Curtain Call

Film 101 has truly been an interesting course for me. Before taking the course, I've already developed an interest in not only majoring in Psychology, but also in Film. As the course progressed, I began to truly appreciate the films we watched, and if not for this course, I probably would have never watched them. I know so much more about the aspects of film and what to watch out for , and not only that, I've learnt to think critically, like, REALLY REALLY think about what we watch. Throughout this course, I've also managed to improve in my writing so much. Thanks Rey for an awesome semester! :)

STANDING OVATION FOR YOU!!!

Comparison Essay : Cabaret and Chicago!!

                     ‘Great!’, ‘Dazzling’, ‘Electric!’. Cabaret and Chicago are 2 musicals directed by Bob Fosse and Rob Marshall which won multiple Academy Awards in its time. Cabaret in 1972 starred Liza Minnelli, and Chicago made in 2002 starred numerous Hollywood celebrities. Both musicals bear striking similarities, as well as differences to one another in terms of their narration style, musical numbers, themes and cinematography.

                Chicago and Cabaret are very similar as well as different in their narrative style and opening sequence. Chicago starts off with sexy jazz music in the Onyx Club, and we see a woman hiding a gun with blood. The Master of Ceremonies announces the act and we see her in sexy attire as she starts the number; ‘All That Jazz’. Cabaret’s beginning is similar, where in the establishing shot, we see a crowd of people through a reflection in a club- The Kit Kat Club, and are introduced to the time, ‘Berlin 1931’. We see the reflection of a man and he smiles eerily. ‘Willkommen, bienvenue, welcome to Cabaret!” and he introduces himself as the Master of Ceremonies. He asks not only the audience in the film, but also us, whether we feel good, and he says ‘ So life is disappointing? , In here life is beautiful”. The music in Cabaret is unlike the jazz music in Chicago, it is more circus-like. The emcees play very important roles throughout the musicals. In Chicago, the emcee appears to announce every act performed and he is present to give a sense of formality to the next performance, to give it the wow factor. In Cabaret, the emcee performs some of the numbers himself and gives his opinions and thoughts as well. Joel Grey in Cabaret acts as an observer JUST like us. He witnesses what happens in the plot. For example, the moment when Fritz finds himself in a dilemma when he falls in love with a Jewish girl, the following number that ensues is ‘If you could see her through my eyes’, and he sings along with a gorilla, he looks into the camera and says the last line of the song, ‘She wouldn’t look Jewish at all’, and through that he’s already looking straight at us and giving us a piece of his mind.

               In Chicago and Cabaret, the musical numbers are essential in moving the plot along although they do so in different ways. In Chicago, there are only TWO musical numbers that are actually performed in the reality of the film, which is the first song- ‘All that Jazz’ and the last song- ‘Nowadays,’ and here we also see the symmetry of the film where it starts and ends with a ‘real’ performance. The rest of the songs are the insights into Roxie Hart’s mind, and they are a figment of her own imagination and interpretation. In contrast to this, in Cabaret, only two characters sing throughout the show, Sally and the emcee. The musical numbers in Cabaret differ in terms of usage because it’s used as a form of interacting with the audience(us). The songs either sum up or prepares the audience for what is about to happen in the film. In both musicals, cross cutting and montage occurs between the songs and reality, between expressionism and realism. In Chicago, “Funny Honey” is a good example of this. Roxie sings about her husband’s undying love for her, she sings it in a tune of mockery instead of consensual love. It is expressionistic as we see her singing on the left while he testifies on the right and the cinematography is brilliant as the coloured lighting creates a dreamy effect. In Cabaret, the first number that Sally Bowles sings is ‘Mein Herr’, where she sings about how a man would be better off without her and this is preparing the audience for the rest of the show when we find out that she sleeps with multiple men and aborts her baby. In terms of cinematography, soft focus is used in her rendition of ‘Maybe This Time’ to accentuate her beauty.

                Bob Fosse, the director of Cabaret, choreographed for both Cabaret and Chicago, therefore explaining why both films bear significant resemblance in terms of the dance movements- tap dance and sexual movements were seen in both musicals. ‘He developed a jazz dance style that was immediately recognizable due to the fact that it exuded a stylized, cynical sexuality’ (Wikipedia). A lot of the dance moves involved the spreading of the legs and in Queen Latifah’s number, it was highly sexual when she pulled the green cloth out of her cleavage and whipped it between her thighs. Cabaret on the other hand, was not as sexual but very animated especially in the song, ‘Money’. The only sexual thing shown was the bouncing of the breast and penis, with the ‘ka ching’ sound and it was more comedic than sexual. In Cabaret, sex wasn’t spoken of openly unlike in Chicago, it was more subtle, especially the scene were Brian told Sally that he slept with Max as well, all he said was ‘So did I’ when she referred to screwing him.

               The themes dealt with in both musicals are different and coincides with when the movie was made about. From the Quotations of Chairman Rey, ‘All narratives exists in 3 times, the time they were made about, the time they were authored, the present time of the audience watching Now’(Adprosebud). Chicago was made in 2002, and was based on the time of the Jazz era in the 1920s in Chicago and because of this, a bulk of the songs were jazz numbers. The theme dealt with celebrity fame and power of the media. Seeing how Billy Flynn manipulated the media and society’s view in order to win a court case showed how fake people can be. In contrast to this, Cabaret was made in 1972 about a time in 1931 in Berlin, Germany and we know that this was the time where the Nazis were gaining power and influence. In Chicago, there were scenes of murder but it wasn’t looked at in a very violent way but in Cabaret, there is underlying violence throughout the show. There is a contrast between the type of club the Onyx and Kit Kat was, the Onyx was a place to have fun but the Kit Kat Club was a place to escape reality and the violence outside, and enter a world where everything is beautiful. Throughout the entire film, we see shots that were in relation to the Nazis, one where a bunch of Nazi soldiers surrounded a dead body on the street and stared at it, they stood in a frozen position, signifying the absence of emotions. During the musical numbers, there were cross cuts between the musical numbers and Nazi violence- when Natalia’s cat was killed and put on her doorstep and we could hear shouts saying, ‘Jew, Jew,Jew’. One extremely eerie scene to sum up this very theme comes right at the end, where we see the audience being dominated by a large number of Nazis. This would probably also be a reason why most of the musical numbers are very comedic, it makes the audience laugh in order to provide some sort of balance and symmetry to the darker side of the film.

