I realize radical Islam is pretty void of beneficial ideas, but this point blank rejection of democracy surprised me.
"Democracy is a Greek word meaning the rule of the people, which means that the people do what they see fit," the groups said in a warning. "This concept is considered apostasy and defies the belief in one God — Muslims' doctrine."
Wow! I'm no muslim, but their rejection of the rule of the people seems to contradict the Koran. Somewhere down the line someone has to interpret Allah's intention and Sharia, right? Who better than the people? If it was otherwise, wouldn't the Koran have established a church hierarchy to do so? These fellows would rather return to the enlightened world of Ottoman rule, which consistantly produced horrible leaders that ran the empire into ground.
If the al Jazeera report is right and 250 election officials quit...if the Sunnis refuse to participate in the election...well, back in school, we referred to such stupidity as "pulling a boner." But I think the majority will participate, since that is the only path that offers a future.
Friday, December 31, 2004
Thursday, December 30, 2004
blog news
when i am spending free time online i often am content to read through the n y times online. sometimes the photos make me feel like i am there, staying with my friend in manhattan.
i have just noted an article about 'anonymouslawyer.blogspot', which i then took the time to look over.
pretty cool that a blog will get such attention, and then an article in the n y times. i can't help but think that the authour will surely get a book offer.
then, as i went to the dashboard here, blogspot has even more 'blog in the news' features. pretty darn cool.
so i am glad to have a friend get me in on a blog, even in a small way. thanks jeffrey.
oh also - i was wanting to comment on your last post - 'good news' - i would ask: Do you have a source for this? and sure enough you did, i found the link as i was trying to figure out how to post a comment. i'll figure it all out as i go. as i got some comments from my previous post. blog dialogue. dialogue.blogspot. is that there?
i apperciate that you've written extensively on your 90 minute thesis, i will go back to that for reading and will surely have comments for it.
i have just noted an article about 'anonymouslawyer.blogspot', which i then took the time to look over.
pretty cool that a blog will get such attention, and then an article in the n y times. i can't help but think that the authour will surely get a book offer.
then, as i went to the dashboard here, blogspot has even more 'blog in the news' features. pretty darn cool.
so i am glad to have a friend get me in on a blog, even in a small way. thanks jeffrey.
oh also - i was wanting to comment on your last post - 'good news' - i would ask: Do you have a source for this? and sure enough you did, i found the link as i was trying to figure out how to post a comment. i'll figure it all out as i go. as i got some comments from my previous post. blog dialogue. dialogue.blogspot. is that there?
i apperciate that you've written extensively on your 90 minute thesis, i will go back to that for reading and will surely have comments for it.
Good News
While reflecting on 2004, it is important to note that despite the problems with terrorism and the recent earthquake, things, on the whole, are getting better on this rock.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
The 90 Minute Rule of Comedy
(The following is a preliminary theory I have had. Thus far, I have not been able to get a sizable grant so that I could fully test the theory and submit a paper to a prestigious academic journal.)
Chico: I can’t think of the ending.
Groucho: That’s funny, I can’t think of anything else.
(Animal Crackers)
Nothing in entertainment is worse than going on too long at the expense of patience. Even the funniest joke can become exhausting if it is overtaxed. Who can explain why it has often been said that the act of smiling uses fewer muscles than frowning, and yet my jaws get tired after an extended period of hilarity while an extended period of moping about seems only to produce pent-up energy? It is with this in mind that I say that comedies should, as a general rule, be no longer than 90 minutes, and only that long if they are funny. Indeed, the unfunny comedy should not be made at all so far as I am concerned.
By comedy I mean any film that is not to be taken seriously. There are plenty of hybrids such as romantic comedies and action comedies that surpass the 90 minute mark successfully. Those will be addressed soon enough, but for now the focus is on pure comedy.
Now 90 minutes represents the longest singular loop of a comedy cycle, which can be captured on film. That is to say, all mediums of art have what I like to call biorhythms. By my best and humble estimation, the comedy film has a biorhythm cycle that can be stretched up to a maximum of 90 minutes (but is better left un-stretched). After that, it is very difficult to maintain hilarity because fatigue sets in and the law of diminishing returns goes into effect. I believe it was Billy Wilder who, upon talking of comedies, said that anything over 90 minutes counts double.
