Creating Our Own Reality

            Harvey is a sweet film, but when examined on a deeper level it becomes clear that the film explores some very abstract ideas and conveys many deep messages. The movie follows Elwood P. Dowd and his friend Harvey, a giant rabbit, standing six foot, three and a half inches tall, who only Elwood can see. His sister thinks that Elwood has lost his mind because of all his drinking and tries to have him committed. The hilarity that ensues teaches the characters the true meaning of reality, family, friendship, and acceptance.

            While many of the characters believe Elwood to be crazy, he is actually perfectly sane; it’s the other characters that are trying to create their own reality who are not entirely cognizant of true reality. He accepts everything as it is. He does not question people or judge them for the things they have done. The other characters are trying to fit into society and they place appearances and actions before all else. Anything that they think is strange must be wrong. Veta, Elwood’s sister, thinks that Elwood goes to the bar too much, so in her mind he has to have a problem. In actuality Elwood goes to bars because Harvey wants to and because he can make friends and help people. He says that “no one ever brings anything small into a bar.” This is very true, many people go to bars to escape their lives, their realities, for a little while. Elwood listens to their stories and treats each and every one of them equally. As the movie continues multiple characters confess to having seen Harvey, and doors opening on their own are proof to his existence. Suddenly Elwood’s friend is no longer imaginary and the extreme measures the other characters are going to to get rid of him and deny his existence seem ridiculous. They are attempting to deny the existence of someone who is obviously there. This begs the question: What does it mean to exist? For most of the characters minds it means that one must be visible and normal by societal standards. For Elwood, who accepts what he sees, there is no question as to Harvey’s existence, and maybe that is why Harvey chooses to appear to him. The actions of the other characters cause them to seem crazy, and the person they are trying to say is crazy begins to look more and more reasonable.

            Family, friendship, and acceptance are all tied up together in this film. At the beginning Veta cannot stand Elwood’s strange ways because they are causing her and Myrtle Mae, her daughter, to look bad in the eyes of the society they so want to be a part of. Veta chooses to forsake her family, her only brother, for the sake of acceptance. She only changes her mind at the very end when a cab driver says that treatment will cause Elwood to become unpleasant and that he would never be the same. Veta is mortified that she has traded her beloved brother for “normalcy” and immediately rushes to stop the procedure. Unlike his family, Elwood does not look for acceptance; instead, he accepts everything and simply allows others to choose whether or not to accept him. Elwood treats everyone as a friend. His open acceptance of everyone is so shocking that most people cannot help but like him, even if he is odd. He teaches his family and everyone he encounters the true meaning of friendship and acceptance.

I find it amusing that most of the people who would normally command a lot of ethos, such as Dr. Chumley and Dr. Sanderson, are made to look ridiculous because of the way they react to sweet, harmless Elwood. Veta’s overly pathos filled actions also cause her to look absurd. Elwood carries the perfect amount and kind of Pathos, combined with an empathetic ability and endless optimism, all of which cause people love him instantly. His likability increases his credibility; thus, it makes sense for him to be the character who conveys and exemplifies the movie’s most important messages.

            Harvey has definitely been my favorite movie this semester. It started out a bit odd, but by the end I loved the movie and the characters (even stupid Dr. Chumley who tried to take Harvey away). On the surface this is a charming and funny movie, but upon closer examination it is clear that it is making a point about reality and the socially influenced “reality” people try to create for themselves. It shows the importance of family and friendship and proves that, rather than seeking acceptance, it is best to accept others as they are, be they friends, family, strangers, or giant mythical rabbits, and acceptance will be returned openly.

The Paradoxical Rose of Cairo

The film, The Purple Rose of Cairo, is set during the Great Depression and follows a woman named Cecilia who is an avid movie goer. Her whole world is turned upside down when Tom Baxter, the character in a movie whom Cecilia admires, walks right out of the movie screen and into her life. The hilarity that ensues is not only funny it presents an interesting problem: it blurs the line between reality and fiction. It relays messages to its modern audience about selfishness and the disappointment that will result from mixing fiction with reality.

The main character Cecilia is oppressed by her husband and her job. To escape from her life she seeks solace in the movie theater, one of the few affordable pleasures during the Great Depression. I believe that she imagines herself in the situations presented in the movies she watches. Rather than trying to change her life and make a better situation for herself, she simply goes to the movies to escape into imaginary worlds of happiness and idealistic romance. When Tom Baxter suddenly steps out of the movie screen she allows herself to be pulled along hoping that he, and later Gil Shepard, might be able to change her life and allow her to live her dream. Her husband, Monk, also acts very selfishly throughout the film. Monk only acts like he loves Cecilia when he wants something from her, any other time he does whatever he wants. When he says he is working he is really gambling with friends, only pretending to look for work. He makes excuses for his behavior saying that alcohol is what makes him flirt with other women and hit Cecilia. Tom Baxter is just as selfish as anyone else, despite his seemingly kind actions. He steps out of the movie because he believes he is in love with Cecilia. He spends the rest of the movie trying to make Cecilia leave her husband and run away with him. The actor who plays Tom, Gil Shepard, selfishly tries to get Tom back into the movie to save his own career. He tricks and uses Cecilia by trying to win her favor and then leaving without a word when he has gotten what he wants. At the end of the film we see Gil in an airplane on his way back to Hollywood, looking very remorseful. Even though he got what he wanted he still was not happy. The Purple Rose of Cairo teaches that selfishness will almost always end in sadness or disappointment.

