Tropic Thunder--for an out-of-box comedy experience!

My suggestion for a film to watch is Tropic Thunder.


The plot centers around a group of spoiled actors who are lost in the jungle while making a war movie. Ben Stiller plays Tugg Speedman, an almost washed up hero who earlier failed in his bid to win an Oscar while portraying Simple Jack, a character with an intellectual disability. Speedman’s portrayal of Simple Jack is featured as a movie within a movie. There were even fake websites and a “mockumentary”--Rain of Madness (which parodied the documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse) for this movie, which was loosely based on the filming of Apocalypse Now, and how difficult the filming was for Francis Ford Coppola in 1979. 

The word “retard” is used 16 times in this movie. 

Also in the movie: 

• Mocking references to gay and fat people. 

• One character portrayed as a white man who has darkened his skin to play a black man. A black character criticizes him several times for impersonating a black man. 

• Extensive use of vulgar humor and profanity. 

• Many jokes about the shallowness, self-involvement and ignorance of actors and Hollywood executives in general.

I thought the film was hilarious, but I am sure many, many people might not like the film.

I was inspired to choose this movie after I saw an article on the news this week about people being outraged over Nick Cannon wearing white-face.

Nick Cannon on CBS

Seriously?!?!?

In the 1800s, play authors were ridiculing the government and the justice system, making fun of women and children being assaulted and potentially raped, and laughing at people dying, but there are still people in society today who make a big deal out of comedy and theater. Shakespeare performed plays dressed as women because females were not allowed on stage, and yet many people still criticize and alienate cross-dressers. How does that happen, when a society seems too go backward instead of progressing forward?

I think the lines are blurred as far as comedy and what is real for people. In today’s society, we mock people for everything. Our motto in comedy is pretty much ‘anything goes’, but there are always those 'political correctness' nazis who say, “The nerve of you people!” Needless to say, hypocrisy runs rampant in modern culture, and is widely acceptable, but a good comedy, created just to make people laugh is horrible! (insert sarcasm here).

Tropic Thunder breaks every ‘politically correct’ rule known in our culture, and I think this is an interesting movie to analyze for our class, because it gives us a hint of how viewing audiences may have felt during the eras many of our class plays were written.

I enjoy stepping out of my box, and I feel we have done that several times in this class. Keeping with the spirit of out-of-box experiences, I think this movie has all the awkwardness and uncomfortableness in the name of comedy that we can stand, and that many plays we have studied exemplified at the time they were performed.

My only concern is, this movie is quite vulgar. I wouldn’t want to offend anyone.

Are you paying attention?

After reading The Beaver Coat, I noticed that the story is told in an interesting way. The story is very tricky to follow adn if the reader does not pay close attention to the subtle actions of the characters, the reader will most likely be lost at the end of the play. Notice at the end of Act I when Mrs. Wolff says to Julius that there is some wood outside of Krueger's house and if they were to take it, it would not hurt anyone. The audience never actually sees Mrs. Wolff and Julius take the wood, but instead the act ends with them riding their sleigh into the night and then goes to a courtroom in Act II where Krueger says some of his wood has been stolen. However, where the audience really needs to pay attention is at the beginning of Act III when Julius tells Mrs. Wolf, who is counting a lot of money, that she needs to put that money away or they will go to jail. If the audience does not pay attention here, they mat be confused and unable to determine that the fur coat Wulkow is wearing at the end of the play is the same one that Krueger reports stolen. They also may not remember that when Mrs. Wolff tells the judge that he can have her home searched, she has already insured her safety by making Julius bury the money in a goat shed. Thus, the audience ends up completely clueless as to the whereabouts of Krueger's beaver coat and wood just as Von Wehrhon and Krueger himself were. I am unable to say whether or not the author intended to write this play in this manner, but to me The Beaver Coat is just as mischievous and clever as its fictional character Mrs. Wolff.

The Broken Jug: The Audience

The audience, while not as directly a part of the play as some of our previous works, is still an important thing to consider. Unlike The Venetian Twins, there are no asides nor does it end with a character directly speaking to the audience. The closest we get to audience interaction is the pseudo-bow all the actors take at the end on the clock. Although the methods are not as direct as The Venetian Twins, the audience will always be an element.

In my Venetian Twins post I discussed that audience inclusion is very important. The Broken Jug accomplishes this by giving the audience a sense of superior knowledge. While the people in the court room are very slow to come to the realization, it's evident to the audience pretty quickly that Adam is the culprit. Similarly to the jug situation, we also know more than Walter regarding Adam's court records.

Many of these things we, as the audience, knew from Adam himself; for instance, that the wig had to be his. As a result of this, the audience has superior knowledge over everyone – except, that is, Adam. Adam is the audience's peer, but only in knowledge. Adam's character is what allows the audience to feel dissociated from him, and puts us on the side of the court. Given the knowledge we are afforded and the (often ignorant) people of the court, we watch as these people draw nearer to a solution known to us, and in addition watch as Adam realizes they grow nearer. Ultimately the audience inclusion stems from being on the side of the people while having knowledge of the villain.

(For a more historical approach on intended audience, see Christian's post.)

Tonino = Arrogance

According to Merriam-Webster, arrogance is “an insulting way of thinking that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people.” In think that word best describes Tonino in The Venetian Twins.

