ET 14: Singin' In The Rain in Singin' In The Rain

              Singing in the Rain is a beautifully crafted film in terms of the cinematography, and exceptional musical numbers. THE song of the entire film ‘Singing in the Rain’ which corresponds to the name of the film is one of the best sequences of a musical ever shot. It shows the character’s point of view and also his psychological state, together with that, everything from the mise-en-scene especially the rain and the dance choreography contributed to making this particular sequence very expressionistic.

         The background music serves the purpose of creating a setting for both romance and comedy and this is noticed throughout the entire sequence as it changes the mood from the kiss to the moment he motions his hand to his driver to drive away. This simple part of the choreography where he motions his hand towards the driver with a smile on his face, in itself expresses his immense joy. He would rather walk in the rain than be driven back. It can also be seen in a way as a luxury item. The car and the driver are luxury items in which Gene Kelly owns due to his fame. In this small gesture, he’s experiencing so much joy that he doesn’t need any luxury material items any more , all he needs is love. The music playing in the background is also in a very comical tone which comes hand in hand with the way he moves.

           As he starts to hum the melody of the song, he greets random strangers and waves at them as they stare blankly at him. In a way, it seems that he no longer bothers about what society or the public would think of him.  At one point, he stretches his hand out into the rain, raises his shoulders – and this gives off the impression of being carefree. He then closes the umbrella.  In my view, I would look at the umbrella in the same way as the trench coat that he wore in the beginning of the film. The umbrella serves as something to protect and shield him from the rain, and so when he closes the umbrella, it signifies that he no longer needs anything to shield him from the world or the public’s eye. This is very similar to how he is now dressed- in normal clothing, unlike the coat in the beginning where he had to hide and shield his true self from the public.

          Going deeper into the dance choreography, every movement that he makes; from the way he walks while swinging his umbrella, to how he jumps on the railing and tap dances while spotting a dance partner is very expressionistic. All these movements are meant to depict PURE JOY and even the camera angles work in a way to show audiences this joy, for example when the camera moved upwards to shoot his face from a birds eye view perspective. His whole dance slowly becomes more and more energetic and is very clown like. There was a moment where he moved a few steps towards the puddle of water but then moved back and then moved forward again and this shows his hesitance or fear of facing something , but as he moves back forward and jumps into the puddle, it shows himself accepting and facing the challenges ahead of him.

           One extremely important element is the use of rain and water to symbolize something much deeper. Water symbolizes freedom, purity, release, and something that washes away pain.  Water also represents life. One can see the livelihood in Gene Kelly’s movements as he dances and pure pleasure as he goes underneath the pipe overflowing with water. It’s a release of tension and we see that when he jumps and splashes around in the puddle of water. He looks like he’s having so much fun and there we can see his inner child surfacing, a child with no worries, no shame and no boundaries.

           This particular sequence bears significant importance to the rest of the film as it acts as a turning point where he changes in terms of being a boy and turning into a man. The song shows the audience rather than tell us how he feels emotionally about Debbie Reynolds but also about his new outlook on himself and the public. Once a boy who had to shield himself and put on a mask to please his fans, now has become a man who stays true to himself and no longer needs to hide. For me, I find it similar to scenes in M and Metropolis from where it was shot; near buildings, only that in this sequence, the buildings were looked at as a piece of art, and it depicts a happy mood whereas in M and Metropolis, cities and buildings which were modern gave off a glum mood and sadness.

         

ET 9: M Analysis

         ‘M’ by Fritz Lang had one of the most intriguing beginnings compared to the past black and white films shown in class and the first 10 minutes of the film told a story on it’s own and ‘it shows rather than tells’(adprosebud.com).  The audience is brought into this world through the many elements that are in the film.

          The first few minutes start with a very important non diagetic element; which is the image of a hand marked with the letter M. From the very start, unconsciously, the image of M is already implanted into the mind of the audience, and Lang brings back the memory of this image later on in the film when the murderer is marked. The film the moves on to the first diagetic element and it’s through sound, where we first hear instead of see a little girl singing a poem and then we see a group of children playing. This is later followed by an older woman reprimanding the little girl for singing the ‘cursed’ song. Now, this in itself, brings the audience into a state of curiosity as to why the song is cursed. They later find out when Elsie’s mother says that ‘at least we know their still there’, that the song must be linked to someone threatening the children’s safety. I would say that this is an important part of the plot as the audience is introduced to the mindsets of the normal working class women, who are mothers that worry for their children.