The director has every right to exceed this time limit of 90 minutes, but he does so at his own peril.
Now 90 minutes is meant as a limit, not a universal mean. Every comedy has its own clock and it is essential that it does not exceed that clock. The 90 minute mark simply represents the maximum amount of time to which a clock can be calibrated. If a film is designed to have x number of quips or gags a minute with a projected 33% or higher success rate (laughter rate), then 90 minutes may be justified. However, if the film maintains the quotient for x, but only intends to achieve a 10% success rate, then 60 minutes may be the ideal length. Conversely, if x is dramatically increased while the projected success rate remains at 33%, then the overall length of the film should still be shortened to prevent audience exhaustion. There is a medium effective range where the quantity of jokes coupled with the laugh rate will achieve maximum results and the mean value will always be 90 minutes or less. Violating this formula is like having a sprinter jog a 100 yard dash or marathon runner sprint an entire marathon – neither will earn a medal.
Can comedy fall short of its optimum mean, and if so, can it be improved with added length? The answer is yes. But consider, for example, how many director’s cut versions of films are actually better than the original theatrical release. The simple truth is that even during the most efficient days of the Hollywood system the human instinct is rarely adequately regimented towards brevity, even though, as Shakespeare said: “brevity is the soul of wit.” So, too, is it with comedy.
Duck Soup is a fine example of a film with a rapid joke dispersal rate coupled with a very high reaction percentage where the total running time wisely clocks in at a mere 70 minutes. Had the film gone on for another twenty minutes the law of diminishing returns would have happened prior to the 90 minute mark as evidenced by another great Marx Brothers film, A Night at the Opera, which is 92 minutes. Both are rightly hailed as excellent films, but the latter is clearly on the wane of their artistic achievement while the former is at the very apex. Reasons for this claim can be partly attributed to the difference in running times, including the noticeable fact that A Night at the Opera violates the maximum length by two minutes. Now it may be noted that with the shift to MGM, the Marx Brothers movies focused increasingly on song and dance as well as romantic plots in an effort to expand the range of the films to a more general pool of entertainment, yet these are precisely the elements that should have been trimmed down to achieve an ideal length of 77 to 80 minutes.
An evolution of the Marx Brothers is somewhat telling as they honed their craft to film. The first two productions, Cocoanuts and Animal Crackers, ran at 96 and 98 minutes, respectively. Both were adapted from the stage, which is not necessarily subject to the 90 minute rule. However, both films have slower editing, more intricate subplots and music that was typical of their stage productions. As such, Cocoanuts and Animal Crackers were almost exactly 6 and 8 minutes too long.*1 The Brothers hit their stride when they left New York City to make their next three Paramount pictures in Hollywood. These three films would constitute the greatest triumvirate of comedies ever: Monkey Business (77min), Horse Feathers (67min), and Duck Soup (70min). In these three films the editing was more polished and more brisk, thanks to the advanced skill of the studio system, the subplots were stripped down and the music was minimized.*2 When MGM bought the Brothers, they made sure to dilute their property with more serious romantic subplots, heavier doses of music, stricter censorship and less artistic license. Even when the MGM films fell under the 90 minute mark, this dissolution required an even shorter running time because the jokes were less risqué and the resulting reaction percentage was diminished. Thus, the greatest comedy team of the 20th century did not achieve the stellar record that should have been theirs, though they still hold the top spot in film comedy. Stricter adherence to the ninety minute rule, in all its subtleties, would have only added to their legacy.
Other comedy teams had virtually no conflicts with the 90 minute rule, and thus were able to maximize their performance. The Bowery Boys, who made over 50 films, not including ones under their other names like the East Side Kids, the Dead End Kids, etc., rarely made a picture much over 70 minutes long. Their track record does not warrant further mention except to say that such devotion to formula, to the point of re-using about seven plots almost equally, resulted in remarkable consistency. I would venture to doubt that a person would have anything more than a +/- 5 laugh differential between any two of their movies – and rarely a +/-5 minute running time differential.
