The Gods Must Be Crazy is a fantastic film. It is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen, yet it strays from the typical humor from the era in which it was made. It starts of as almost a documentary, and if you don't pay close enough attention, you might just think that a documentary is just what it is. Yet the narration itself is hilarious. And that presents one comedic theme that we see throughout the entire film. That is, sarcasm. The narrators' explanation of the Bushman people is the perfect demonstration of this. For example, when he states the Bushman's instinctive lack of child-directed discipline, he follows by saying that one can guess that the Bushman children are, of course, VERY well behaved. Mpudi is also a great example of sarcasm. Almost everything he says to Steyn or anyone else for that matter, is laced in sarcasm. That makes this film very enjoyable.

However, that is not the sole reason for my enjoyment of this film. I really liked the entire theme, or point of the story. That is, the theme of civilized vs. non-civilized, or I suppose urban vs. rural life. The whole movie is this great clash between the two, And each side has it's complications. While the Bushmen (non-civilized) try incredibly hard to understand the meaning of the Coca-Cola bottle, Ms. Johnson and Steyn (civilized) are both trying incredibly hard to understand the Bushmen. This creates a problem, however. The Bushmen will never really understand civilized culture, because as the narrator said in the beginning, the Bushmen are, or were unaware of everyone else in the world. They may run into another family across the desert every once and a while, but they have no idea that there are literally billions of other people sharing the planet. So, in essence, the civilized may never understand the opposite, and visa verse.

In a way, there is a criticism involved in the clashing of the two groups. The uncivilized make it a point to distance themselves from society, not wanting to adapt to a new environment. This shows an unwillingness to learn civilized culture. The civilized, however, seem to have no appreciation for culture or ideals either. Out with the old and in with the new. The whole bottle incident occurred because a civilized individual littered the desert by just carelessly throwing his bottle out the window. This all circles back to the unwillingness to learn from foreign perceptiveness.

In essence, this represents our world today. People, especially in the U.S. are increasingly resilient to any type of change. We talk, eat, dress and act like Americans. Just like many of those who live in Germany, France, Italy and Russia talk, eat, dress and act like Germans, Frenchies, Italians and Russians. It's in our nature to be proud of who we are. It is when we get too proud that we step on a dangerous line. And that is what the film The Gods Must be Crazy pinpoints. It is important for us as a nation, and as a world, to bury the hatchet and start to try to relate to each other, Just like Steyn and the Bushman. Can't we all just get along? Ha ha. No.

The One That Had Earnest in the Title

I thought this was probably the best film I've watched for this class so far. I had read the original script for a class back in my senior year, and I even liked reading it. That says something. We also watched the film back then, but it was the one made in the 50's. I thought before I started watching it that the new version was going to be way different than the old one. But I was wrong. They're almost the exact same, besides different actors and filming technology. Which makes sense because both films are based off of the same written work.

I found two themes in the film. The first being the consequence of lying, or at least of getting caught within your lies. This is most prevalent in Earnests use of Jack, or should I say Earnest's use of Earnest, one in the country, and one in the city. Jack uses this "Earnest" fellow to get away from everyone in the Country, and likewise, Earnest uses his friend Jack to visit the city. Of course, the entire film is pretty much based as Jack's lies become his downfall. Yet we see Algy do the exact same thing, but he gets away with it. Perhaps because he chooses to kill his friend off at the ideal time, as to cover his tracks. Once Algy decides to be Earnest, everything goes wrong. One girl loves two men, or two girls love one man, the men named Earnest. It's almost as hard to follow as Inception, really. I mean, he's him, but she likes him, not him, and he's trying to keep him away from her. Wut? However, when the lies are exposed, nobody is innocent, except the girls, of course. They instead become best friends.

I suppose that this lying game could be a criticism on the middle class, saying that those in the class are liars, but I didn't rally see it that way.

I did, however, see an incredibly large criticism on the high or rich class. Lady Bracknell is the epitome of the stereotypical stuck up and complicated rich individual. We first see this attitude in the scene where she first appears. Algy mentions how his friend Bunbury is sick once again, and instead of offering condolences or any form of grief, Lady Bracknell instead asks when he is just going to die, so that Algy and her could spend more time together. What a selfish old hag, right? Even when Bunbury is announced to be dead, Bracknell rejoices in the fact that he had finally "made up his mind about the matter." She is also greedy. Of all the questions she asks Earnest to see if he is suitable to marry Gwendolen, a majority of them are queries as to what he does and how much money he makes annually. Her greed is most prevalently exposed when she finds out how much money Cecily is worth. ₤100,000? Maybe she is good enough to have the interest of Algy...

Overall, good movie. No. Great movie.

Monty Python's Life of Chri.. Brian

Life of Brian. This one was a doozy. It was a good watch for anyone who likes the Monty Python series, or just has an interest in the sort of humor that such films portray. I did not particularly enjoy the film, but I was not watching it in the hopes to be entertained. Instead, my eyes were focused on rhetorical strategies used by the film makers, as I have been like with every movie we have watched thus far. There were ALL KINDS of criticisms in Life of Brian.

First off, there is a crazy separation of genders. This is mainly demonstrated in the discussion between the members of the PJF... I think. One man says it is his right to have babies. Of course this is obserd, but the other members, after some "logical" discussion, agree that yes, it IS his right to have babies. Not once do the members of the group talk about the rights of women. I'm just sayin. Also, Brian's mother was played by a man. This could possibly be a representation of the idea that women were unable to play leading roles, but I tend to doubt that because of Judith. I think that this was just something funny that the cast wanted to put in.