Most of the humor in this movie was found in the moments where the real world mingled with the fictitious world. This was also the source of the lesson that only disappointment and unhappiness can come from trying to replace reality with fiction. Cecilia tries to fill her life with interest and happiness, but in the end she always has to return to her dismal, unloving home. Tom tries to escape to the real world, but he quickly finds that he cannot exist there. His money is fake and cars do not just start when he gets into them. He also knows nothing about the real world and almost gets himself into a situation at a brothel. The movie characters are baffled as to what to do while Tom is gone because their show cannot continue without him. Riots break out when Tom leaves the movie, making it very clear that Cecilia is not the only one that attempts to fill the voids in her life with movies. One theater patron runs from the theater and says, “I want what happened in the movie last week to happen again this week, otherwise what’s life all about anyway?!?” People find solace in the reliability of movies to always deliver the same story with the same end, and they are very upset when this particular movie fails to do so. This is a comment on society. People are too caught up in movies, so much so that they allow their lives and views to be affected by them. Ironically the actual audience in the real theater is watching a movie entitled The Purple Rose of Cairo, and in the movie the characters are also watching a movie called The Purple Rose of Cairo. This paradox causes the movie’s commentary to be even more direct and relevant to the real audience, as it is almost like they are laughing at themselves when they laugh at the characters in the movie. In the end the film proves that the fictional world cannot coexist in the same space and time with the real world. 

Ultimately, The Purple Rose of Cairo proves that selfishness will not yield the results desired, and trying to replace reality with fiction will result in disappointment and disillusionment.

The Family in the Birdcage

The film The Birdcage follows Armand, the owner of a nightclub and drag show, his partner, Albert, and Armand’s son, Val, through a series of hysterical events as Val tries to create the image of a normal family for his fiancé’s conservative parents, who are coming to visit. While this film focuses heavily around Armand and Albert’s sexualities it does not criticize them, instead the film concentrates its criticisms on identity, family, love and acceptance, to prove that sometimes being different is not as awful as some may think.

In keeping with most of the movies we have watched thus far, The Birdcage has many characters with identity issues. Val, wants to hide his family from the Keeleys so that they will approve of his marriage to their daughter, Barbara. He does not necessarily seem ashamed of his family, he just wants to appear normal in front of the very conservative Keeley family. In this way, he allows the thoughts and opinions of others to affect him and his outward identity. Armand allows this to affect him as well, he does not seem to care as much about how people see him, but he allows his son to pressure him into acting differently. Though he struggles to help Val, he always returns to Albert. Albert has no identity issues whatsoever. At one point he says that he knows he is strange and he knows that people laugh at him, but he never changes. Senator Keeley has more issues than any of the other characters. He is so involved in his job and getting reelected to office that he will do anything to gain and maintain a good public image. Ironically, because Senator Keeley unsuccessfully tries so hard to impress others, he seems more ridiculous than all of the other characters, including flamboyantly gay Albert and Agador, the house keeper.

Family is also examined in this film. Despite being a nontraditional family, the Goldmans function far better as a family than the Keeleys. Armand and Albert love each other just as much as they love Val. It is a very big moment in the film when Armand goes chasing after an upset Albert to give him their palimony agreement and tell him how important he is to him. The agreement is more or less like a marriage contract; it legally binds the two and gives each man the right to half of the other’s assets. Armand explains that Albert now owns half of his life. The palimony agreement is not about possesions to Armand, it is about love and sharing his life with the person he loves the most. The importance of family in the Goldman’s life is also seen when Armand and Albert do everything in their power to help Val impress the Keeleys so that he can be with the girl he loves. The Keeley family is not nearly as close as the Goldmans. Everything in their family revolves around Senator Keeley’s career. He only agrees to meet the Goldmans and think about letting Barbara get married when his wife mentions that a happy, hopeful wedding in the family might be good for his career. Mrs. Keeley is miserable, constantly fighting for her husband’s attention by acting interested in his career. Once again the criticism falls on the “normal” and “traditional,” implying that maybe that lifestyle is the one in need of reevaluation, rather than the nontraditional.

More than anything else, The Birdcage seems to be about love and acceptance. Armand and Albert love each other no matter what, even putting up with differences in opinion and personality. They are also very accepting and as supportive as possible when Val decides to get married because they love and support him. Armand and Albert may be more accepting simply because of their situation. It would be strange for two people whose lifestyles defy social norms to be judgmental of others. The Keeley’s are close-minded and allow their love to be influenced by material and societal factors. It is almost shocking to see how little love there is in the Keeley family. Acceptance also seems to be a foreign idea to Mr. Keeley, who only agrees to accept Barbara’s engagement when the Goldman’s show him undue kindness in helping him to avoid the press and save his career when leaving The Birdcage.

By constantly poking fun at senator Keeley the movie criticizes close-minded people who cannot accept others for who they are. Creating more pathos with the audience and the Goldmans allows the viewers to see that gays are not really that different from heterosexual people. The Birdcage teaches that it is not a bad thing to be different and sometimes those who are most different may be more loving, accepting, and “normal” than anyone else.  

Finding Life and Love at a Funeral

            The film, Harold and Maude, explores many of the darker, more somber aspects of American society during the 1970’s.  The main character, Harold, is misunderstood by everyone around him, until he meets 79 year old Maude who understands him. She teaches Harold how to appreciate life and love others. Over the course of this movie war and the detachment of American society are criticized and the ideas of love and the meaning of life are explored.