At a higher level of comic achievement, Abbott and Costello, the quintessential duo for comedy timing, stayed very true to the rule. With the exception of three films*3, they did not violate the rule and maintained a rough average of 82.9 minutes per movie. Other comedians followed suit. The silent comedians tended towards films that ranged typically from 40 minutes up to 90 minutes, as did W.C. Fields, Laurel & Hardy, the Three Stooges, the Ritz Brothers, so on and so forth in diminishing rank.
Hybrids offer a way past the 90 minute cycle by fusing humor with another genre to expand the role and scope of a picture while, in theory, still enjoying the acute wisdoms of comedy. However, the success of the film past the 90 minute mark rests solely on whether the adjacent genre can stand on its own.
It is in this way that we can interpret the success of Howard Hawk’s screwball comedies, which consistently ran for lengths of 100 minutes. The performance on a romance/love story level was ably portrayed by Cary Grant and a high-powered actress – instilling longevity to the script. In contrast, the later, lesser, longer works of Charlie Chaplin weighed more and more on heavier themes as his persona virtually lived in torment. When the fusion works – and it’s arguable that it worked well with Chaplin – then the 90 minute rule is ceded in favor of the other genre. But this, too, can be a slippery slope. Such fusions are rarely consistent, and can often lead a picture to be but a hollow over-blown shell of entertainment. I would cite the several star-studded epic race comedies of the 60’s as a prime example (referring to films like Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies and It’s a Mad, Mad…oh, hell, even the title is too long!). Despite allowing for the rare hybrid exception, prudence warns against mixing “overlong” and “action” with “comedy” unless a “zilch” is what you seek. It is simply not in the natural design of comedy to support such things.
Of course, to every rule is a troublesome exception. Perhaps the most notable exception to thia rule is Jerry Lewis. Though many of his pictures that went over the 90 minute mark can be considered too long, it is hard to determine how to cut The Nutty Professor (107min) shorter and at the same time improve it. How he surpassed the mark is unknown, though perhaps that is a question for the French (thus solving two mysteries at once). And of course, there are other exceptions – though most have explanations (Blues Brothers – 133min: action/comedy, still too long; Young Frankenstein – 108min: period piece/comedy; Princess Bride – 98min: swashbuckler/comedy). The thing to notice here is the flexibility of the hybrid factor.
Since the late fifties, the rule as a limit is still often observed, but the calibration of comedy to running time has consistently been stretched and challenged. More and more film makers completely ignore the rule, often with the same predictable results: a funny movie that is x over 90 minutes too long. This has plagued Peter Sellers (as an early example); National Lampoon, Harold Ramis, Mel Brooks (when he decides to violate the rule) and so on.
At the very least, the 90 minute rule should always be applied if only to make a bad movie more bearable by offering a light at the end of the tunnel. It is one thing to be trapped in a theater for two plus hours, it is quite another to be out within 90 minutes. The difference may not sound like much until you accrue all the bad 90+ minute comedies one sees in a lifetime. So, if you are a director of comedies, please, pity your audience and let your conscience be your guide.
*1 As a disclaimer, it should not be inferred that the scores for either picture was sub-par in any shape or form.
*2 Musical numbers involving the Marx Brothers, particularly with Groucho singing or with all three singing, are integral to the films. So when I charge that “These are precisely the elements that should have been trimmed down…” I draw a distinction between the non-Marx romantic lead sharing a duet to the main actress (scrap) and any of Groucho’s songs or the big number at the end of Duck Soup.
*3 The three films include: Rio Rita –91; Little Giant –92; In Hollywood –111.
Chico: I can’t think of the ending.
Groucho: That’s funny, I can’t think of anything else.
(Animal Crackers)
Nothing in entertainment is worse than going on too long at the expense of patience. Even the funniest joke can become exhausting if it is overtaxed. Who can explain why it has often been said that the act of smiling uses fewer muscles than frowning, and yet my jaws get tired after an extended period of hilarity while an extended period of moping about seems only to produce pent-up energy? It is with this in mind that I say that comedies should, as a general rule, be no longer than 90 minutes, and only that long if they are funny. Indeed, the unfunny comedy should not be made at all so far as I am concerned.