                   All in all, Chicago and Cabaret are two musicals that are so similar yet so different, a final comparison would be that both musicals started similarly but if one looks at their respective endings, Chicago ended on a feel-good note, having Velma and Roxie back on stage with a standing ovation. In contrast, Cabaret ended in a bittersweet way, with Brian leaving and Sally singing Cabaret; by definition; ‘is a form of comedy, song and dance,’(Wikipedia) bringing some optimism to how life is to balance the fact that the audience was filled with Nazis.

            

ET 16: Citizen Kane

What is Citizen Kane about and how is it about what it’s about?

           This is a rather subjective question and can be looked at from many different ways. Citizen Kane was THE movie that not only skyrocketed Orson Welles to fame, but also destroyed him. So, what is Citizen Kane about? It’s about Charles Foster Kane, Rosebud and the cause and effect of the choices a person takes in life. In my view, Rosebud in itself is enough to explain what Citizen Kane is about. This is because this one word is enough to not only symbolize who the man was, but also the cause and effects of his actions. Everything originates around this one word- Rosebud, which also happens to be the hook or McGuffin of the film that sets the entire plot in motion.  From the audience’s knowledge, we all know that Charles Foster Kane is a character referring to the popular figure at the time in America- William Randolph Hearst, but albeit that, Citizen Kane is really about KANE and nobody else. Citizen Kane is about numerous interlinked subjects which revolves around this one man, told from the perspectives of the people who knew him but never from his point of view.  

          The beginning starts off in a very expressionistic way, all we see are shadows and lastly, the dying words of a man- ‘Rosebud’. But before all that, we see the sign – ‘No Trespassing’. We are about to enter the world of a man , but not just any man, a public icon who was in the public’s eye during his rise and fall. We enter into a forbidden place that he doesn’t want to expose and throughout the show we see that in Kane as well. He never explains his actions to anyone, for example; during the scene where he made the choice to stay in the election and lose his son, he said that only he can decide what he would do, and when you think about it, we never actually know exactly why he made the choices he made. We are never fully able to ‘trespass’ into his heart. Since the man is linked to Rosebud, the audience is immediately hooked and this starts the story, and also holds the plot together. The next part becomes very realistic and documentary-like. The audience is then introduced to the man who uttered the words- Charles Foster Kane. We see him through the eyes of the public, just like a celebrity, we see snip bits of his life, his huge castle- Xanadu, all his property, basically we see the man that the world sees. We are introduced to Kane, but only from the standpoint of what the rest of the world sees, which doesn’t represent who he actually is.

           Citizen Kane is about Rosebud. Rosebud was his dying words, and it represents something valuable to Kane, more than just a mere sled. That one word already shows the man’s personality to a certain extent because it carries a story on its own, it explains to a certain degree why he made certain decisions and why he chose to do what he did. We are firstly introduced into Kane’s personal life through the writings of his guardian- Thatcher. We see Kane through a non bias perspective as a young boy playing with his sled in he snow, we see him being carefree and happy but simultaneously we also see his mother preparing to send him away to live with Thatcher. Time skips and we then see Kane when he’s 25, young and charismatic and at the beginning of starting the Inquirer, we witness his uprising, fame, we see his marriage slowly falling apart at the same time, we also see him changing as a person, from someone so loving and carefree to an old man who wants only his way. We see bits and pieces of who he is and we see the turning point of his life when he chooses to stay with Susan Alexander and leave his son and in doing that, he not only loses his son but he also loses the boy in his heart. All in all, we see his life through the eyes of the people close to him- Thatcher, Bernstein, Leland, Susan, and the butler yet we never see it through his eyes. By watching and learning about Kane from their perspectives, we see something that the public eye does not, and in a way, through each of their stories, we as the audience judges as well. In a sense, our judgement towards the type of person Kane is changes as the person telling the story changes.

       This happens throughout the entire film up till one point towards the end when Susan decides to walk out on Kane. At that moment, after he throws things around and releases his anger, the camera zooms in for a close up shot of his face and the audience identifies with him. On his face, we see pure sadness in his eyes, tears that stay and refuses to fall, we see him striving to hold on to his ego and then we watch as he walks away facing a mirror with reflects deep into his heart portraying loneliness, and emptiness. We feel deep pity and sadness for Kane. As what Aristotle said, tragedy is not about death but about suffering and in order to pity him, you must like him first. From the very beginning, the audience is somehow drawn to Kane’s character and we do indeed like him, therefore making us feel an emotional connection to him. It’s almost as if, throughout the movie, it was a process of getting to know him and going through what he went through, we not only observe but we become part of it as well.

            In contradiction to what the reporter said at the end of the film- about how one word- Rosebud is not enough to sum up a man’s entire life. On the contrary, it is.  It’s the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle, and the jigsaw puzzle being Kane’s life. Rosebud didn’t signify the sled, it signified the event that occurred at the time, when everything important to him was taken away- his mother’s love, his childhood, and his sense of being carefree. Rosebud being his last words could mean that all this while, he tried to replace that emptiness inside with material things, even attempting at buying love with money

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