            War is directly criticized through Harold’s uncle, Victor. Harold’s mother explains, before we are introduced to him, that Uncle Victor was General MacArthur’s “right hand man.” This is morbidly amusing because Victor only has a right hand. He cares about nothing but the army. When he is trying to convince Harold to enlist he begins telling him war stories and excitedly goes along with Harold’s disturbing questions such as: Will they teach me to shoot? Will I get to kill another man? Will they teach you how to slit his throat? His uncle zealously answers all of these questions, until Harold crosses the line by asking about “souvenirs.” Most people would have been horrified by Harold’s excitement at the thought of killing people, the fact that his uncle is equally excited is a criticism on the effect that war has on the way people view violence. Victor is also a representation of the people who live for the army, the people who give up their personalities and individual wills to serve the army. The war is not the only thing wrong with American society. There is a huge gap between societal groups during Vietnam: the lower classes, which are drafted and forced to fight, and the upper-class, who are indifferent to the war and everything else for that matter, since they can avoid military service The upper class is criticized through Harold’s mother, who cares about nothing but society and being in the midst of everything fashionable. Harold is listless and when he realizes that the only way his mother will care about him is if he dies, he decides that he would rather be dead. He is constantly faking suicides and attending funerals for fun. He sees a psychiatrist routinely but he never changes. In contrast Harold’s whole life is turned around in a matter of days by Maude. Through this, I believe, that the filmmakers are criticizing the upper-class for their unfulfilling and material lifestyle.

            Harold and Maude also explores the ideas of love and the meaning of life. At the beginning of the film, all Harold wants is his mother’s attention. He stages one fake suicide after another, but she simply dismisses him as childish and annoying. When friends are over she talks about Harold incessantly, but she does so in a bragging way not a loving way. In Maude, Harold finds a non-judgmental person who listens to and understands him. She wants Harold to be happy, whether that means being fashionable or not. By simply taking an interest in Harold, his likes, dislikes, and wellbeing she shows that she cares. This affects Harold so profoundly because no one has ever cared about him before. She teaches him what it is to love and be loved. Maude also teaches Harold the meaning of life. Before meeting Maude, Harold seems to have no desire to live, but her outgoing personality and flair for life teach him to have fun and enjoy his life. Everything Maude does is due to her love of life. She goes to funerals because she finds the life cycle interesting, she loves plants because they exhibit the cycle of life and death perfectly, she has fun and laughs and dances and makes music so she does not waste her life. Despite all of the hardships she has been through, she pushes forward and makes the best of a situation. When Maude dies it appears that Harold has lost his new found will to live as his car goes plunging over the edge of a cliff. Yet the camera cuts to the top of the cliff and we see Harold meander away with his banjo, given to him by Maude, and the newfound will to live, love, and make the best of his life. This final suicide and the act of leaving his car both symbolize Harold finally leaving his past behind to make way for a newer, happier life. Maude is such a loveable character who can endear herself to anyone. By creating a character with which the audience can empathize and love the film is more capable of conveying its meaningful messages about love and life.

            In essence, Harold and Maude is a coming of age story about a young man who learns to live and love in a country overrun by involvement in war and a materialistic, unconcerned upper-class. While Harold and Maude is a comedy film and messages are implied through the satiric representations of societal situations and humorous portrayals of characters, this movie conveys messages through means other than humor. By moving and shocking the audience it conveys different sides of the issues presented. Such uses of pathos prove to be just as rhetorically effective as comedy.

The Black and White of Frankenstein

Young Frankenstein, is a parody on old horror movies, especially old Frankenstein horror movies. Despite being filmed in the 1970’s the film is in black and white and follows a similar pattern as movies from earlier in the century.  The credits fade in and out in the opening sequence while soft orchestral music plays. Even the music is a throwback to older movies. Loud lightning strikes accompany shocking moments and, at times, even the acting seems a bit over emphatic in a way that reminds me of the characters in Modern Times. The characters themselves parody old characters. Igor, despite his looks, seems like a relatively normal human being, but he is made to be Frankenstein’s henchman. The creature, created by Frederick, is very much the typical Frankenstein’s monster. He is huge and inarticulate with a stiff-limbed walk and a ring of stitches around his skull. Within this parody of older horror films, Young Frankenstein addresses issues such as the connection between identity and societal acceptance, and the idea of good versus bad.

There are many characters in this film who are at odds with their identities. Frederick Frankenstein is the most obvious. He refuses to accept his grandfather’s family name, constantly correcting other’s pronunciation of it. Because of his grandfather, Victor’s, reputation he rejects any idea even similar to Victor’s, saying that he is not interested in curing death, but prolonging life. He does so to prove that he is different so that society will accept him. Igor seems to realize this right away when Frederick corrects his pronunciation of his surname. In response he tells Frankenstein that his name is actually “Eye-gor” in order to make fun of him. However, his obsession with the brain and science works against his as Frau Blücher leads him to his grandfather’s book and laboratory, both of which excite the scientific mind in Frederick. Frankenstein’s vehement rejection of his family name is amusing in the beginning, as is his eccentric behavior when he finally accepts his “fate.” The monster’s identity issues are, in some ways, very similar to Frankenstein’s. Because of what he is and who created him he is loathed. People fear him because of his appearance and wish him dead, when all he really wants is to inspire love and acceptance in others. The creature desires compassion more than anything, yet people deny him that courtesy. When Frankenstein allows part of his mind to be swapped with the monster’s, to fix its brain, he gives it the ability to be articulate and to communicate intelligently. As soon as the townspeople hear the monster speak, and do not feel threatened by him, they simply leave him be, allowing the creature to finally feel accepted. These instances illustrate the connection between identity and acceptance and criticizes the fact that people often times have to change or pretend to be someone they are not in order to be accepted.

The movie also criticizes the ideas of “good” and “bad.” Frederick is seen as bad because he is related to Victor Frankenstein, who did something very twisted that ended poorly. The creature is also seen as evil because he is huge and frightening. In truth he is the kindest person in the film, desiring love and companionship. He only seems evil because he has trouble controlling his strength and anger due to his rotten brain. Oddly enough the townspeople follow Inspector Kemp who they seem to hold in high regard, believing that he is good simply because there exists the assumption that police men are virtuous people. Ironically, he is actually the one causing them all their anxiety, by telling them that they are in danger and Frankenstein cannot be trusted. He also puts them in danger by gathering a mob and going to confront the creature and his creator. The humorous inaccuracy in the perceptions of what is good and evil in the movie reflect the ways in which real people decide what is good or not. The movie criticizes this by showing that the thing that people may see as evil is really gentle and kind and the thing they think is good is really placing them in danger. 