By comedy I mean any film that is not to be taken seriously. There are plenty of hybrids such as romantic comedies and action comedies that surpass the 90 minute mark successfully. Those will be addressed soon enough, but for now the focus is on pure comedy.
Now 90 minutes represents the longest singular loop of a comedy cycle, which can be captured on film. That is to say, all mediums of art have what I like to call biorhythms. By my best and humble estimation, the comedy film has a biorhythm cycle that can be stretched up to a maximum of 90 minutes (but is better left un-stretched). After that, it is very difficult to maintain hilarity because fatigue sets in and the law of diminishing returns goes into effect. I believe it was Billy Wilder who, upon talking of comedies, said that anything over 90 minutes counts double.
The director has every right to exceed this time limit of 90 minutes, but he does so at his own peril.
Now 90 minutes is meant as a limit, not a universal mean. Every comedy has its own clock and it is essential that it does not exceed that clock. The 90 minute mark simply represents the maximum amount of time to which a clock can be calibrated. If a film is designed to have x number of quips or gags a minute with a projected 33% or higher success rate (laughter rate), then 90 minutes may be justified. However, if the film maintains the quotient for x, but only intends to achieve a 10% success rate, then 60 minutes may be the ideal length. Conversely, if x is dramatically increased while the projected success rate remains at 33%, then the overall length of the film should still be shortened to prevent audience exhaustion. There is a medium effective range where the quantity of jokes coupled with the laugh rate will achieve maximum results and the mean value will always be 90 minutes or less. Violating this formula is like having a sprinter jog a 100 yard dash or marathon runner sprint an entire marathon – neither will earn a medal.
Can comedy fall short of its optimum mean, and if so, can it be improved with added length? The answer is yes. But consider, for example, how many director’s cut versions of films are actually better than the original theatrical release. The simple truth is that even during the most efficient days of the Hollywood system the human instinct is rarely adequately regimented towards brevity, even though, as Shakespeare said: “brevity is the soul of wit.” So, too, is it with comedy.
Duck Soup is a fine example of a film with a rapid joke dispersal rate coupled with a very high reaction percentage where the total running time wisely clocks in at a mere 70 minutes. Had the film gone on for another twenty minutes the law of diminishing returns would have happened prior to the 90 minute mark as evidenced by another great Marx Brothers film, A Night at the Opera, which is 92 minutes. Both are rightly hailed as excellent films, but the latter is clearly on the wane of their artistic achievement while the former is at the very apex. Reasons for this claim can be partly attributed to the difference in running times, including the noticeable fact that A Night at the Opera violates the maximum length by two minutes. Now it may be noted that with the shift to MGM, the Marx Brothers movies focused increasingly on song and dance as well as romantic plots in an effort to expand the range of the films to a more general pool of entertainment, yet these are precisely the elements that should have been trimmed down to achieve an ideal length of 77 to 80 minutes.
An evolution of the Marx Brothers is somewhat telling as they honed their craft to film. The first two productions, Cocoanuts and Animal Crackers, ran at 96 and 98 minutes, respectively. Both were adapted from the stage, which is not necessarily subject to the 90 minute rule. However, both films have slower editing, more intricate subplots and music that was typical of their stage productions. As such, Cocoanuts and Animal Crackers were almost exactly 6 and 8 minutes too long.*1 The Brothers hit their stride when they left New York City to make their next three Paramount pictures in Hollywood. These three films would constitute the greatest triumvirate of comedies ever: Monkey Business (77min), Horse Feathers (67min), and Duck Soup (70min). In these three films the editing was more polished and more brisk, thanks to the advanced skill of the studio system, the subplots were stripped down and the music was minimized.*2 When MGM bought the Brothers, they made sure to dilute their property with more serious romantic subplots, heavier doses of music, stricter censorship and less artistic license. Even when the MGM films fell under the 90 minute mark, this dissolution required an even shorter running time because the jokes were less risqué and the resulting reaction percentage was diminished. Thus, the greatest comedy team of the 20th century did not achieve the stellar record that should have been theirs, though they still hold the top spot in film comedy. Stricter adherence to the ninety minute rule, in all its subtleties, would have only added to their legacy.
