Wheatcroft, Geoffrey. “Sham and Bluster; An epic history helps explain why the Italians never took fascism entirely seriously.” The Washington Post 9 April 2006. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040601748.html>

Geoffrey Wheatcroft picks apart R.J.B. Bosworth’s book Life under the Fascist Dictatorship, 1915-1945 in his article “Sham and Buster; An epic history helps explain why the Italians never took fascism entirely seriously”. In his analysis of the book, he resolves to call Italian fascism something of a farce. In comparison to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, totalitarian rule in Italy was laid-back. He credits this to the Italian proclivity towards not taking politics seriously. This tendency makes Italy’s history with fascism almost humorous. Bosworth’s book points out Mussolini’s failures after declaring war on France and England, Italy’s failure to recognize Libya’s vast oil fields after ruling the country for decades and how one fascist leader became one of the first fatalities in the war after his plane was brought down by an Italian anti-aircraft weapon. Hitler once said the Italians never had their hearts in fascism and “the excessive warmth of family relations there overwhelms all the rest.” Wheatcroft regards Italy as a timid, insignificant force in their run-in with fascism.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft has pulled out points from R.J.B. Bosworth’s non-fiction and embellished them with conclusions of his own. His sentiments draw parallels to Federico Fellini’s Amarcord. Fellini’s film uses humor in a way to mock and ridicule fascist ideals. The film was in fact very critical of fascism, whether intentional or not, and the humor plays with fascism’s absurdity. Wheatcroft instead ridicules Italy’s dabble with fascism. Many Italians failed to take fascism too seriously, and in a way, this had to do with the absurdity of it. Wheatcroft also discusses the nonchalant attitude of Italians towards politics. Similarly, Fellini’s film focuses much attention on the everyday, care-free attitudes of a small, isolated community of Italians.

Gehring, Wes D. American Dark Comedy: Beyond Satire. Westport, CT: Greenwood P, 1996. 1-14.

Call#:  PN1995.9.C55 G42 1996

    In this wonderful book, Wes Gehring analyzes dark comedy as a genre in both literature and comedy as well as film. He defines black humor as a "genre of comic irreverance that flippantly attacks what are normally society's most sacredly serious subjects - especially death." He notes that comedy's ability to personalize in the viewer a mixture of conflicting emotions is meant to reflect the on-the-edge absurdity of modern life. Comedian Dave Barry is quoted as saying that humor is based in "the fear that the world is not very sane or reliable or organized and that it's not controlled by responsible people. Anything can happen to you, and it could be bad, and you have no say in it." The author states that dark comedy as a genre is still considered more of a post-1960s phenomenon. Black humor became an aspect of the libertarian, idol-shattering side of the sixties. He also notes that dark humor is a mostly American genre - American writers on the whole appear to be more articulate about it, and American audiences more susceptible to the form.
     The Graduate is certainly a dark comedy due to its plot about a young man having an affair with a married woman yet still providing comic relief despite the grave topics involved. Dustin Hoffman's awkward yet lovable character is hilarious in that he is much too young and inexperienced to know what is going on in the affair. Various times in the movie writers Buck Henry and Charles Webb provide comic answers on behalf of Benjamin Braddock to serious questions. For example, when Benjamin describes his plan to marry a girl whom he has neither asked yet or even likes him, he states "No, dad, I think [the idea] is completely baked." Also, in an intense scene when Mrs. Robinson asks Ben if he finds her attractive, he replies "I think you're the most attractive of all my parents' friends." Finally, director Mike Nichols uses various funny scenes to address serious issues. When Benjamin's parents make him scuba dive in their backyard pool, everyone is smiling and cheering while Benjamin is drifting in the water totally dissatisfied with his present and his future. The Graduate is a fine example of 1960s dark comedy.

This is a real periodic table.  It links to comic frames that mention the various elements.

Originally published in the Atlantic Monthly, this table includes such groups as the Criminal Elements and the Solid Gases.

A truly silly periodic table, but one that allows you to describe the quality of your whipped cream: good whiped cream is AiCr, while lesser quality (the kind that comes in a can) is probably more like Ai3Cr.  Remember that, whenever reporting a formula for a non-carbon containing compound, you need to group all like elements together and put them in alphabetical order by elemental symbol!

Warning: These online periodic tables should NOT be taken seriously. They contain NO elements, but they generate many laughs!