While the format of the movie emulates early black and white horror films, the issues presented are entirely universal, as they can be applied to society far in the past as well as in the immediate present. Individuals tend to form identities specifically for the purpose of social acceptance, often times losing sight of who they are in order to be accepted. The use of black and white also provides a commentary on those, who even in contemporary times, choose to perceive the world as black and white with no grey areas. For them something can only be right or wrong, good or bad, black or white. I really enjoyed this movie. I found myself being very empathetic toward Frederick and his monster. I feel like I know very narrow-minded people like the townspeople, yet I am friends with those whom they do not like: The Fredericks, Creatures, and odd yet loveable Igors of the world.

Never Been Thawed...Ever

Never Been Thawed follows the lives of a handful of frozen entrée collectors. The film proceeds very much in the manner of a documentary in the sense that shots often cut to individual characters answering questions and explaining situations. While the movie seems to focus mainly on satirizing collecting, homosexuality, religion, music, and pop culture, it is not the main purpose of the movie. I believe the main purpose is to criticize insensitivity, hypocrisy, and people who are conflicted about their own identities through the humorous portrayal of things such as religion, collecting, and pop culture, as well as through the contradictory beliefs and actions of the characters themselves.

Insensitivity appears very early on in the movie when a mother and her son walk up to Chris, who is deaf, and ask him if he could teach her son some sign language for his Cub Scout badge. However, the way she words her question makes it seem like Chris is some sort of oddity (“a real live deaf person”) or a freak. At a later point Sean easily accepts Vince’s new design for the Mesa Frozen Entrée Collector Club’s website, even saying that it was far better than the old one that Shelly designed. He does all of this without considering Shelly’s feelings. Despite being a victim of another’s insensitivity, Shelly is just as unaware of others as Sean. Al has been in love with Shelly for a long time, playing the best friend role, just waiting for his chance to tell her how much he likes her. Vince is insensitive toward everyone but himself. He cares only about making money and being in charge of other people and situations. This ridiculous cycle of insensitivity among the characters is both exasperating and amusing. It also makes one reflect on their own actions as these situations are not at all unlikely or unfamiliar to most.

Hypocrisy is very prevalent in this movie and is mainly exposed through religion. Many of the very “religious” people in this film are not actually religious, but are using religion to get what they want. Milo opens an “anti-abortion” café across from an abortion clinic in order to draw in the protest crowds, which will be incredibly profitable for him. He does not care about ending abortion as much as he cares about making a lot of money. The same is true with Sean. He changes his band from being a punk band to being a Christian Rock band because he and the members would be able to be active and successful longer. He does not care about religion; he just wants to use it to gain fame and fortune. Shelly acts like a very devout Christian, however when given the opportunity to sleep with Sean she does not think twice. While amusing in the context of the movie, it is not uncommon to see people using popular and controversial causes such as religion, health, and even patriotism for their own personal gain.

There are many people in this movie who are confused or at odds with their own identity. Scott is obviously gay, yet he tries to be straight, because he does not want to go to hell for being gay. He is a fire fighter, but it seems he is really the fire station homemaker, baking food, giving massages, and directing training videos for other firemen. Al lives with his parents and seems to have no real goals in life. He is in love with Shelly but is afraid to tell her. He insists that he wants to be part of a rock band but is too timid and nice, and, of all the members of Sean’s band, he was the most suited to be a Christian music artist. Like the other characters in this film, Al collects frozen entrées to be part of a group and feel like he is doing something worthwhile. Shelly does not seem to know what she wants in life either. She says she believes in abstinence, but she obviously wants a sexual relationship. Sean and Vince, it seems, are the only characters who don’t lie to themselves . . . they just lie to everyone else.

Never Been Thawed is a very amusing film which, on the surface seems to be a film about very controversial and touchy subjects such as religion, pop culture, and homosexuality, but in actuality it satirizes (and occasionally exaggerates) the hypocrisy, insensitivity, and personal ignorance exhibited by many members of society.

Idiocracy - Criticizing Society

In the film, Idiocracy, current society is satirized through the depiction of a future society which displays an extreme downward trend in educational and technological advancements. The movie follows Joe Bauers, a private in the army. Joe becomes part of a secret military experiment in which he and a woman named Rita are frozen, to test whether or not the long term freezing and storing humans is plausible. They are forgotten and are unfrozen in the year 2505 to find that humanity has undergone the mass reproduction of society’s least intelligent members. Joe and Rita find themselves saving the human race of the future from inevitable collapse. Through the future society the movie satirizes current methods of advertising, the legal and political systems, as well as exploring the values and consequences of modern society on the future of humanity.

It is not uncommon to see advertising almost everywhere in our day to day lives; Idiocracy takes this to the extreme. In the society of the future, clothing can be pulled from a box, like a tissue, and is emblazoned with company names and logos. There are advertisements on the sides of buildings, water fountains, cars, and any other viable surface. Amusingly, this is very similar to our current society. Television programming is constantly interrupted with commercials for new goods, buildings and billboards are plastered with advertisements for this service or that store, the clothing and gear of professional athletes really is covered in corporate sponsors and logos. I believe that these parallels are meant to show the similarities between the current society and the “future” society, in order to warn people about succumbing to advertising and materialism.