Other comedy teams had virtually no conflicts with the 90 minute rule, and thus were able to maximize their performance. The Bowery Boys, who made over 50 films, not including ones under their other names like the East Side Kids, the Dead End Kids, etc., rarely made a picture much over 70 minutes long. Their track record does not warrant further mention except to say that such devotion to formula, to the point of re-using about seven plots almost equally, resulted in remarkable consistency. I would venture to doubt that a person would have anything more than a +/- 5 laugh differential between any two of their movies – and rarely a +/-5 minute running time differential.
At a higher level of comic achievement, Abbott and Costello, the quintessential duo for comedy timing, stayed very true to the rule. With the exception of three films*3, they did not violate the rule and maintained a rough average of 82.9 minutes per movie. Other comedians followed suit. The silent comedians tended towards films that ranged typically from 40 minutes up to 90 minutes, as did W.C. Fields, Laurel & Hardy, the Three Stooges, the Ritz Brothers, so on and so forth in diminishing rank.
Hybrids offer a way past the 90 minute cycle by fusing humor with another genre to expand the role and scope of a picture while, in theory, still enjoying the acute wisdoms of comedy. However, the success of the film past the 90 minute mark rests solely on whether the adjacent genre can stand on its own.
It is in this way that we can interpret the success of Howard Hawk’s screwball comedies, which consistently ran for lengths of 100 minutes. The performance on a romance/love story level was ably portrayed by Cary Grant and a high-powered actress – instilling longevity to the script. In contrast, the later, lesser, longer works of Charlie Chaplin weighed more and more on heavier themes as his persona virtually lived in torment. When the fusion works – and it’s arguable that it worked well with Chaplin – then the 90 minute rule is ceded in favor of the other genre. But this, too, can be a slippery slope. Such fusions are rarely consistent, and can often lead a picture to be but a hollow over-blown shell of entertainment. I would cite the several star-studded epic race comedies of the 60’s as a prime example (referring to films like Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies and It’s a Mad, Mad…oh, hell, even the title is too long!). Despite allowing for the rare hybrid exception, prudence warns against mixing “overlong” and “action” with “comedy” unless a “zilch” is what you seek. It is simply not in the natural design of comedy to support such things.
Of course, to every rule is a troublesome exception. Perhaps the most notable exception to thia rule is Jerry Lewis. Though many of his pictures that went over the 90 minute mark can be considered too long, it is hard to determine how to cut The Nutty Professor (107min) shorter and at the same time improve it. How he surpassed the mark is unknown, though perhaps that is a question for the French (thus solving two mysteries at once). And of course, there are other exceptions – though most have explanations (Blues Brothers – 133min: action/comedy, still too long; Young Frankenstein – 108min: period piece/comedy; Princess Bride – 98min: swashbuckler/comedy). The thing to notice here is the flexibility of the hybrid factor.
Since the late fifties, the rule as a limit is still often observed, but the calibration of comedy to running time has consistently been stretched and challenged. More and more film makers completely ignore the rule, often with the same predictable results: a funny movie that is x over 90 minutes too long. This has plagued Peter Sellers (as an early example); National Lampoon, Harold Ramis, Mel Brooks (when he decides to violate the rule) and so on.
At the very least, the 90 minute rule should always be applied if only to make a bad movie more bearable by offering a light at the end of the tunnel. It is one thing to be trapped in a theater for two plus hours, it is quite another to be out within 90 minutes. The difference may not sound like much until you accrue all the bad 90+ minute comedies one sees in a lifetime. So, if you are a director of comedies, please, pity your audience and let your conscience be your guide.
*1 As a disclaimer, it should not be inferred that the scores for either picture was sub-par in any shape or form.
*2 Musical numbers involving the Marx Brothers, particularly with Groucho singing or with all three singing, are integral to the films. So when I charge that “These are precisely the elements that should have been trimmed down…” I draw a distinction between the non-Marx romantic lead sharing a duet to the main actress (scrap) and any of Groucho’s songs or the big number at the end of Duck Soup.
