692 It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World

[domino harvey]

Are you still doing the victim/we're all just being "cool" thing? Really?

[Moe Dickstein]

Dom, I just find it interesting that a movie that brings a lot of people joy and laughter has to be trashed with equal joy. I think it's apparent that many people like the film and many people dislike it.

Comedy is subjective and I don't think it's really something that benefits from a technical analysis. There seems to be an attitude that posits "I have intellectually proven that this is bad/inept/unfunny" etc. and therefore no sane person can enjoy this with a straight face, and how dare they to boot.

I think everyone is equally entitled to their opinion pro or con, and when someone wants to parse my comments to twist something into another cheap dig at the film, well, yes that inspires me to retort with detached bemusement, as has become my default.

[domino harvey]

This is a forum where everyone's take is up for debate-- we're an academic-leaning board, not a fan-boy hangout. Comedy is indeed subjective, but so is everyone's response to any film. At this point, if you can't take others trashing a film beloved to you, do what a lot of us do when someone says something we consider dumb or ill-informed about a film we like-- nothing. Sometimes it's just not worth getting into it, you know? Plus, it is highly unlikely at this juncture that you are doing anything but screaming into the void as far as converting the heathens here. Perhaps a little distance from this thread that you trudge through as though you were the beleaguered ambassador for the film would do everyone some good, yourself included.

[knives]

How can anything be talked about intellectually then? If comedy is off limits why not drama or experimental art? Besides actually giving a damn for its content what is so unique about, say, Persona that makes it 'benefit from a technical analysis' and not this? Just take a look at all that has been written about Keaton, Chaplin, Tati, and nearly hundreds of others who have made purely comedic works that are made funnier through a technical analysis. At the same instance none of the critiques here have gone too hard into what is wrong with this film. The most stringent example has been Zedz and company's examination of the river joke showing how that joke can be made funny through even remakes of the joke. This isn't Deleuze or Godard we're talking by. This is pretty straightforward how do you make a joke funny type stuff. If we can't get past the basic I like this/ I don't into an actual discussion of the piece why bother even acknowledging its existence with a thread. As the big defender of this film could you shed a light on how this film constructs jokes to be funny or are you completely unable to do that?

[Moe Dickstein]

This is a forum where everyone's take is up for debate-- we're an academic-leaning board, not a fan-boy hangout. Comedy is indeed subjective, but so is everyone's response to any film. At this point, if you can't take others trashing a film beloved to you, do what a lot of us do when someone says something we consider dumb or ill-informed about a film we like-- nothing. Sometimes it's just not worth getting into it, you know? Plus, it is highly unlikely at this juncture that you are doing anything but screaming into the void as far as converting the heathens here. Perhaps a little distance from this thread that you trudge through as though you were the beleaguered ambassador for the film would do everyone some good, yourself included.

I've got no qualms with someone trashing the film, and I've read the recent posts with interest, and haven't felt the need to insert myself except for to answer a point someone was confused on (Why Monica asked her husband to try hitting the door again). I just took exception to Knives twisting something I said into a dig with nothing else behind it, that's all.

Sometime when I have the time to do it properly, Knives, I will gladly sit down and put together why I enjoy the film in a more in-depth and considered manner, and hopefully someone will find it interesting enough to read and a helpful contribution to the subject. I hope nobody thinks I'm against academic discussion of film, I enjoy that about this forum. My college degree is in film and it's the industry I work in, so I have more than a casual interest. I probably stated it badly when I talked about deconstructing comedy not being fruitful; what I was going for was the aspect of using such discussion and dissection to assert a conclusion that in comedy, or almost any type of film or even art in general, that there can be a "correct" or "right" thing to enjoy/appreciate or what have you.

There's a big difference in stating "This film is bad" versus "I think/have decided this film is bad and here's why" I would take umbrage to the former and welcome the latter.

[Michael Kerpan]

"The film is bad" is _usually_ shorthand for "I think the film is bad". Only is it goes further to "I think the film is _objectively_ bad" or "I think the film is bad and that people who like it are idiots" is it worth taking umbrage.

Of course, declaring a film "objectively" bad is probably a less than good idea in this forum -- as a general rule.

[PillowRock]

Comedy is indeed subjective, but so is everyone's response to any film.

That's a little like saying: "Yeah, there's vertical relief in the Himalayas, but there's vertical relief in the Appalachians too." The level of subjectivity of humor of a whole different order of magnitude than the vast majority of other topics.

Certainly all of the discussions of story construction, cinematography, etc., etc. are as applicable to comedies as to any other genre of film. However, when it comes to the specific question of "Is it funny?" that kind of analysis just doesn't apply. It's like expecting people who like mushrooms and people who don't like mushrooms to have a logical debate over that difference in taste.

[swo17]

I liked what this article (posted earlier in the thread) had to say about the matter. Mainly, you may not be able to control when you laugh, but to assign quality to something based purely on whether or not you did is to deny the skill that goes into the best comedies.