         Next, the narrative structure of M is one that is realistic as well as expressionistic. Realistic because child murders and the anxiety that parents face can be very much linked to what happens in today’s age. The montage is very expressionistic as the film then jumps to the image of the clock on the wall signifying that school- Gemeine Schule has ended and her Elsie would be returning home. This image of the clock and the time passing cross cuts with the mother’s action of preparing for her daughters arrival and cross cuts to Elsie innocently bouncing her ball as she walks down the street. These 3 scenes- clock, mother and Elsie is shown repeatedly to create the suspense and the audience already knows that Elsie wont be returning. The ball plays an important role but the audience don’t notice it until later on.  Elsie then bounces her ball against a pillar, as the camera moves upwards showing a poster regarding the child murderer. The murderer is then introduced only by his shadow and voice, and this create curiosity, suspense and sympathy in the audience. Lang used a combination of sound and shadows as a very important element in creating drama.

        The montage is brilliant. Right after M asks Elsie for her name, the scene cross cuts back to the clock and then to her mother with a worried look as her child is still not home. Lang used stairs filled with silence to create this never ending wait for her daughter’s return and it is amplified when the mother looks down the long flight of stairs that appear dream like to a certain extent. It shows how far and long winded the steps are and as she calls out to Elsie from above, it signifies how Elsie would never be able to respond to it.  This then cross cuts to M buying Elsie a balloon and the audience can hear him whistle a tune. This tune becomes a very important motif- one that would get him caught. In a way, from the start, Lang prepares the audience indirectly for the ending.  The climax point would be when, the music starts to build up as Elsie’s mother starts to scream out to her from the stairs, to the window and then after the noise, pure silence hits. Mise-en-scene shown through montage where the ball rolls out from the bush is an example of an inferred event- that little Elsie has been killed. We see all the places that her mother may have went to look for her, the laundry area, and the empty chair, we also see the balloon flying away. The ball and balloon could signify the innocence, purity and joy of a child, and watching the items float and roll away would mean that it has all ended for Elsie.

             All in all, Lang paid a lot of focus to the symmetry between sound and silence. M is a film that uses a lot of elements that manages to bring the audience in through the emotions they feel and the first 10 minutes prepares and creates the suspense needed in the audience for the rest of the show.

           

ET 6: Triumph of the Will and Potemkin Comparison: Realism

           Triumph of the Will; a propaganda film by Leni Riefenstahl and Battle of Potemkin by Sergei Eisenstein; which was a film that corresponded and catered to Karl Marx’s beliefs and ideology which was the idea of Communism.  From the looks of it, both films carry very strong elements in terms of how the montage and cinematography was carried out in order to be deemed as such a powerfully persuasive film. Both directors were able to produce films of such standard in terms of how good the editing etc was. In this essay, I will be concentrating on 4 elements that I thought were one of the strongest amongst the rest in terms of propaganda usage; which are, crowds, faces, marching/uniforms and women.

          Firstly, in both Triumph of the Will and Battle of Potemkin, the directors cleverly used CROWDS as one of the means of propaganda. Crowds signify the majority, the society, and in terms of influencing or spreading propaganda, the audience would be drawn to accept or believe that anything the majority thinks or believes in is right. Despite using the same element, both directors used it in different ways, in order to spread different ideals. In Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefenstahl in summary, used crowds to show adoration and agreement in the things and the propaganda that Hitler was spreading. For example, the crowds that gathered as Hitler was descending from his plane, where they stretched out their hands to him, or ,during the rally, and during his speech, seas of people came to support him. No one sees the minorities or those who opposed him. There were a lot of ‘birds eye view’ shots taken to show how huge the crowds were. In Battle of Potemkin, crowds that appeared during the Odessa steps sequence was the most powerful. In terms of spreading Karl Marx’s idea of communism, he showed how people fled on the steps and were scattered compared to the orderly arrangement of the scenes in Triumph of the Will. He showed how innocent lives and families were killed, for example the boy who was trampled on by the crowd and the baby in the carriage falling from the steps. These shots connect very strongly with the audience emotionally, causing anger, frustration, sympathy and thus the propaganda works.