*3 The three films include: Rio Rita –91; Little Giant –92; In Hollywood –111.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
The Millennium War
Austin Bay has an excellent piece on the prospects in Iraq and the more ideoligical aspects of the war. He has problems with the monicker "War on Terror" and suggests the "Millennium War", instead. I think this is a must read.
A good companion to a thick Tolstoy novel
These turn-of-the-century photos of Russian life have been linked from the AL Daily site for a long time. They're amazing.
news
When I go online, I have a standard set of websites I look at as well as email.
Then, when I discover I have plenty more time to stay online, I feel frustrated that with the millions of websites available, I only look at a handful. One of the worst feelings is going back to a news page I had just viewed to see if there are any new postings. It's like looking in the fridge again.
Of course I utilize google to search for things, I realize my only limits are my own ideas.
And I do know of many many pages, just like thisone, that have a long list of newspages/blogs/etc to refer to. I often do go to some of these lists and look at a website I am not familiar with.
I suppose really I am looking for a way to feel productive when I am online.
so here I just wanted to post in liverputty, thath makes me fee productive for the time being. I would be curious to know how others deal with the problem of having too much time online.
Then, when I discover I have plenty more time to stay online, I feel frustrated that with the millions of websites available, I only look at a handful. One of the worst feelings is going back to a news page I had just viewed to see if there are any new postings. It's like looking in the fridge again.
Of course I utilize google to search for things, I realize my only limits are my own ideas.
And I do know of many many pages, just like thisone, that have a long list of newspages/blogs/etc to refer to. I often do go to some of these lists and look at a website I am not familiar with.
I suppose really I am looking for a way to feel productive when I am online.
so here I just wanted to post in liverputty, thath makes me fee productive for the time being. I would be curious to know how others deal with the problem of having too much time online.
William Shatner Has Been
I’m not a Trekky or a Trekker or whatever it is called these days. I admit that at one time I had that Star Trek Episodes book, which had since been swiped by a friend of mine who denies being a Trekky, too. Personally, I think his problem is greater than mine. My appreciation of the show was chiefly driven by Captain Kirk, though I’m no Shatner completist. I mean, who can suffer through any episodes of T.J. Hooker? The furthest I get is that SNL skit about the hood riding.
Has Been is something else. It’s corny, sincere, hokey, and downright excellent. Joe Jackson finds a way to blend Shatner into the music in a way that Transformed Man did not. There’s plenty of opportunity to laugh at this album, but there’s plenty of real sentiment in it as well. Perhaps the difference between this recent effort and Transformed Man is that Shatner realized there would be laughter. His personality, alone, makes this record more interesting to me than anything on the charts, or even a recent release from a veteran performer trying to stir up old waves.
Has Been is something else. It’s corny, sincere, hokey, and downright excellent. Joe Jackson finds a way to blend Shatner into the music in a way that Transformed Man did not. There’s plenty of opportunity to laugh at this album, but there’s plenty of real sentiment in it as well. Perhaps the difference between this recent effort and Transformed Man is that Shatner realized there would be laughter. His personality, alone, makes this record more interesting to me than anything on the charts, or even a recent release from a veteran performer trying to stir up old waves.
Monday, December 27, 2004
I'm a Marxist
So please indulge me for a moment.
As previously mentioned, I received a handsome box set of all the Marx Brother’s Paramount pictures. Although I refrained from over eating during the holidays and I only hit the peanut brittle jar a few times, I was no match for the lure of this DVD collection. Within about 24 hours I had watched all the films and the bonus material.
I’d read complaints that there was not enough extra stuff on this new set. Each movie had the corresponding trailer and the standard language tracks on it, but not much else. The Bonus DVD had three interviews from the Today Show (which was about as stiff and lame in the 60’s as it is now.) totaling a mere 30 minutes. It would have been nice to have some commentary tracks and a bit more on the bonus disk, but I’m just thankful the movies were released at all. Plus, since just about everybody connected to the movies is long gone, I’m not sure who would’ve done the commentary. Duck Soup was the latest film on the collection and that was 1933. Also, some had complained that the prints used were the same as the LD released several years ago. While I agree that these movies deserve a big restoration effort, the prints used are very watchable. There’s one scene in Horsefeathers where the film skips around some, but the rest of the prints are in great condition. Ultimately, the films alone are reason enough to get the collection.