I personally find that how much I laugh at something depends on my mood. Sometimes I will really enjoy a comedy and not laugh once. Other times I will laugh semi-regularly throughout a film but not necessarily think that much of it. Is a horror film only successful to the extent that it scares you? Is a drama only successful to the extent that it moves you to tears? Actually, there are plenty of films that have prompted strong emotional reactions from me that I have come to hold in low regard because of how manipulative they were. All of these things seem like they should be game for discussion.

[onedimension]

Watching it now for the first time- it's not funny, it's kind of dull, and I was shocked by how broad and uninteresting the performances are. But I'm settling into its rhythms and finding it strangely watchable, mostly for the visuals and the ambition- it's like watching a ponderous, slow motion Rube Goldberg machine, with the actors as mechanical parts. I can imagine it being hilarious in 1963, but any excitement about its cast, scope, or pace is lost today, and I think any delight its audience took in seeing so many familiar actors in one film isn't accessible to anyone younger than 50..

It seems like a competent, big budget equivalent to one of those formulaic movies you see advertised with Adam Sandler AND Kevin James AND Vince Vaughn AND Chris Rock! But it's just running on borrowed energy - Milton Berle was funny in that other thing, and here he is! It's a big cast so it must be worth watching! A lot of money has been spent! It was also presumably playing off of 60s cultural and comic norms, but that, again, is borrowed energy- there's nothing really witty or original or enduring about any of its observations..

Hate to keep piling on other people's joy, though, so I'm very open to persuasion..I love Airplane and that pushes similar buttons.

[onedimension]

Anyway if this can pay for an Andrei Rublev reissue or a Sternberg/Dietrich box I will watch it five more times

[jegharfangetmigenmyg]

I didn't like this movie either, but I think it's a mistake to just label it as straight "comedy". I would call it a "farce" referring to its cartoonish style/universe. The succes of movies like this depend on the director's ability to create his own hyper-realistic universe, and Kramer didn't quite succeed in making this one significant. When I view movies like this I try to tune into the cartoon world to enjoy the slapstick and the absurdity, the yelling of the characters (which I again think of as a cartoonish), but one certainly has to be able to adapt to this kind of "funny stuff". It's not like Tati finding comedy in reality, it's like constructing a new kind of farcical reality. In my opinion, Blake Edwards' attempt at an epic farce, The Great Race, made two years after Mad World, is a more succesful one, that is in creating a specific cartoon world/universe. But these are of course very very silly movies. No doubt about it.

[colinr0380]

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum has farce, madcap chariot races, men dressed as women and musical numbers! And still manages to be funny!

(I keep bringing it up partly because it shares some of the same issues that dog a lot of 1960s comedies, namely a few cringeworthy characterisations and that strange view of women as either svelte and sexy 'with-it' nymphets or hatchet-faced harridans, especially in the overlong and leering scene of auditioning the slave girls, but it still manages to be entertaining)

[colinr0380]

Locations, then and now

[FrauBlucher]

Wow, this threads still around? I thought it was retired, put out to pasture and wrapped up in mothballs.

[Moe Dickstein]

Once it's in the collection, it's here forever.

[zedz]

Which, coincidentally, is the perceived running time of the film!

[HistoryProf]

Well, I mean it in the sense that it's the first and only version I saw for 16 years, and so seeing the shorter version always felt like it was missing things. Not in the trudgy sense you imply, but I get it, everyone has to knock this film.

Can I ask why you are so intent on defending it here? I've trudged through this entire thread - which I opened for a little insight as I've been whittling my list down during the Criterion sale and this was an outlier not on my wishlist but I keep picking it up looking at the loving restoration effort and thinking it must have some redeeming value. It seems clear to me from everything i've read and clips i've seen over the years that the answer is a clear no, yet here you are to refute anyone and everyone who dares challenge this iconic moment in cinematic history as anything other than the great apex of "classic comedy." I find it rather bizarre that someone would work so hard to repeatedly challenge perfectly reasonable opinions on what is nothing more than a matter of taste. It's fine that you love it. And clearly you have the HTF crowd to return to and share your revelry for the greatest movie ever made. So why keep coming back to read people eviscerating this for being a steaming pile of boring, uninspired slapstick? It just seems strange to me.

I have to say, I was shocked to see the thread was 19 pages long. I remembered the initial reaction being negative, but had not payed any attention at all since the days after the announcement. I appreciate the reviews here as they have reassured my feeling that I do not need to own this. but above all, the cult of idolatry that surrounds this is far more fascinating to me. What struck me most was the DigitalBits article where a few of the fans noted it's release coinciding with JFK's assassination. I have to wonder if, for that generation anyway, there remains a subconscious sense of comfort in this exercise in self referential slapstick excess as people drift back to a very dark time and the one thing that brought them 3 hours of relief from the despair that threatened to overwhelm the nation. For those who saw it in the theater, this seems to be a very real part of their nostalgic reverie for the picture.

In the end, even though i'll never own it, I continue to support these kind of releases as they help Criterion stay afloat and produce revenue that can be put towards restorations of pictures that would otherwise never see the light of day. The rabid fanbase for this picture is pretty fascinating, and something I had no idea existed until now. I almost wish there were a documentary on THAT.