            I put the element of Marching and uniforms under crowds because in both films, this element was used to spread different and opposing ideas. The marchers in Triumph of the Will showed a sense of obedience and it was something that was looked at as great and victorious to be a part of . Basically, the audience were led to believe that the Nazis and the things that they stood for were right. It spread the thought that as a citizen of Germany, if one was of the stronger race, then they SHOULD be part of the Nazi or at least respect them. Opposed to that, in Battle of Potemkin, the massacre led by the Corseaux as they marched down the steps to kill gives a different message – that those in power are evil, they don’t feel and they have no mercy and so as the helpless citizens, we should fight back. This directly goes hand in hand with Karl Marx’s idea ; as quoted from adprosebud “The working class must become conscious of this and must unite against the owner class. Only when workers see themselves as more than isolated individuals, can they change the world.”- Karl Marx.

        Secondly, faces were an incredible element used as well. In Triumph of the Will, there were so many reaction shots ESPECIALLY during Hitler’s speech, the camera zoomed in to focus on the faces and expressions of the generals and all those who supported Hitler. Faces such as the emotionless boy Nazi soldier was a symbol of children under authority who have lost all emotions and shots of women faces were usually as supporters. Even the shots of Hitler himself was strong as there was so much energy and commitment in his face. Shots of Hitler’s face was usually done from below and were low angle shots, to give him the sense of superiority . All the faces showed the upper race- the Aryans ,the blond haired blue eyes. In Battle of Potemkin, powerful faces were shown during the Odessa step sequence, there were a lot of cross cutting of faces of pain, anger, fright, and innocence that were done in such a way that it kept alternating with the music. The reaction shots, were eye level shots and close up shots, and you could see the expression very clearly. As an audience, we could see the situation from the victim’s point of view and that gave the audience this sense of identification with the victims. In a nutshell, faces affect the audience in a very interesting way and the directors used it- an example would be the Kuleshov Effect only more powerful because in these two films, the audience watches powerful facial imagery and immediately feel the exact emotion the character is feeling.

         Thirdly, another element powerfully used was women. From Wikipedia, I found out that the feminist movement started around the late 80’s and that would mean that both films were created when feminism was already up and going. Women were used and not used in both films. In Triumph of the Will, women were rarely shown in the film except as a supporter and this would probably give the thought of women not being good enough or should be those exercising their support for the men. In terms of the Battle of Potemkin, women were victimized and this was shown during the Odessa steps sequence,; such as when the mother of the boy who was trampled and she was shot dead, another example would be the woman with the baby carriage. This would be a driving point for women to also step up and go against the government- Karl Marx ideology.  It also affects audience in a way that they would want to protect the female population.

           In conclusion, both directors successfully created films that served to be two of the most persuasive and successful propaganda films of all time, and bringing along with it consequences. 

ET3 (EDITED)

      Everybody loves comedy and wants to be entertained and comedians have solidified their position as one of the major sources of entertainment. Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton in my opinion, are the pioneers of comedy, each carrying with them a persona which identifies them with just one look.

      

     Mr Charlie Chaplin! Through watching his films, I realized that both him and Buster Keaton moved in such a way that became part of their persona. In order to make people laugh without any dialogue whatsoever, he managed to have so much emotion and personality shining through his face, it’s like he amplified his reactions to compensate for the absence of dialogue. For example,  whenever he was scared- such as the scene in ‘the Cure’ where he was witnessing the muscular man giving massages, the audience were able to witness fear in his face. As I watched the films, and other clips from Youtube, I noticed that these comedians have similar ways of facing challenging situations, they just pick themselves up. Charlie Chaplin somehow gives me the personification of someone who is clumsy, you can see it by how he walks and how his hands are positioned outwards in air as he spins around and around looking for his way, like during the swirling door scene, or when he fell into the well filled with the magic water. Buster Keaton on the other hand, gives me the impression of a hero! I say this because, in the General, he lands himself in a position where it just fits, for example- he landed himself in the home of the enemy who captured his girlfriend and managed to save her, and in terms of how he makes people laugh, it is by 'succeeding by accident’. Comedians in the General and in Chaplin films alike tend to make a fool of themselves and on an actor’s standpoint, he completely takes on a persona and confidently makes a fool of himself and people like to watch other people being unafraid of sometimes losing their dignity in a society where image is deemed as SUCH an important thing. A quotation from Chairman Rey; ‘A play (movie) begins when a world in an uneasy state of equilibrium is broken into by an event’. For example, in The Cure; the organized high class society was interrupted by an event (Chaplin) who shook things up. In reality, people are so conformed with rules that they need an output to just let loose and people find serenity in watching someone do that.  