Cocoanuts is the film I was least familiar with since the sound had always been muffled, making it hard to watch. I’d forgotten how racy some of the scenes were. It was before the Hays codes and some of the outfits were pretty hot. I particularly enjoyed some of the Busby Berkley-esque numbers and the Irving Berlin score. The premise of the film, the developement of Florida, was still in its first wave at the time. Topical comedy.
I remember showing Animal Crackers to my friend, Phil, years ago, which turned out to be a mistake because I think the staginess of the movie cemented his distaste for the team. That distaste still persists to this day. However, watching it now, I’m impressed at how quickly the jokes fly. Here are the brothers going over routines that had been honed down to perfection on stage over the course of years. And since the film was made in New York, it now provides a glimpse at the stage designs at the time. I’m assuming that the New York film industry was largely interchangeable with Broadway.
Monkey Business and Horsefeathers mark a clear departure for the team. Not only were these the first films that were not performed on stage, but they moved the production out to Hollywood. Both films are ably directed by Norman McLeod and are about efficient as comedy films can be. I believe Monkey Business was the first Marx Bros film I ever saw, at the tender age of eleven or twelve, and I've been in love ever since. In hindsight, Monkey Business was the picture I should’ve forced on Phil. Perhaps then he would not have the comedy disorder he has now.
Duck Soup is simply the funniest movie ever made. And it transcends the film medim. Its title should stand next to Jonathan Swift and Candide and perhaps a few other pieces of high art as an ultimate expression of humor. Today, most comedians try to be hip and cool and spell out all of the little ironies of life. There are precious few clowns that want an audience to laugh at them. Back then, during the age of comedy teams, there was plenty of the latter. In Duck Soup, as in most of the Marx Brother's features, they achieve the pinnacle of satire and, at the same time, spend themselves as clowns, a win-win for the audience.
So, if you still have some holiday time to burn at home, I can't think of a better way to spend it than getting a six pack of beer, some diapers and renting the set for a marathon jaunt through pure comedy. You may be a little slap happy towards the end, but it's worth it.
As previously mentioned, I received a handsome box set of all the Marx Brother’s Paramount pictures. Although I refrained from over eating during the holidays and I only hit the peanut brittle jar a few times, I was no match for the lure of this DVD collection. Within about 24 hours I had watched all the films and the bonus material.
I’d read complaints that there was not enough extra stuff on this new set. Each movie had the corresponding trailer and the standard language tracks on it, but not much else. The Bonus DVD had three interviews from the Today Show (which was about as stiff and lame in the 60’s as it is now.) totaling a mere 30 minutes. It would have been nice to have some commentary tracks and a bit more on the bonus disk, but I’m just thankful the movies were released at all. Plus, since just about everybody connected to the movies is long gone, I’m not sure who would’ve done the commentary. Duck Soup was the latest film on the collection and that was 1933. Also, some had complained that the prints used were the same as the LD released several years ago. While I agree that these movies deserve a big restoration effort, the prints used are very watchable. There’s one scene in Horsefeathers where the film skips around some, but the rest of the prints are in great condition. Ultimately, the films alone are reason enough to get the collection.
Cocoanuts is the film I was least familiar with since the sound had always been muffled, making it hard to watch. I’d forgotten how racy some of the scenes were. It was before the Hays codes and some of the outfits were pretty hot. I particularly enjoyed some of the Busby Berkley-esque numbers and the Irving Berlin score. The premise of the film, the developement of Florida, was still in its first wave at the time. Topical comedy.
I remember showing Animal Crackers to my friend, Phil, years ago, which turned out to be a mistake because I think the staginess of the movie cemented his distaste for the team. That distaste still persists to this day. However, watching it now, I’m impressed at how quickly the jokes fly. Here are the brothers going over routines that had been honed down to perfection on stage over the course of years. And since the film was made in New York, it now provides a glimpse at the stage designs at the time. I’m assuming that the New York film industry was largely interchangeable with Broadway.
