ET 3: CHARLIE AND BUSTER

VS

Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Ashton Kutcher and many other contemporary comedians of today owe a huge deal to silent era comedians before them and in my opinion, the greatest two are Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. Despite originating from the same time period, they both have very differing styles of presenting comedy. I am going to reference both artistes based on the movies that I watched in my Film 101 which are “The Cure” starring Chaplin and “The General” starring Keaton.

To start off, Chaplin had a toothbrush styled mustache, carried a cane, wore baggy pants, a tight suit, clown shoes and off course, his signature bowler hat! Keaton on the other hand used a pork pie hat but apart from that, dressed rather normally. Charlie Chaplin sort of limped when he walked and it evokes laughter because he looks like a duck waddling whereas Keaton sorts of walks and runs clumsily, giving me a feeling that he looks unstable and could fall down anytime.

Both characters are alike in the sense that they both are part of farce comedies where their characters receive violent physical misfortunes, thus being comical to audiences because we are grateful to not be in the same sorry situation as either Chaplin or Keaton! On the other hand, both characters are different as Chaplin made use of many facial expressions that made audiences laugh whereas Keaton always had a blank look on his face immaterial of any situation he was facing which also amuses the audiences because his expressions never changed!

Both Chaplin and Keaton have different ways to deal with problems that arise in their movies. For example, in “The Cure”, Chaplin’s character had a clash with a fat and arrogant aristocrat suffering from gout. He often escapes from trouble by being lucky most of the time. This can be seen in the scene where Chaplin tries to rescue his ladylove from the bad guy and when the aristocrat tries to catch Chaplin to hit him, Chaplin just happens to magically slide away from his grasps. Thus, it can be said that Chaplin was a rather slippery fellow and no wonder he’s known as the Trickster! Keaton on the other hand faces his problems in a different manner. In “The General”, when his ladylove was captured by the Union soldiers, Keaton risked his life by sneaking into the Union’s headquarters to rescue her. He uses his heroism and skills to fight his enemies rather than just being lucky like Chaplin.

In my opinion, I prefer Charlie Chaplin over Buster Keaton because of his perfect timing in his comedy sequences which never fails to gain my attention. The rotating door scene at the spa in “The Cure” was priceless! Also, his body language and attributes are rather unique as opposed to Keaton. In addition, the pace of Chaplin’s movies is rather fast compared to Keaton’s as the former often acted in short films. However, Keaton should also be applauded because of his contribution as one of the pioneers of slapstick comedy and also his bravery of performing his own dare-devil acrobatic stunts in his movies.

All in all, the movie industry today has indeed suffered a great loss as there will never be another great comedian that could match the talents of neither Charlie Chaplin nor Buster Keaton!

ET 4: BIRTH OF A NATION AND TRIUMPH OF THE WILL

         

I was introduced to the movie “Birth of a Nation” directed by D.W. Griffith when I previously took a U.S. history course.  I still remember vividly that in my history textbook, the movie was glorified as a masterpiece and was a pride for racist White Americans during the 1920’s as it was about the infamous Civil War and heavily degraded the Blacks. However, it is only now, in Film 101, I got the opportunity to watch the movie along with another famous propaganda film which is “Triumph of the Will” directed by Leni Riefenstahl that chronicles the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg.  Indeed, I have to admit, since both movies are made at two different time periods, they differ greatly in production values and technology. However, they both execute their job well in conveying their message across to their targeted audiences. I am now going to compare and analyze “Birth of a Nation” and “Triumph of the Will” in terms of their melodramatic essence and why both films act as excellent propaganda tools.

In “Birth of a Nation”, there were various close up shots used by Griffith focusing on the expressions of the Whites and not surprisingly, he rarely zooms the camera to the Blacks because I believe he wanted audiences to think of Blacks as people who don’t have any feelings thus being compared to lesser human beings.  In one of the scenes, there was a close up shot of a White child crying and children are often used in movies because they are thought as being pure, vulnerable and innocent. Thus, Griffith has convinced his audiences that the Blacks are heartless and they wouldn’t hesitate to kill the helpless child. This is indeed a good use of melodrama. Also, Griffith often used cross-cutting shots in this film. For example, in melodrama films, there is bound to be an element of suspense and the director has created that by alternately showing the scene of the Ku Klux Klan(KKK) riding their horses and the scene of a White family being held captive in a cabin surrounded by Blacks. This indeed arouses suspense among the audiences on whether the KKK will save the family. To add to that, this is an excellent use of heroism where the KKK, being the Hero comes to save the day! Griffith also has taken the opportunity to insert love sequences in this “historical film” and perhaps this is to attract more female audiences to view this film. As expected of most melodrama films, both lead couples in the film receive their happy ending as both the Southern and Northern families unite and Griffith has effectively used iris shots to emphasize intimate scenes at the end of the film.

“Birth of a Nation” works effectively as propaganda tool because the director has effectively created a sense of “us and them” in the film where “us” are the Whites and “them” being the Blacks. In many instances, there were double standards in terms of the portrayal of the Blacks and Whites. Firstly, when he portrayed the Whites as heroes who fight for all their life’s worth, he instead portrayed the Blacks as cowards who when lost the battle, took the first opportunity to run. Next,when he portrayed the Whites as being civilized and having a strong family unit, the Blacks whereas were portrayed as hooligans and people with utmost low moral values. The list can go on and on… In addition, Griffith has used religion as way to strengthen his propaganda. In the final scene of the movie, Jesus Christ was shown to be appearing to bless the Whites who have won the battle against the Blacks. In other words, Griffith wanted to point out that God himself has approved that Whites should always be superior and rule the Blacks. It is indeed a no-brainer on why “Birth of a Nation” has created unwanted animosity among the Blacks and Whites upon its release.