         I’m a girl, and being female, I love all things romantic. Watching the Cure, Charlie Chaplin shows females his side of being a gentlemen, doing things for a lady- like how he only drank the yucky water mainly due to her asking him to. The way he moves and the expression on his face tells a lot,such as his embarrassment, his shyness, his interest, he shows it incredibly through his body movements and facial expression. Again, he amplifies his movements and expressions more than a normal person would in reality in order to compensate for the absence of sound. At times, CC’s movement somewhat resemble a lot of feminine characteristics as well and he isn’t as masculine as the other men in The Cure. Buster Keaton’s love for his woman was incredibly cute to say the least, he exhibits an emotion that I didn’t see in chaplin- which was nervousness. He even kept a picture of her in his train!!! The way he moves when he goes to her house, or ; OH MY FAVOURITE PART was when he sat on the train and wanted to cuddle with her but found it difficult as the soldiers kept coming in and out. Then, when he went to the opposite side to kiss her while using the other hand to salute -yes, it was extremely funny. They deal with things in a different way that other, normal people would. They provide this funny medium of imagination for the audience to think outside the box when coming up with a solution to their problems. They somewhat give inspiration for the audience and optimism in facing what reality throws at them esp when people are at their lowest. Another reason why people watch comedies.

       They are alike in terms of how themselves as actors, take on a persona that is so different from who they are in reality and bring life to it. For both of them, it can be seen clearly through The cure and The General, that they both practiced and rehearsed tremendously and they both portrayed a different persona in full- right from the way they looked, moved and expressed. They both dealt with things in a jovial manner or rather not jovial- more of a optimistic manner, as you rarely see them sad. One similarity that I noticed is that whenever they’re doing something, at times they look as if they’re doing it for their own satisfaction, in Malay we call it ‘syok sendiri’ basically means, entertaining yourself and by entertaining themselves, they are in turn entertaining those watching them. I would say they’re different in how their shows are made, The General was so much longer compared to The Cure and had more of a broader storyline.

    I was more interested in watching Charlie Chaplin. To a certain extent, I personally feel that good comedy should only be for a short time, the show should be structured in a way that it wouldn’t be too long and neither would it be too short. Charlie Chaplin was stronger in terms of how he made sure that whatever he felt was clearly shown just by looking at his face. I thought that the way Chaplin dressed and how he moved was much funnier compared to Buster Keaton as well.

"Failure is unimportant. it takes courage to make a fool of yourself'- Charlie Chaplin

i just feel related to this quote because like I said in the beginning, people watch comedy because it's nice to finally see someone unafraid of being laughed at, someone who doesn't care about what other people think and someone who can also laugh at himself. I guess, this somehow gives people hope and courage to be themselves 

ET 4: Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will

          DW Griffith and Leni Riefenstahl were such amazing directors that changed the course of history and future of film. Birth of a Nation was THE film that started all films, a big budgeted movie that not only served as a platform for all film makers but also in terms of the technology used and Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl which showed, in my view, wonderful craftsmanship through how she angled the camera and how the whole thing was put together- from the stadium built to the rallies that occurred.

         As stated, Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are two known propaganda movies, each in it’s own way. If we look at it through a Realism perspective, the excerpts from Birth of a Nation basically showed a story of how the white minority was helpless in the hands of the crazy black people, and the heroes- The Ku Klux Klan came just in time to rescue them. This of course is the description in its simplest manner, but DW Griffith depicted it in a way that glorified the KKK, through music and the way he edited the sequence to be like. Even through the music, one can feel the glorification; he used the type of music that stirred people’s emotions, music that had a tempo as Rey said, the type of music in one of those superhero movies. Not only that, he made it more powerful and strong through the images he shot, such as the helpless woman being tied up by the black people, and the helpless white family looking terrified as the blacks started attacking, and then came the image of  a parade of KKK heroes coming in on horses to save the day. In Triumph of the Will, the movie was basically about Hitler and how he was deemed a God by all the citizens and it was said that this movie was a documentary when in actual fact it wasn’t. The first 5 minutes of the film, showed the non diagetic elements such as when the film occurred, which was after WW1 and I did some research on Germany after WW1, and it helped me understand the meaning of the film to a certain extent. The Germans were forced to bear the humongous cost of the war and because of that, the people of Germany were impoverished, and not only did the economy crumble, but more importantly the spirit of the people crumbled as well. Coming to think of it, Hitler may have thought that by communism and by finding someone to blame- Jews, it would have united the people of Germany. The film began with him descending from the clouds, giving the symbolization of God. We get a birds eye view of the city of  Nuremberg and clouds, and the aeroplane, and then as he landed, we saw the swarm of hundreds of people waiting for him, stretching out their hands towards him as if they had just witnessed their Saviour. The music that accompanied the entire sequence was soothing, calming, like an orchestra. In my view, the whole sequence probably signified the beginning of a revolution, coming straight from the very man who started it all. Speaking of the structure of the film, one part of Birth of a Nation that I remember so clearly, was the sequence where there was cross cutting multiple times- showing the woman being tied up- then the KKK riding on the horses, and again and again repeatedly gave this effect of how they were about to save them from danger. The structure I found interesting in Triumph of the Will, was when Hitler was giving his empowering speech, and there were so many reaction shots shown repeatedly, first at Hitler, then at the generals and people around him and it continues in that pattern.