The legal system and political system in Idiocracy are both ridiculous caricatures of the worst aspects of today’s system. The courtroom is ruled by popular opinion and the defense, prosecutor, and judge are incompetent and uninformed on the matter of correct legal proceedings. At one point Joe’s court appointed attorney turns around and begins telling the courtroom of all the bad things Joe has done and why he deserves to go to jail. The people in the courtroom are thrilled to see someone sentenced to time in jail and they yell at Joe, ignoring the intelligent points he makes. This not only draws attention to faults in our court system and the frequency with which mistakes and questionable decisions are made, it also satirizes the way people react to sensationalized court cases. The political system in Idiocracy is just as damaged as the court system. The President is not only intellectually incompetent, but he really serves no actual purpose. He does not do any of the things that one would expect. He does not help the economy, or agriculture, or make informed decisions for the good of the people. Instead President Camacho gives obscure speeches, sings, and promises the people that someone else will fix all of their problems. While this does not necessarily reflect the presidency itself, it does reflect and satirize the way which people approach it. Society is obsessed with the scandals of the presidency and the “viral video worthy” moments in a president’s career than what they are actually doing for the country. People only seem to care about the president’s true purpose when they have an excuse to complain about him.

While Idiocracy may appear to be no more than an ordinary comedy film, the sole purpose of which is simply to make people laugh, it is really a commentary on modern society and a warning about what is to come if the people in our society do not reevaluate their morals and values. If people continue to put their desire for fun and leisure before learning and self-improvement, then society really will begin to generate less intelligent generations with no willingness to do anything. Sex is even portrayed as the pastime of the less intelligent, as it is the people who have been having partaking in sex the most who reproduce the most (i.e. the dumb people). This movie even addresses the implications and limitations of intelligence. While Joe was the smartest person in the future society, he never caught onto the fact that Rita had been a prostitute, proving that even the most intelligent people can be naïve on some matters. Almost every laughable moment in this film ridicules an aspect of society that must be changed in order to avoid ruining the world for future generations.

M*A*S*H-ing War

It took me quite a while to come around to this movie. For the first twenty minutes or so I simply could not figure out where any of the humor was in this movie. I was definitely taken aback by the lyrics to the song at the start of the film, as I was not really expecting suicide jokes in the film. By the time this film was over it had made fun of gender, religion, suicide, and the military, all for the purpose of relieving societal tensions brought on by American involvement the incredibly controversial Vietnam War.

Some of the longest running jokes in this movie deal with gender roles. From the very beginning the men treat the female nurses as playthings not real people, or if they do treat them kindly it is only so that they may get a chance to take them to bed. The longest running gender based joke deals with Major Houlihan or “Hot Lips,” the nurse on commission. She is very much focused on the equal treatment of men and women as well as upholding military protocol. The men take great joy in tormenting her going so far as to put a microphone in her room and broadcast the sounds of her having sex all over the camp, pull the cover off of the tent where she showers to “see if she is a real blonde,” and torment her with sexual jokes including the nickname Hot Lips. I feel that many of the sexual jokes in this movie were meant to reflect the sexual tensions of the times.

Religion is mostly critiqued through Major Burns who is a devout Christian, but an insufferable, hypocritical person. He tries to turn a young Korean boy to Christianity and he blames others or the “will of God” if one of his patients dies. At one point he even works with Major Houlihan to get the other men in trouble for womanizing. However, he only does this so he can win her favor and have sex with her. Burns’ actions reveal the common incongruity between the faith and actions of many religious individuals. Another scene in which religion is satirized is during the “suicide” of Painless, the unit’s dentist. He no longer desires to go on living because he thinks he is gay due to a single instance in which he was unable to perform sexually. The men recreate the Last Supper scene and give Painless his “black pill,” which isn’t actually the deadly drug they say it is. Painless takes the pill then lies in a coffin waiting for death. He is “resurrected” by Lt. Dish, whose name implies that she is a very sexually appealing woman or a “fine dish”, is sent into the tent where he is asleep to have sex with him and restore his confidence in himself. Their irreverent behavior toward religion and suicide reflects how they have become desensitized toward matters of faith and death by the horrors of war.

The military is constantly a source for farcical humor in this film. The men in the M*A*S*H unit are all members of the army, but they appear to have absolutely no respect for it. When they are working they are very easygoing, even though they are responsible for the lives of fellow human beings. They are even more relaxed off the job, constantly drinking, gambling, and playing ball together. The men use these pastimes to distract themselves from their situation; they are far away from home, many not voluntarily. Every day they are surrounded by the injured, the dead, and the dying, and, when working, they are up to the elbows in the blood and gore of fellow recruits. These dire conditions and the men’s’ absolute need for a diversion from their day to day lives criticizes the relative indifference with which the military treats people out in the field.

I absolutely believe that the main purpose of the film “M*A*S*H” was to relieve the nervous tension of the American people during the Vietnam War, as well as criticize a war which sent unwilling people overseas to fight for a cause in which they have no interest in.

Dr. Strangelove - Strange Indeed

“Dr. Strangelove” is a dark war comedy about nuclear war and its effect. When General Ripper commands a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, he plunges the governments of both the United States and Russia into a panic. As the bombers ordered to release bombs at points all over the Soviet Union close in on their targets, the leaders of each country try desperately to get through to stop the bomber pilots. The many ridiculous situations created by General Ripper’s actions, as well as the actions of many of the other characters satirize subjects such as war, sex, and the government and military.

            War and sex are satirized together as though they were one and the same. At the opening of the film there are two air force planes flying near each other. They are connected by a long pipe, which is presumably refueling the other plane; however the soft, sensual music that is playing suggests that the planes are engaged in a much more sordid act. The names of many of the characters also contain sexual connotations, such as General Jack D. Ripper and General Turgidson. General Ripper shares a name with notorious murderer and sexual predator Jack the Ripper. General Buck Turgidson’s name contains the word “turgid” which means swollen or inflated, and is oftentimes used to refer to the male genitalia. Oddly enough, he does not seem to be particularly interested in the act of physical sex, dismissing his lovely secretary in order to go to the war room. This suggests that Buck may see war as a twisted type of substitute for sexual pleasure. Buck’s secretary is the only woman in the film, which, once again, suggests that many of the characters may approach war as a type of fulfillment much in the way others would view sex.