Moving on to “Triumph of the Will” by Leni Riefenstahl, the film’s opening sequence in my opinion is explosive and creates a perfect sense of melodrama! In the opening of the movie, these statements were displayed,

“Twenty years after the outbreak of the World War,

Sixteen years after the start of the German suffering,

Nineteen months after the start of Germany’s rebirth “

Tell me, what other perfect openings could there have been to such a great and powerful melodramatic film?  Any German at that time would have been emotionally pumped to watch the film just by viewing the opening sequence because this was what they needed, someone understanding their pain of losing the World War and now it’s time for them to reclaim their lost glory! Right after those statements were shown, the scene fades away and we are seen to be flying in the clouds on an airplane. Then, we are shown the aerial view of the city Nuremberg which looked very peaceful and untouched by modernization thus earning its name as “Old Germany”.  The scene then cuts to a large crowd of people cheering when the plane lands and Adolf Hitler is shown exiting the plane. All of these happen in the first 5 minutes of the film and there’s a reason why Riefenstahl has made it as such.  Hitler is shown to be a hero and a savior descending from the sky who was sent by God to relieve the Germans from their suffering just like the KKK in “Birth of a Nation”.

“Triumph of the Will” also contains the perfect ingredients to be a propaganda tool. First and foremost, the low-angle shot used whenever Hitler gives his speech is brilliant as it emphasizes his power and it seems like as if he’s speaking to us the audience itself. Next, Hitler was always full of energy and charisma whenever he delivered his speech and this could be seen by his well-trained body language. His powerful voice just makes us sit up straight and look forward to whatever he has got to say next. Also, the Youth Rally scene in the movie portrayed orderliness and Hitler’s ability to bring together such a huge crowd of people especially the young boys whom most people often perceive to be naughty and lack the ability to follow orders! It  also showed the Germans that Hitler cared for the younger generation and he was fighting for their better quality of life. Hitler’s propaganda of equality too is clearly seen where everyone present in the rally were wearing same types of clothes  and there were no ranks among the military men.  It is interesting to note as well that Hitler used religion as a propaganda just like D.W. Griffith in “Birth of a Nation”. This can be seen when a bishop was present during the final speech that Hitler delivered in the end of the film and as Germany was a Christian nation, the people would have felt like as if God endorsed whatever actions that Hitler took since the bishop is a representative of God.

All in all, “Birth of a Nation” and “Triumph of the Will” are indeed masterpieces of propaganda and I wish, if only they were used for a good cause rather than evil, the world would have been a better place altogether.

ET 2: YOURSELF AS AUDIENCE

When I was required to watch the French short film, “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” last Friday for my Film 101 class, I didn’t get my hopes up too much to be entertained. After all, it was my first time ever watching a silent film and watching it at 8a.m. didn’t help either! However, by the end of the movie, my perception on silent films completely changed and I will tell you why.

At the start of the film, the lead character, a Civil War prisoner was about to be hanged.  Frankly speaking, during the first 5 minutes of the film, I was bored but the moment the lead of the film had a flashback of his wife and kids, the film gained my attention. A series of questions started to running through my mind. I was puzzled and wondering whether the lead was either a good or bad guy. This is because, the sadness on his face when he realized he would never see his family again, really saddened me. It got me thinking, that no man who loved his family that much, could ever commit a crime that would result in a death penalty. That is when, I decided that the soldiers around him were evil guys despite the fact that I did not know the true story that led towards the hero’s death sentence. Also when the hero started crying

When he was dropped into the river, I was so happy that he could free himself from the bindings of the ropes on his legs and hands. I didn’t care that the scene did not really make much sense because surely the soldiers would have tied strong knots on his leg and hands making it impossible for him to release himself. Even if he did, he would have run out of air and drowned after all. Nevertheless,  I was extremely excited when the hero rose to the surface of the river. My first reaction was for him to swim away from the area as fast as possible. However, what came next really confused me! The hero actually waited for the soldiers to fire gunshots towards him and then only did he swim away. Naturally, if it would have been in real life, anyone  in that situation would have impulsively tried to disappear from the sight of those evil soldiers as fast as possible. Nonetheless, I was well aware since it was a film, directors often portray the main star of the film as being macho and have the ability to defy all obstacle he faces!

What came next was an intense scene of chasing and shooting. I was rooting for the lead to not be shot by the soldiers and if I was watching the film in my own living room, I would have practically screamed for the lead to swim faster and faster! Only when he reached the river bank, I heaved a sigh of relieve. However, the shooting did not end there as shots were randomly being fired towards the direction of the hero and he had to run for his dear life. I could feel the tiredness and feeling of helpfulness of the hero as the actor emoted his expressions very well. When the hero finally reached a tunnel of blackness, I started to have a hunch that he might be dreaming because it looked creepy and I was afraid that the hero was going to fall into a hole of nothingness. Alas, when he walked towards the tunnel, his house and wife appeared. I was about to cheer for the hero as he finally was reunited with the love of his life but what came next totally deceived me. It appears that it was all an imagination and the hero was hanged to death after all by being dropped halfway from the bridge and not all the way into the river.

All in all, at the end of the film, I was shrouded in mixed feelings of sadness and foolishness of being fooled by the film. This is why, I have come to realize that silent films  are as entertaining as modern films we have today and  in future, I am looking forward to watching more movies as such.