Is Life Beautiful? Can the Shoah Be Funny? Some Thoughts on Recent and Older Films

Sander Gilman toils with the confusing emotional relationship between horror and humor, investigating the links between the two in regard to the Holocaust.  He sets up a distinction between the reality of the Holocaust, which demands seriousness, and the representation of the Holocaust, siting scholars such as Terrence Des Pres, who believes that humor can be used as a coping mechanism. Gilman looks at various films about the Holocaust and the works of various Jewish comedians in order to propagate that approaching the Holocaust by way of humor is rarely attempted, as laughter is not the socially constructed reaction.  Films that have been successful in political mockery of World War II Fascism such as Charlie Chaplin’s, The Great Dictator, date back to pre-Holocaust production, before such use of comedy was deemed taboo or by a conspicuous Jewish director.     

Gilman turns to Life as Beautiful a successful integration of comedy and the Holocaust because of its human not Jewish appeal and uses Jakob the Liar by Jurek Becker as a means of highlighting its success.  Gilman suggests that the film is “quasi-autobiographical” as it implicates Benigni’s father’s experiences, an Italian non-Jewish soldier.  Gilman speculates that the success of the integration is due to the film’s non-Jewish world that separates the Holocaust from the past and the future. Moreover, the laughter is encouraged because it confirms the success of Guido’s actions to save his son, the more we laugh the better job Guido is doing in protecting his son and if our expectations are fulfilled we feel good about laughing. 

Despite several differences and parallels, Benigni’s film unlike Becker’s, was made in the 1990’s and by a self-conscious non-Jew.  His emphasis on the human tragedy of the Holocaust regardless of religion is something Gilman believes makes his integration of humor and holocaust feasible.  

 

The Serious Humor of La vita e bella

 

Millicent Marcus defends Benigni’s use of humor in Life is Beautiful this piece.  He believes that the limiting Holocaust art to historical record only permits documentary accounts as representations in which case the humanistic and moral nature of its history is lost.  He believes that Life is Beautiful is presented as a fantastical yet biographical account of the Holocaust in which Giouse is conscious of the fantastical nature yet acknowledges its message to future generations.

Marcus points to the film’s spoof of fascism and Guido’s unique fantasy-infused humor as its “antidote.” He points to the first half of the film’s elegant 1930’s mese-en-scene particularly in the ball scene as an indication of the film’s social commentary. He highlights Guido’s courtship of Dora and his mistranslation of the German soldier in the concentration camp as two examples of his ability to use his whimsicality as authority. 

Moreover, Marcus assess the reality controversy by calling attention to the Guido’s split audience with the inner being Giouse, and the outer being the viewers.  Marcus believes that Giouse’s perspective establishes “childhood innocence” as the standard by which the film is judged. Even more so, the viewers’ bond in their knowledge of Guido’s fantasy, again recognizing the rift between fantasy and reality.

Finally, Marcus assess Benigni’s own “game-work” humor in which he must use improvisation to alter Giouse’s perception of the concentration camp.  Marcus applauds Benigni’s capacity to flawlessly shift from his typical slap-stick comedy of the first half of the film to a more constricted yet still humorous version in the second half.

Marcus closes with his praise of the final moments of the film when he believes the mixture of hilarity and grief culminate.  The tank symbolizes the coming together of World War II history and Guido’s fantastic game. In sum, the film effectively fuses humor and the Holocaust into a “ground-breaking” film.

 

The well respected movie critic Roger Ebert gives Roberto Benigni’s Life is Beautiful a positive and supportive review, despite its controversial depiction of the Holocaust and its supplemental comedy based and fable-like narrative.  Ebert celebrates the humanistic aspects of the film, viewing the film’s intentions in a much more lighthearted fashion than some of the film’s critics. 

Ebert provides insight into the controversy surrounding the film’s use of humor and the Holocaust by way of information from his first-hand conversation with Benigni at the Toronto Film Festival in which Benigni revealed to Ebert that he offended right wing Italians and left wing critics at Cannes.  Ebert, however, approaches the film as the fictional fable it claims to be rather than a misrepresentation of the Holocaust, praising the film’s “sidestepping of politics in favor of simple human ingenuity.” He suggests that the film is “not about Nazis and Fascists but about the human spirit.” 

In regards to comedy, Ebert rejects the notion that the film makes the Holocaust into comedy, instead suggesting that the film uses comedy as a symbol for paternal devotion.  He believes that the elaborate game constructed by Guido, and his undying humor are his only weapons with which to protect his son. 

Ebert applauds the very optimism that other critics such as Gerald Peary and David Denby of the New Yorker demean.  He believes that the film speaks about hope, future, and the “human conviction.”