            Another criticism of war is seen with the pilots of Major Kong’s bomber plane. They seem to realize the absurdity of what they are being ordered to do, however they follow their orders to the best of their ability even after their plane is hit by a missile. Major Kong goes so far as to climb onto a bomb to rewire the release door, which sends him plummeting to the Earth straddling the bomb like a rodeo cowboy riding a bull. The irrational actions of the plane crew satirize the mere act of war. It also emphasizes that the men who are actually out fighting are pawns and are seen as having little consequence or importance by the government and military forces which deploy them.

            “Dr. Strangelove” also satirizes the government as being run by a group of people suffering from inferiority complexes who seek power to make themselves feel superior. General Ripper reveals that he had a realization of the evils of communism during a sexual encounter in which he was unable to perform. I believe that everything he has done since then has been done to assert his masculinity, including going as far as to order the destruction of the communist nation he blames for his problems. Wheelchair bound, Dr. Strangelove makes up for his physical disability by creating weapons of mass destruction. Even the President has some problems. He spends much of his time on the phone with Russia’s Premier Dmitri Kisov. Their conversation is ridiculous and reminiscent of two women arguing over petty matters. Kisov feels the need to assert himself, much in the same way as Ripper. He builds a “Doomsday Machine” which he had planned to reveal and impress and terrify the world with. The fact that these men all use war as a way to inflate other’s perceptions of them is absurd and causes war to seem needless. It also causes the viewer to question the reasons behind war and international conflict.

I feel that the purpose of “Dr. Strangelove” is to warn people against engaging in war, or any type of conflict for trivial personal reasons, as war is a very grave matter. It portrays both government officials and military leaders as having personal agendas and using war as a substitute for sexual pleasure. I don't think this movie could be considered a comedy at all, if not for the unlikely situational humor in this film and the ridiculous personal quirks of each character.

The Gods Must Be Crazy

The film, “The Gods Must Be Crazy,” is set in the Kalahari desert and studies two very differing cultures. The very primitive Bushmen contrast sharply with the modern society that is just six hundred miles away. The narrator explains that the Bushmen live in a gentle world with “no stone, concrete or steel” and they have no ownership, they live a simple, primitive, happy life. Modern people have not adapted to their environment and have “sentenced their children to 12 – 15 years” to learn how to survive before being pushed out into the civilized world. Through multiple intertwining storylines, the movie criticizes the unsettled life of civilized men versus the rich, happy, possessionless life of the Bushmen.

One aspect that sharply contrasts the two cultures is the amount of possessions they own. The Bushmen have none, and modern man strives to own as much as possible. One day an empty Coke bottle is tossed from an airplane and discovered by a Bushman named Xi. He believes it has been sent from the Gods and everyone in the group suddenly has a “need” to use it. This object creates so much conflict that Xi decides to travel to the end of the earth and throw away “the evil thing” to bring peace back to their group. He believes “the Gods must be crazy” for sending this object.  Meanwhile, modern society is portrayed as being a slave to the clock in order to make more money to buy more possessions.  Ironically, at the end of the movie Xi is offered money for helping a scientist, yet he leaves without it; he has no need for money in his rich world.

Another contrast between the two societies is the peaceful nature of the Bushmen versus the violent nature of “civilized man”. The Bushmen are a gentle, peaceful people. They don’t fight, or argue, and their children are never reprimanded. When they must kill an animal for food (and that is the only reason they would kill an animal) they first tranquilize it. Before killing it they explain to the animal that it will supply food to their family. During the movie a band of terrorists force their way into a government meeting and start shooting people. For the rest of the movie they travel across the land destroying, stealing, killing and taking hostages. The actions of this group reflect poorly on the civilized world.

The amounts of fear each culture experiences are also in sharp contrast. Because of their very nature, the Bushmen are relaxed, trusting people. They don’t see the bad in anyone and have no reason to fear anyone. When Xi encounters strangers on his journey to the end of the earth, he greets them in a friendly manner. When he sees a gun lying on the ground, he picks it up and thinks that it is a “strange stick”, he doesn’t fear it as a weapon; he has never been taught to be afraid of guns. A Bushman wears only a loincloth and doesn’t fear what people will think of him for his attire. In contrast fear is a prevailing theme with civilized men. In the movie, when the scientist, Andrew Steyn picks up the new teacher, Kate Thompson, a series of mishaps occur, causing Kate to believe that Andrew is trying to take advantage of or attack her. In one instance, Andrew had built a fire to keep them warm because they were stranded and suddenly put it out because a rhinoceros was coming toward them. Andrew knew the rhinoceros would come toward the fire and trample them as it attempted to trample the fire. Kate assumed he was trying to make it dark so he could take advantage of her. Andrew is also a study in a different type of fear. He is so shy and awkward he can’t be himself around Kate and always makes a bad impression upon her. He is so afraid of what someone thinks about him that he can’t relax and be himself. 

I feel that this movie sent a very strong message about true happiness. The Bushmen while they have no possessions, no modern technology, hardly any clothing, they live in peace and happiness. While we as a “civilized society” are constantly in turmoil, fighting our fellow man, worried about how to get more of everything and what people think of us. I feel the movie teaches us to find peace with each other and happiness in a simpler existence.  

The Importance of Being Earnest

Set in Victorian England, “The Importance of Being Earnest” follows two men who have created aliases and fake friends to avoid commitments and give them an excuse to visit the women they love. Hilarity ensues when they discover that they are using the same alias and the women they love are not only in love with them, but the fake persona they have both assumed. In this film Oscar Wilde satirizes marriage, the actions of women, and the upper class.