[Gregory]

What struck me most was the DigitalBits article where a few of the fans noted it's release coinciding with JFK's assassination. I have to wonder if, for that generation anyway, there remains a subconscious sense of comfort in this exercise in self referential slapstick excess as people drift back to a very dark time and the one thing that brought them 3 hours of relief from the despair that threatened to overwhelm the nation. For those who saw it in the theater, this seems to be a very real part of their nostalgic reverie for the picture.

One could try to make a case for that, but I'd point to a similar theory about the significance of the Beatles' arrival in the US eleven weeks after the assassination has been struck me as really overstated. The idea is that Beatlemania became so enormous in the US because people, teenagers in particular, were so desperately in need of something that would restore a collective sense that life could go on as normal, so when Walter Cronkite presented the Beatles as the answer, people took it and ran with it. It strikes me as one of those theories that gets repeated so often that it ends up being blown out of proportion and perceived as some absolutely true causal phenomenon.[/tangent]

[captveg]

I can't speak for the older HTF crowd that were kids when the film was released, but seeing it at 13-14 years old in the early 90s certainly helps me continue to enjoy it on a nostalgic level, the same way I still love and laugh at Billy Madison. To me it's a film that if one catches at the right age will become a part if them, as it obviously has for the HTF fans.

[FrauBlucher]

[kingofthejungle]

The idea is that Beatlemania became so enormous in the US because people, teenagers in particular, were so desperately in need of something that would restore a collective sense that life could go on as normal, so when Walter Cronkite presented the Beatles as the answer, people took it and ran with it. It strikes me as one of those theories that gets repeated so often that it ends up being blown out of proportion and perceived as some absolutely true causal phenomenon.[/tangent]

One also might theorize that The Beatles helped the nation recover from the trauma of It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

[YnEoS]

Decided to give this a watch, just for the sake of having an opinion on it one way or another.

For the first 20-30 minutes or so, I was fairly optimistic about it, it wasn't hilarious, but it was pretty decently constructed, fairly amusing, and certainly not boring. But eventually the film wore me down, for reasons others have highlighted quite well. Basically for a film with so many characters and for such a long run time, there's very little diversity of characterization or tone, and it seems to try and pile on gags with equally low ambition instead of building to anything truly remarkable.

I think others have analyzed my core problems with the film fairly well, so I'll just throw in a few additional observations. A few of the gags in the film seem to be oversold which tends to deflate the comedy for me, similar to how explaining a joke takes away the humor if the original presentation didn't work. Like for example when Jonathan Winters spends so much time complaining about how he has to ride on a girl's bike, before doing so. The simple physical incongruity of someone riding a bike too small for them should be funny enough without needing to call attention to it, and I think a really good comedy could use this amusing premise as a starting point and then build a dramatic and exciting situation off of it with even more elaborate gags.

I found the big musical cue announcing the Three Stooges and Phil Silvers yelling about the gigantic downhills diluted the humor of the joke for similar reasons.

I don't think that subtle humor is in some way superior to obvious humor and in fact a lot of great humor comes out of making certain facts about a situation absurdly obvious. But usually there's some unstated part of a joke where the viewer has to connect the dots, and that connecting of the dots and coming to a certain realization is often what is so funny. A broad character reaction can even be funny when the audience is already anticipating it, or when the reaction itself is what's unusual and the realization is about their character rather than the situation, but it doesn't work so well when the strong reaction is a character announcing what's so funny/absurd about a situation, that's just explaining the joke before the joke has been made. A lot of the jokes in this film don't seem to trust the viewer to connect the dots the themselves, and it seems more worried about making sure the audience doesn't miss a joke instead of making the joke come off well.

These are small nitpicks perhaps, and these scenes are still amusing even in the way they're presented. But I think they speak to some of my larger issues with the film, which seems to have a lot of funny people and funny situations stuffed into it, but without a strong understanding of how to really sell them.

[giovannii84]

http://m.au.timeout.com/melbourne/film/ ... eful-eight" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In an interview in Australia, Quentin Tarantino names 'It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World' as a film which made a big impression on him.

[PfR73]

http://m.au.timeout.com/melbourne/film/ ... eful-eight

In an interview in Australia, Quentin Tarantino names 'It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World' as a film which made a big impression on him.

In Summer 2006, I sat behind Tarantino at a screening of IAMMMMW at the Paramount Theatre here in Austin. He had about 5 women with him, might have been the cast of Death Proof, which filmed here around the same time. The entire audience basically consisted of myself, my brother, & my friend sitting together, then Tarantino's group a few rows in front of us, and one other older gentleman over in a side seat. It was supposed to be a 70mm screening, but ended up being only 35mm. It was my first time seeing the film, and I found it to be very funny.

[ando]

Something in the air? Had an itch to revisit this movie (probably because of the early 60s music thread). Glad I'm not the only one still interested in it. Can't remember if Merman sings.. be a casting waste otherwise!