In this interview by Erika Milvy of Salon Entertainment, Roberto Benigni addresses several of the controversies surrounding his award winning film, Life is Beautiful.  Milvy explains that while the film received several bad reviews, it still swept the Italian version of the Oscars and was invited by the Jerusalem Film Festival to screen a film that “further[ed] the universal understanding of Jewish History.”    Benigni insists that the film was never intended to “be offensive with the memory of the Holocaust.”  Instead his goal was “to same something poetic” and “to make a beautiful movie.”

On the film’s creative process, Benigni says he feared the film’s bad reception, but kept returning to the idea of “a happy man in a concentration camp.” He admits that his father was the inspiration for the film as he was a soldier in the Italian army during World War II who was captured and put in a German work camp.  He remembers his father describing his past “in a very funny way”, like a “fable” in order to protect him. Moreover, the film’s slapstick comedy is an homage to Benigni’s comic predecessor, Charlie Chaplin, his “Michelangelo.”

On the issue of the film’s representation of the Holocaust, Benigni says he consulted with Milan’s Italian Jewish Committee.  Still, he insists that the film never intended to be realistic, rather the film only hints at the horrors of the concentration camp, because “we know.”  Overall, Benigni speaks of this film as his masterpiece, “a gift from heaven.”

Gerald Peary of the Arizona provides an example of one of Benigni’s harsher critics calling his review of the film, “an angry Jewish column.” Indeed, Peary’s highly sarcastic analysis of the film is more visceral and passion-infused than it is a fair and effective critique, but it provides a telling example of the immense opposition that erupted in reaction to the film. 

For example, the first of his list of disapproving commentary on the film is based on his personal and general dislike of Roberto Benigni as a comedian.  He believes he is merely an insecure and vain ham, unworthy of his National acclaim in Italy.  Next, he belittles Benigni’s motivations for the film by, in true Journalistic fashion, skewing his words.  He suggests that Benigni’s “solipsistic reasoning” for the portion of the film that depicts the Holocaust was in order to put his character in an extreme situation, a claim that sheds a harsh and unsympathetic light on Benigni as the film’s creator.  He then proceeds to describe the plot of the film but with a tone that is doubtful of the film’s realism and critical of its illogical unfolding. 

Peary’s main argument, however, is that the film casts an optimistic, feel-good light on the Holocaust.  He acknowledges that the film was never intended to be a documentary, but yet still candy-coats the harsh reality of the Holocaust by focusing only on the survivors and ignoring the horrors of death all together.  Moreover, Peary’s final few sentiments twist his critique into a personal Jewish objection as he scoffs at the Jewish fans of the film.  In sum, his review furiously rejects every aspect of the film, providing a concrete example of why the film created such a controversy upon its release.  

            In Loser Take All: The Comic Art of Woody Allen, Maurice Yacowar traces Woody Allen’s transformation from a “cult favorite into America’s foremost humorist” (1).  The turning point of this transformation is generally attributed to the success of Annie Hall.  Not only did Annie Hall do phenomenally well at the box office, but it was also nominated for five Oscars and won four, including Best Picture, Best Screenplay, and Best Director, all which could be directly attributed to Woody Allen.  Yacowar asserts that just because comedy is lighthearted in nature, there is an underlying seriousness and significance inherent in humor, especially in the case of Woody Allen, which makes it essential to critically study his films.  While humor can initially seem dismissible due to its comedic and blithe nature, Woody Allen instills such meaning and honesty in his humor that it often holds more meaning than dramatic counterparts.  This humor is apparent in every single one of Allen’s films, although some to a greater degree than others.  Allen is able to consistently convey meaning about serious topics such as loneliness, anxiety, love, and existentialism through his humor.  Allen also explores the relationship between life and art through this humor, and it is through such humor that the viewer is able to define the meaning and implications his work.  Yacowar specifically addresses each of Allen’s individual films and demonstrates how they uniquely use humor to create and communicate deeper meaning.  Due to the chronological structure of the book, Yacowar shows how each film influences and leads to the next film in Woody Allen’s repertoire.  One major issue in Annie Hall is the blurring of reality and fantasy.  Allen makes it difficult to discern to what degree the film is autobiographical and therefore a realistic portrayal of his life and thoughts.  This ambiguity is further compounded by his direct addresses to the audience.  This blurring of the line between reality and fantasy manifests itself multiple times throughout the film, thereby repeatedly challenging the viewer.