Comparing Humor and Humour

Choose a modern American film that is a remake of a foreign film. What changes were necessary in the plot, characters or structure to modify the film for an American audience? What does that tell us about different expectations or ideas about films, film making or film audiences in different cultures?
American films can be ones of excellence. But those are not dubbed American; they are recognized for their director, writer, and actors. When they are named American, they are usually of some bad quality, pertaining to the structure of the film and what their audience enjoys being fed. These movies, also the most popular films in the U.S. that made it (too) well in the box office, are made for a large crowd in America. This majority, apparently, all agree the best movies are the ones with violent action, dramatic disaster, or are visually funny with lots of wisecracks. What makes a clear comparison to these statements is the 2010 movie, Death at a Funeral, which was a remake of the 2007 British film, Death at a Funeral. It is a perfect example of a great foreign film, turned into a distasteful one to satisfy an American Culture.
Death at a Funeral is a story of a family who has lost a loved one. It is focused mainly on the first son, Daniel, who is grieving for his father, and has to take on some responsibilities of the funeral that has lost a little control and normality. These kinds of scenarios are created everywhere; by the cousin who accidentally gave her fiancé hallucinogens from her brother’s apartment. Another crazy scenario is the Daniel is blackmailed by a midget showing proof he had sexual relations with the Daniel’s father. What follow these two events are scenes like the fiancé naked on the roof, the blackmailer being given hallucinogens as well, and the coffin being knocked over.
In the 2010 Death at a Funeral, the scenes were almost exactly the same as the original. It was literally retold scene-by-scene. What made the drastic change in the structure though, was the Americanization of every scene. In the 2007 Death at a Funeral, the direct, Frank Oz, made the scenes were very realistic, especially in the way the actors were given time to react. Their lines didn’t seem staged, but honest and natural. In the 2010 Death, every scene was sped up and louder. The scenes were so much chattier and did not give enough for the actors to really take in the situation and act naturally. This made it seem fake and genuine emotions had been replaced by wisecracks. This transformation made the movie seem surreal.
The change in the characters was just as dramatic. In the original Death at a Funeral, the characters as well were more real. They were serious, grieving, quiet, and a little sarcastic. They played out their roles well and reacted well to odd situations, again, making it seem more real. The Americanization of this in the 2010 movie was much more crass and “in your face” humor. The director, Neil Labute, never took time to focus on the complex character motivations and dumbed it down to give the audience big, flashing signposts to tell them how to feel. A lot of American audiences want this; they want simple and loud. But because of this it becomes too staged, not relatable, and immature. For instance, there was a dramatic scene in the two movies near the end. The 2007 film use human emotions to drive the characters. In the 2010 film, this wasn’t good enough; they had to throw in a gun to push the characters to react. This insinuates the American audience watching the film is not smart enough or does not have the patience to read and understand the feelings that motivate the characters. The expectations of a movie are dramatically and disappointingly very different between these two cultures. Again, it is not everyone in America who has bad taste in art, but only some.

Women and Film

How did the portrayal of women change in American films between silent films and “the talkies?” Why do you think that change occurred?

I think the explanation could be explained very simply; when the “Talkies” began, women were given a voice. Of course, all the actors were, but women in films moved beyond that role of damsel in distress to someone with an opinion, a voice, equalizing the importance of the characters.
Like in “The General,” the female character was the catalyst for Buster Keaton’s character. She causes this young man to fight for her respect and her heart, holding importance in all his decisions. Though this is very important, the woman’s character is still nothing but a statue, portraying beauty and desire. She does nothing but this, loving and supporting the men in her life.
This reflects what women were thought of at the time. In the early 1900’s women’s rights were just starting to be fought for. Society still thought of women as second, below men. They were expected to stay at home, support and take care of their men and raise their children. They had no voice in political affairs and were not allowed to do a man’s job, (the pay and status was always higher.)
Once film had sound, all actors were given lines, allowing everyone something important to say. Sound, and over improvements in film allowed growth in all aspects of a movie. Women were eventually given heroic roles and great lines. Actresses such as Mea West and Bette Davis were given great opportunities to portray woman as strong, witty beings. Film, (mainly with sound,) was a great help during the time of the end of women’s inhibition. It was an aid to women because they were a part of an art that told stories, ones that kept surprising and exciting the audience. I’m sure that excitement, eventually, was held because of a role where the woman stood as undeniable greatness and strength.