Jack Worthing has created a fake brother named Earnest, whom he uses as an excuse to leave the country for the city periodically. As soon as he arrives in the city, he assumes the role of Earnest in order to win the favor of his love interest, Gwendolen Fairfax. His friend, Algy Moncrieff, takes over the role of Earnest in order to visit the country and meet Worthing’s ward, Cecily. When Jack first proposes to Gwendolen, she accepts immediately and says she has loved him from the minute she first heard his name. Jack quickly realizes that she is in love with the name of Earnest and frantically begins to denounce his alias’s name. However, Gwendolen insists she could never love anyone as much as someone with a “Romantic” name like Earnest. This scene satirizes women who are obsessed with their ideas of romance and expect real life to be just like their fantasies. Cecily does the same thing. She fantasizes about marrying Earnest, though she has never met him, simply because she thinks his name is exciting. When Algy arrives, masquerading as Earnest, she instantly agrees to marry him revealing that, in her imagination, they have been engaged for quite some time. She says that at one point, however, she broke it off with him because “it would hardly have been a serious engagement if [she] hadn’t broken it off at least once!” This not only satirizes women and their pursuit of Romantic fantasies, but it also criticizes the trivial and nonchalant way in which society sometimes approachs marriage. These individuals do not know each other well enough to know if they love each other, the men simply know that the women are attractive and the women believe that the men can fulfill their romantic dreams. In the “Importance of Being Earnest” there is not so much an emphasis on being true, but on being earnestly dishonest.

The upper class is also a subject of Wilde’s criticism in “The Importance of Being Earnest.” Many of the ways in which the wealthy are satirized reminds me of the social criticisms in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Lady Bracknell reminds me of Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Each woman wants her daughter to marry a man from a high social class, with money, assets, and a good lineage. They are also very involved in the lives of their nephews, the only difference being that Lady Catherine wanted her nephew to marry her daughter, and thus refused to let him marry Miss Elizabeth Bennet. Lady Bracknell refuses to let her nephew, Algy, marry Cecily until she discovers that the young woman has a large sum of money to her name. Similarly, she will not permit Gwendolen to marry Jack until they discover that he is her long lost nephew. The upper class is obsessed with staying in the upper class. Ironically a flashback reveals that Lady Bracknell was not always a member of high society, though at the present she holds her societal power over everyone else. Through Lady Bracknell and the trivial, costly actions of her nephews, the upper class is made to seem very materialistic and wealth obsessed.

“The Importance of Being Earnest” has been my favorite movie of the semester so far. I enjoyed the amusing mishaps and actions of the main characters and the many parallels with Pride and Prejudice made it even more enjoyable.

Through the characters and their many misadventures in the pursuit of love and marriage, Wilde satirizes the marriage customs of Victorian England, the expectations women have for an unrealistically Romantic lifestyle, and the obsession of the upper members of society to maintain and elevate their social supremacy.

"Life of Brian" - In a Religious Society

Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” is a witty and bold movie as it parodies religion. I believe that much of the humor in “Life of Brian” is meant to satirize religion and the effects it has on the thoughts and actions of people.

“Life of Brian” follows the life of Brian Cohen. Brian is at the center of most of the film’s criticisms against religion. His life, in many ways, mirrors that of Jesus; they are born on the same night on the same street, both are antagonized by the Romans, and each man is subjected to crucifixion. For much of the movie I thought that Brian was actually meant to be a parody of Jesus, however I realized later he is not meant to make fun of or disprove the Christian religion, his experiences are meant to satirize religion in general. When Brian falls off of the People’s Front of Judea’s balcony, while trying to hide from the soldiers of Pontius Pilate, he has to think quickly to avoid drawing their attention. The street where he has landed is full of prophets and odd looking individuals fervently preaching to the public, to blend in Brian begins saying nonsense to the people surrounding him. Unfortunately for Brian, the people surrounding him actually listen to what he is saying and believe that he knows the secret to eternal life. A huge mob of people chases him through the streets. They snatch any belongings he drops and when he loses a shoe, they remove theirs as well to emulate him. Many claim they have been healed by him, though they have not, they mob an old man who yells at him, and swarm Brian’s home. All of these ridiculous behaviors are meant to criticize the fervency with which overly religious people follow their doctrine. They cease to think for themselves and assume a mob mentality in chasing after him, clinging to everything he says, and even begin speaking in unison. There appear to be no unique individuals who think for themselves in the crowd. Despite the humor surrounding scenes like these, there still seems to be the underlying message that people must think for themselves. Even if a person is part of a religious group they should still maintain their ability to assess situations and think reasonably without taking a leader’s every word for fact.

I believe that these ridiculous scenes involving the mob of Brian’s “believers,” while very funny, are meant to appeal to the audience’s logic rather than emotion. It seems odd that so many people would chase after someone for an entirely unfounded reason. They think Brian has knowledge that they desire and they will go to great lengths to procure that information. To a spectator these people would seem unreasonable, as Brian obviously does not know the answers to the questions they are asking. For the viewer, it is at times exasperating to listen to the crowd repeat the same appeals over and over. However, when the movie was released, it sparked a huge pathos based response. Ironically, all of the people who were offended by the movie were the people being satirized, the unquestioning followers of the Christian Church. They believed that “Life of Brian” was meant to be a comedy about Jesus and his death, when there was actually no such intention. The actions of this group of people, however, only bolstered the movie’s popularity with the rest of society who wanted to see what was so upsetting about the film.

Although I am not a fan of British humor, I almost always enjoy the wit in Monty Python skits and movies. I did not feel that “Life of Brian” had the same level of humor that many of their other works have, and I assume it may be because of its rather serious messages about religion which they seek to convey.

Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?