            When we talk about the two films being melodramatic, it bears such truth in it. In a way, it feels like I’m watching the typical superhero vs villain movie. Right at the beginning, we can see who are the good and who are the bad ones.  I noticed that in Birth of a Nation, DW Griffith used a lot of words/phrases to describe the blacks and the whites such as crazed negros, and helpless whites. That in itself already depicts some sort of melodramatic effect on the audience watching. Even the scenes where they showed the KKK coming on their horses, that was the CLEAREST sign of who was depicted as the good guy and who the bad. In sequences where the blacks were stopping the whites from voting and everytime they showed this phrase –THE WHTE MINORITIES-, and not forgetting the sequence where the blacks were uncivilized during an important meeting by eating, drinking, taking off their shoes, all of this came off as elements needed to create the melodramatic effect. In Triumph of the Will, it was shown in another way, as the director never showed anyone else besides Hitler, and those who supported him. She never showed the Jews, or someone besides the Aryans or anyone that was unhappy and against the whole Nazi movement. So, in a way, the villain in my perspective, is everyone who was against Hitler, and that Hitler was the savior.

       Propaganda! I must say that I have never viewed any film that has been so obviously used as a tool of propaganda before, that, or I’ve never actually analyzed and thought about what I was watching before. I actually have a lot to say about Birth of a Nation but I’ll be cutting it short;

So much was done in order to change and influence the mindsets of the audience and I found it pretty hypocritical for DW Griffith to state that everything was historically true when he changed a huge portion into something so obviously fake. The way he depicted black people in such a manner, how he showed them to be greedy, rude, disgusting and of lower social class to a certain extent is appalling. Political impact through the actions of how the blacks would stop the whites from voting could change the perception of the audience to be against the blacks from ever voting, and sequences such as when interracial marriages were legalized, the camera shot so many reaction shots that gave such bad impressions to the black people- such as the terrified looks of the whites and the somewhat ‘horny’ looks on the black men. This impacts society in a way that people go against and are prejudiced against any marriage out of race, thus giving birth to racism. There was a scene where the words ‘AN INSPIRATION’ came up and this was when the founder of the Ku Klux Klan noticed black children being afraid of ghosts and decided to form the KKK. Children were depicted as monsters and bullies and this also acts as an element of propaganda, fuelling racism to its highest. In Triumph of the Will, I would say that the sequence that screamed propaganda was the part where Hitler gave his speech in front of hundreds of people. It was a powerful speech, and he gave such energy and it was as if he was instructing the people instead of giving a speech. There were times where the camera shot him from below(low angle shot) and he seemed bigger and there were times where it shot him from the point of view of the audience and even at eye level.  Reaction shots of people nodding, agreeing also acted as a way of showing the political and social agreement of all the people towards Hitler’s plan.

       Overall, these were two AMAZING shows and caught my attention throughout the film. 

ET 3: Charlie and Buster

         Everybody loves comedy, in this time, be it Adam Sandler or even Rowan Atkinson, everyone as an audience wants to be entertained and comedians have solidified their position as one of the major sources of entertainment. People watch comedy mainly to laugh- well that’s me, or even to cry- due to excessive laughing and just to provide temporary escape from the world. For me personally, I don’t go for comedies because I want to watch a character lose their dignity or suffer, I go because I want to laugh, laughter causes the body to produce endorphins and that’s what makes people happy, you just somehow get a more positive outlook on life after you laugh and when life sucks, you need that extra push to make you laugh, or even smile. Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton in my opinion, are the pioneers of comedy, the first, such as Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, one can say that Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton were the first to bring laughs? No? they both carried with them a persona, an image which became something that identified them, something that just screamed their name every time your saw it- like their clothes etc.