A few times during the play, Tonino proclaims to others that he is a “gentleman” and a “honest man.” An example is after he is given Zanetto’s jewels and money by Arlecchino, “A casket of jewels, a purse full of money, it would have made a good haul for somebody, but I’m an a gentleman, and I don’t take other people’s things.” However, I believe his true character shows as the play progresses. Not long after he acquires the money and jewels and swears to find who they belong to, he uses them for his own amusement at the Professor’s house, “she’s [Colombina] picked the wrong pigeon this time. But this could be fun” and decides to play detective. He also revokes his friendship with Florindo after seeing that he is trying to steal Beatrice from him and insults those he views as inferior to him, (to Lelio) “what about you, you little caricature.” Tonino does redeem himself by defending his friend Florindo before he is murdered in the street and with his speech on why women and marriage do not destroy a man, but instead men allow themselves to be destroyed. In between these great actions, though, he seems to strut about the place finding the faults in others while not realizing his own.

In my opinion, Tonino’s character was one that the audience could learn a lesson from. That lesson being: no one is perfect, no matter how much one thinks they are. People in the 18^th century may have seen how heroic and kind-hearted a person Tonino was at the beginning of the play, when he saved Florindo, and thought to themselves, “this character is just like me” and by the end of the play had them thinking, “I know I try to do good, but what am I doing that is causing harm to others?”

Carnival Play: The Peasants

As we can see in the nine carnival plays, of all the characters presented the most prevalent are peasants: the traditional class of farmers, butcher, etc. In the Middle Age, peasants were the major class of people and since Hans Sachs was a shoemaker he would also consider himself a part of this class of people. These plays were written to celebrate the local traditions with rites and dancing, it is logical to think that Hans Sachs was emphasizing the importance of the role of peasants in the society.

            I would think that the reason Hans Sachs emphasize the character of peasants in his plays were to engage everyone in the audience to the play since they made up the majority of the population. The settings of the plays were also depicted as everyday situation such as the stinginess of the miserly farmer, the cunningness of the priests, the immorality of the doctor, etc. These situations are able to relate the audiences to the plays and they will be able to enjoy the play whole-heartedly. In order to add to the festive atmosphere, it is only to be expected that Sachs should treat the farmer as a comic figure. They were given funny and ridiculous names. For example, in The Nose-Dance, the farmers were given names such as Herman Brainless, Kunz Small-snout etc. I believe that another purpose of these names were also to bring out their personalities.

            I think that I would enjoy these plays being a normal/ordinary citizen at that time and will be able to understand the humor in the plays since they were related to the life of an ordinary class people.

Doctor and Patient

Among the plays by Hans Sachs, the one that stood out to me the most was The Pregnant Farmer. Today, when a health care professional does not properly explain every element of their patient’s disease and treatment options, the results can include the continued suffering or death of the patient and a lawsuit. It is also wrong of a health care professional to talk to their patients and their relatives like they are stupid, to get upset with the patient when they cannot grasp a concept, and to take advantage of patients. Sachs, however, was able to create a character with these negative traits we see in our physicians today, and probably seen in the 15^th century physicians as well, and use them to entertain an audience.

In the play, Isaac says, “he [Kunz] must take the strongest purge possible. He has to drive that filly right out of there.” This is to the extent to which Isaac explains the prescription Isaac is telling Heinz to give to Kunz and how Kunz’s condition of being “pregnant with a filly” will be resolved. Since Kunz is scared for his life and both he and Heinz have no knowledge of medicine, they believe whatever their doctor tells them as most patients do today. Isaac also gets angry with Heinz for not answering his questions the way he wishes him to. For example, when Isaac asks if Heinz’s master had “the urge for a stool”, Heinz misunderstands and believes he said something about school. Isaac gets upset at this and says, “My God! Can’t you understand a word?” These exchanges are what I believe makes the situation funny because the audience is distracted from the trick being played by the Jew on Heinz. Instead of feeling sorry for Heinz, the audience is focused on how Heinz is unintentionally making this doctor and con-man look foolish.

Perhaps, Sachs decided to create this scene because doctors were as ill mannered to their patients as they are today. If this was the case, the audience would have loved seeing a doctor, con-man, or anyone else who thought that they were smarter or better than the common people being made a fool of and teased by a simple-minded farmer.

Carnival Plays: The Audience and the Play

The thing that I loved most about these plays was all of the opportunities for interaction between the audience and the actors. The plays were written in such a manner that allowed the spectators to be a part of the production. The carnival plays wouldn't have had a halfway interested audience that played on their phones during the whole thing like most of the plays today, but an excited, rowdy audience that enthusiastically participated and would come back again and again.
As stated in the introduction, 'An actor may address the audience directly, pay them false compliments, and invite them to celebrate themselves with drink.'
All of these things really draw the audience into the performance and especially for plays performed during such jovial times, there has to be that interest.
While reading the carnival plays, I found my own interest waning and was only able to be fully taken by the story when I imagined it in my head. Unlike Lysistrata, I would rather see the play than read it. I don't think I will be able to fully appreciate the plays until I see them acted out.
A specific example of this, for me, was 'The wife in the well.' While reading, I absolutely hated Gritta the cheating wife for what she did to her husband and on top of that turning the blame on him. It was so frustrating to read about that happening. I wanted the husband to break down the door and let her get in trouble like she deserved. But if I were to watch the play, I have no doubt that I would be turned into Gritta's co-conspirator and would take pleasure in tricking the stupid husband right along with her.
In conclusion, the carnival plays are without a doubt meant to be performed and are best appreciated during a carnival setting. A dry reading of them leaves an slight aftertaste of disgust that I have not been able to shake. Hopefully, I'll be able to see them performed in person and then be able to appreciate the humour in them.