Monkey Business and Horsefeathers mark a clear departure for the team. Not only were these the first films that were not performed on stage, but they moved the production out to Hollywood. Both films are ably directed by Norman McLeod and are about efficient as comedy films can be. I believe Monkey Business was the first Marx Bros film I ever saw, at the tender age of eleven or twelve, and I've been in love ever since. In hindsight, Monkey Business was the picture I should’ve forced on Phil. Perhaps then he would not have the comedy disorder he has now.
Duck Soup is simply the funniest movie ever made. And it transcends the film medim. Its title should stand next to Jonathan Swift and Candide and perhaps a few other pieces of high art as an ultimate expression of humor. Today, most comedians try to be hip and cool and spell out all of the little ironies of life. There are precious few clowns that want an audience to laugh at them. Back then, during the age of comedy teams, there was plenty of the latter. In Duck Soup, as in most of the Marx Brother's features, they achieve the pinnacle of satire and, at the same time, spend themselves as clowns, a win-win for the audience.
So, if you still have some holiday time to burn at home, I can't think of a better way to spend it than getting a six pack of beer, some diapers and renting the set for a marathon jaunt through pure comedy. You may be a little slap happy towards the end, but it's worth it.
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Two extremes
On the one hand, this is a great day for democracy as Yushchenko seems to be on his way to victory in Ukraine. But that story has been overshadowed by the horrible devastation and unbelievable bodycount in the Indian Ocean after yesterday's earthquake and tsunamis. The last body count I heard was over 11,000 and expected to go up. Thailand, alone, has suffered over 5,000 dead.
Here's a vivid account of what a tsunami is like as told by a fellow near Sri Lanka.
More on the disaster can be found here and here.
As for the Ukrainian election, this site was interesting.
Here's a vivid account of what a tsunami is like as told by a fellow near Sri Lanka.
More on the disaster can be found here and here.
As for the Ukrainian election, this site was interesting.
My Christmas Booty
Most of the gifts exchanged this year went to my 2 year old nephew. No qualms there. But I didn’t do too badly either.
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Merry Christmas!
Regarding the future of this blog: it’s pretty obvious that since the election there has been a general burnout regarding things political, which was the raison d’etre of this site. But, like an NGO or charity whose initial purpose is no longer dire, I feel compelled to keep Liverputty going for its own sake. As such, I will be posting other things as well, whether it’s a movie, book or album review, etc. I encourage the other contributors to post anything that strikes their fancy. Of course, political postings are still very welcome. I will keep defending the Bush junta and the war when compelled to, since that has been my programming for the past six months and beyond, though I will try to be less antagonistic about it. However, by expanding the field of topics, I hope the blog becomes more pleasant for everyone involved. The recent addition of party poker to the list of contributors will certainly work towards that end. I’m hoping to get Mr. Clay involved as well. In addition to that, if Dude or Steve or anyone else wishes to include a friend on the contributor list, please send me their email address and I will forward an invitation. In the meantime, I hope everyone has a good holiday and happy new year.
Regarding the future of this blog: it’s pretty obvious that since the election there has been a general burnout regarding things political, which was the raison d’etre of this site. But, like an NGO or charity whose initial purpose is no longer dire, I feel compelled to keep Liverputty going for its own sake. As such, I will be posting other things as well, whether it’s a movie, book or album review, etc. I encourage the other contributors to post anything that strikes their fancy. Of course, political postings are still very welcome. I will keep defending the Bush junta and the war when compelled to, since that has been my programming for the past six months and beyond, though I will try to be less antagonistic about it. However, by expanding the field of topics, I hope the blog becomes more pleasant for everyone involved. The recent addition of party poker to the list of contributors will certainly work towards that end. I’m hoping to get Mr. Clay involved as well. In addition to that, if Dude or Steve or anyone else wishes to include a friend on the contributor list, please send me their email address and I will forward an invitation. In the meantime, I hope everyone has a good holiday and happy new year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