Riddled with humor and ridiculous situations, “Will Success Spoil Rockwell Hunter?” contains commentary and criticisms on many aspects of American society including the media, the upper class, and the obsession with Hollywood. The main character Rockwell Hunter, played by Tony Randall, is obsessed with the idea of success and strives to be an executive at the advertising agency where he works. In order to further his career, Hunter suggests having actress Rita Marlowe, played by Jayne Mansfield, endorse the Stay-Put lipstick brand. Her endorsement would keep the agency from losing their business with the lipstick company and get him recognition from his boss. Marlowe, however, is running from a difficult relationship with a fellow Hollywood star and, to save her reputation, insists that Hunter act as her lover in order to generate positive publicity for herself. Hunter is then faced with the difficult task of pretending to be Marlowe’s love interest, while also balancing his career and trying not to anger his actual fiancée, Jenny.

The media and Hollywood are satirized extensively in this film, as well as the American fan culture. Rita Marlowe is a beloved actress, however it quickly becomes obvious that she is very ignorant and annoying. Her voice, punctuated by high-pitched gasps and sighs, is at times painful to listen to. And her obsession with making her past love interest jealous reveals her petty nature. Through Rita’s ridiculous actions the movie industry and actors alike are portrayed as senseless individuals, concerned only with gaining the attention of the media which will help further their careers and inflate their egos. The media, too, comes under the fire of the film’s criticism. The media’s attention to Marlowe is excessive and seems to overshadow all other news stories. At one point Hunter turns on the television to find out what Marlowe is saying about him. He asks his friend, Rufus, what channel he should turn on, to which Rufus replies “Any station! It’s like when the President speaks!” It is absurd that an interview with an actress is considered as important and newsworthy as a speech by the President. The media focuses on giving the people what they want: scandalous tabloids. The humorous context of this situation illuminates the decline of journalism. Fan culture is also to blame. As Hunter becomes more well-known people begin to recognize and even chase after him. At one point a mob of women chases him down the street and into an alley. This scene is very funny as Hunter is taken by surprise and does not know how to react, yet it also criticizes the American people for being too interested in living vicariously through famous people rather than valuing their own lives.

Another aspect of American life that is satirized in the film is the idea of success and wealth. All Rockwell Hunter wants is success and to become an executive. Amusingly, one of the few reasons he gives for wanting to be an executive is the privilege of using the “Executive Powder Room.” Hunter really has no concept of success, he only hungers for the pleasantries and comforts that he associates with it. According to hunter, he has never been able to keep a pipe lit; he doesn’t know whether to breathe in or out. Likewise, he does not know what path to take because he is unsure of whether he wants success or failure. Eventually, he is appointed the president the agency with his own private bathroom, but no fiancée, no happiness, and a cold pipe. His own boss retired to chase his dream of being a horticulturist. Hunter finally realizes that success is not having power or a fancy bathroom; true success is when one finds real happiness and fulfillment. Rockwell Hunter ultimately finds his own happiness with Jenny and his niece, April, on a chicken farm, with a lit pipe in his mouth.

The rhetoric in this film satirizes the American obsession with fame and fortune, and suggests that true success can be achieved in a simpler life where an individual truly knows what he wants, symbolically “keeping his pipe lit.”

Modern Times

Charlie Chaplain’s “Modern Times” is humorous and yet it also addresses serious subjects such as work and living conditions during the Great Depression in America. Considering when it was made, it was a very “modern” movie as it addressed current conditions and issues, and depicted the average worker struggling to survive during extremely difficult times. One scene that stands out in my mind was at the beginning of the movie; sheep are being herded together, presumably to be sent to slaughter. This scene with the sheep is instantly juxtaposed with the image of factory workers jostling around on the subway. Placing these two scenes side by side effectively conveys the idea that factory workers in the 1930’s were treated no better than livestock; subjected to poor working conditions and low wages they too were being sent to slaughter. The scene with the “feeding machine” is a perfect example of the inhumane way factory workers were treated. As funny as it may be to see Chaplain’s character battered by the machine, the fact remains that the machine exists to allow him to work and eat at the same time, avoiding lags caused by lunch breaks and increasing productivity. He is being treated, not as a human, but as a part of the machine with which he works. The boss only cares about efficiency and monetary gain he does not pause to consider the feelings and needs of his workers; his attitude is a reflection of the times. Chaplain’s character eventually has a mental breakdown and is sent to the hospital. Almost immediately following his release he gets caught in the middle of a protest and finds himself in jail. He enjoys his time in jail because he is fed and sheltered; this is yet another social commentary. The people out working in the world are barely getting by while prison inmates enjoy a life of relative security.  Upon his release Chaplain’s character actually requests to remain in jail but is denied and sent off to find work. Back on his own he runs into, or is run into by, a young woman who has resorted to stealing to help save her family. Through a chain of events they end up running from the police together. The young woman and Chaplain’s characters represent different attitudes of the era. Chaplain’s character is defeated and seems to believe that there is no hope for a job or bright future until he meets the young woman. She is strong and refuses to give up. After a few failed attempts to find jobs, they find themselves working at the same restaurant where they both perform short song and dance acts, while Chaplain’s character also waits on tables. At this point he finally shares in the young woman’s hope and desire to succeed. When he forgets the lyrics to his song, he pretends to sing in Italian and pantomimes the story line. He has made a complete metamorphosis from a downtrodden factory worker to a hardworking member of society, determined to overcome difficult times. Even when they have to leave their jobs to flee from the police, who are searching for the young woman, there still persists a feeling of hope for a better life. I feel that Chaplin’s rhetoric in “Modern Times” serves a dual purpose. The situations in the jail and factories are meant to denounce the rich and powerful who do nothing to help the poor workers, and only use them to increase their own wealth. It also commends the American people who have the strength to carry on and hope for a better future. As seen by the optimistic ending with the two main characters walking arm in arm down an open road, Chaplain believes that the future holds endless possibilities for the hopeful and hardworking.