The most prevalent criticism throughout the movie was that of religion. Everything that happened in the film had something to do with a correlation to the Bible or the life of Jesus Christ. The biggest example was the mistaking of Brian as the Messiah. I felt as though this made it seem like people who were searching for religion (or who are today) will follow anything. Once they felt that Brian was some sort of prophet, they were right behind him in everything he did, promising to do what he says. This is oddly familiar to Tyler Durdan's society in "Fight Club" (which is one of the greatest films of all time, and if you haven't seen it, YOU SHOULD). They never really do obey him though. They are so busy trying to "interperate" Brain's "sermons" that they don't ever truly listen to him. When Brian tells them to leave him alone, they bombard him with questions of instruction like, "how do we leave you alone?" In a way, it sort of feels like Monty Python is suggesting that religion oriented people are kinda crazy, and in the very least, quite annoying.

Another subject that can be deemed edgy is the film's frequent use of crucifixion. The movie suggests that the Romans crucified EVERYTHING. In a way, this is partly true, in that crucifixion was a "popular" form of execution back in that time. But hundreds of crucifixions a day is very exaggerated. However, crucifixion takes the hardest hit in the final scene of the movie, when Brian meets his fate. He is very distraught that no one comes to his rescue, and feels that all hope is lost. That is, until someone starts singing a silly song to cheer everyone up. Suddenly, everything is peachy. Nothing is wrong. This definitely takes the severity of crucifixion away, which is the basis of nearly all Christian beliefs. That is that Christ truly suffered for our sins, instead of sang a song about how good life is.

Overall, I'm glad I didn't watch this movie with my parents.

Will Success Spoil... Whatever

From my viewpoint, this film was not as impressive and Chaplin's "Modern Times." It is, however still a fantastic representation of comedic rhetoric. There are countless jabs or criticisms of the social media and the working class. Throughout the entire film, Rock Hunter strives for his own self identified happiness. To achieve this, he feels that he must have success in his employment, and a perfect marriage. These two things are often examples of what one needs to have to be happy today. Well, maybe not marriage. Money, however, seems to be the only thing driving people to do anything now-a-days, and, after watching this film, one can observe that this is not an old concept. All Hunter wants is an executive position in his job, and all the benefits that includes, like a key to the "Executive Powder Room." This, I believe was a criticism of the working class.

The media took the hardest hit. The first thing we see in the film is a compilation of advertisements for things that obviously do NOT work. And we see these kinds of things all the time today. A liquid that erases all stains, a push up system that will make you look like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his glory days, beer that will get you friends. It never ends. Yet media companies will constantly create these ads to appeal to the sucker that is the average consumer. We also see a criticism of the medias idol, the star. From the first time we see Rita Marlowe, who drives a striking resemblance to Marilyn Monroe, we know that she is, well, stupid. She's a pretty face backed up by money and power, and everyone loves her. The public ditches school to see her, does anything she does, and even uses her lipstick. Hunter's fiance to be even acts like her, talking with the same Hollywood accent, and making that stupid and annoying squeaking sound. Wtf is that anyway? Of course, one could argue that it may have been a representation of the actual response to Marilyn Monroe, back in the day. This is true, but we also see this stupidity and power in Marlowe's former "lover," Bobo Branigansky. He's nothing but a big lummox with a pretty face. Again, we see this constantly in today’s media. Pretty girls have all the power.

Overall, the film was great, and I would suggest it to anyone who wants to see sarcastic comedy at work.

Modern Times... in... 1936

Modern Times

Charlie Chaplain’s Modern Times is one of those timeless films that will last forever. It's display of comedy kept me focused and laughing, a tactic used by Chaplin in almost every one of his films. Yet, Modern Times has so much more to offer. It portrays the story of a man who struggles to find a job during the worst recession in America's history, known now as the Great Depression. While the severity and seriousness of this topic is presented at the very beginning of the film, the viewer finds him/herself distracted from it, due to the constant comedic relief.

And that is, in my opinion, one of the sole purposes of the movie. Filmed and released during the time of the Great Depression, Chaplin really focused on taking the sadness and stress out of what was going on across the nation, and even across the world. As we discussed in class, the relief of stress is why we as humans enjoy comedy. There is a sense of irony, however. The film was probably not seen by very many, because a movie was most likely not something anyone had the money to spend on.

However, I believe that stress relief was not the only purpose of this movie. There are many blatant and discreet messages portrayed throughout the show. For example, Police brutality and corruption. We see this when Chaplin is arrested, and jailed, after the false accusations of him being a protest/strike leader, just because he was trying to return a lost flag. Without trial or investigation, he was immediately put into prison.

Another sort of, "hidden" argument in the film is the control that employers had over their employees at the time. We first see this when the salesman comes to try and sell his "feeding machine" to Chaplain’s boss. He claims that it is for the benefit of the worker, when in reality, it is to profit the boss. We can also pull from this a sense of dependency that the employer must have felt his workers had. He didn't think they could even feed themselves, let alone do their own work.

Overall, the film was a fantastic representation of the power of rhetorical humor. Even in a time of great strife and anguish, rhetorical humor can turn the situation upside down, and add a positive annotation, even though it doesn't technically make anything better.