        Mr Charlie Chaplin! One of the most famous from the silent era- the only one I’ve heard about before film class. I’m going to be completely honest though, I didn’t find him extremely funny, I mean he was indeed funny, but not THAT hilarious. I must say he carried this persona, one that stood out because it was different, starting from his facial expressions; In order to make people laugh without any dialogue whatsoever, he managed to have so much emotion and personality shining through his face, whenever he was scared- such as the scene in ‘the Cure’ where he was witnessing the muscular man giving massages was extremely funny, I loved that part. There was just so much being said just by looking at his face, and his whole persona came as a package, from the way he walked, which was in this dopey sort of way, where one of his legs just move far apart from each other, this compared to the way Buster Keaton walks, where he puts his legs relatively closer together.

   If I could compare one comedic persona from this time to these two legends, I would say Rowan Atkinson reminds me so much of them. He carries the persona of Mr Bean, right up to the way he dresses and the way he moves. As I watched the films, and other clips from youtube, I noticed that these comedians have pretty much similar ways of facing challenging situations, they just pick themselves up. And for me, that’s what makes it funny, it’s seeing how farce- where they get inflicted by physical pain and still get up and move normally. Again, it just keeps reminding me of Mr Bean and how his stupidity just makes people laugh. Charlie chaplin somehow gives me the personification of someone who is clumsy, you can see it by how he walks and how his hands are positioned outwards in air as he spins around and around looking for his way, like during the swirling door scene, or when he fell into the well filled with the magic water. Buster Keaton on the other hand, gives me the impression of a hero! I say this because, in the General, he lands himself in a position where it just fits, for example- he landed himself in the home of the enemy who captured his girlfriend and managed to save her, and in terms of how he makes people laugh, it is by 'succeeding by accident'. I find that entertaining. Even in the clip above, the hat scene in the carriage was funny. I say this because, comedians in the General and in Chaplin films alike tend to make a fool of themselves and on an actor’s standpoint, he completely takes on a persona and confidently makes a fool of himself. I guess people like to watch other people being unafraid of sometimes losing their dignity.

         I’m a girl, and being female, I love all things romantic. Once again, I can't help but to mention Mr Bean whenever I think of Charlie chaplin and buster keaton, they’re just so much alike. Watching the Cure, Charlie Chaplin shows females his side of being a gentlemen, doing things for a lady- like how he only drank the yucky water mainly due to her asking him to. The way he moves and the expression on his face tells a lot,such as his embarrassment, his shyness, his interest, he shows it incredibly through his body movements and facial expression. Buster Keaton’s love for his woman was incredibly cute to say the least, he even kept a picture of her in his train!!! The way he moves when he goes to her house, or ; OH MY FAVOURITE PART was when he sat on the train and wanted to cuddle with her but found it difficult as the soldiers kept coming in and out. Then, when he went to the opposite side to kiss her while using the other hand to salute -yes, it was extremely funny. they deal with things in a different way that other, normal people would. They provide this funny medium of imagination for the audience to think outside the box when coming up with a solution to their problems. 

       They are alike in terms of how themselves as actors, take on a persona that is so different from who they are in reality and bring life to it. For both of them, it can be seen clearly through The cure and The General, that they both practiced and rehearsed tremendously and they both portrayed a different persona in full- right from the way they looked, moved and expressed. They both dealt with things in a jovial manner or rather not jovial- more of a optimistic manner, as you rarely see them sad. One similarity that I noticed is that whenever they’re doing something, at times they look as if they’re doing it for their own satisfaction, in Malay we call it ‘syok sendiri’ basically means, entertaining yourself and by entertaining themselves, they are in turn entertaining those watching them. I would say they’re different in how their shows are made, The General was so much longer compared to The Cure and had more of a broader storyline.

    I was more interested in watching Charlie Chaplin actually for various reasons. To a certain extent, I personally feel that good comedy should only be for a short time, the show should be structured in a way that it wouldn’t be too long and neither would it be too short. For me, I was wide awake during Charlie Chaplin but as the Buster Keaton film went on, I lost my interest during certain parts. I felt that Charlie Chaplin was stronger in terms of how he made sure that whatever he felt was clearly shown just by looking at his face. I thought that the way Chaplin dressed and how he moved was much funnier compared to Buster Keaton as well.


    I googled a few of Chaplin's famous quotes and fell in love with on of them almost instantly;


"Failure is unimportant. it takes courage to make a fool of yourself'- Charlie Chaplin


i just feel related to this quote because like I said in the beginning, people watch comedy because it's nice to finally see someone unafraid of being laughed at, someone who doesn't care about what other people think and someone who can also laugh at himself. I guess, this somehow gives people hope and courage to be themselves