The movie had humor in it which was distributed though-out the movie by many of the characters. For example, Wallace Shawn played an odd man named Vizzini and his character would keep saying, “Inconceivable” for just about everything. Even though everyone added his or her own little bit of humor, these two gentlemen were the ones who both with a shared sense of humor, which increased the level of comedy in this movie. Both Westley and Inigo had a knack for talking or joking around when fighting or dueling others. In most cases when someone would fight they wouldn’t talk, but these two couldn’t help it to talk while fighting.
Bill Maher does an excellent job in his film Religulous in correlating religion to irony and hypocrisy. He uses comedic analogies to keep the audience’s attention, but powerfully does so. His crude honesty really portrays the falsities plaguing religious beliefs today. I have always had loose confidence in all religious institutions. Bill Maher’s funny approach to the inconsistencies and irrational conceptions within religion truly reinforce my stance.
However, a first time viewer does not expect and truly appreciate the important messages that are delivered throughout the film. The director’s presentations of inter and intra racial conflicts during the plot of the film are presented with varying degrees of comedy and drama. The first conflict in the film arises in Sal’s pizzeria due to the lack of black people on the wall of fame. This scene brings out feelings of absurdity and amusement from the viewer. However, as the film continues the altercations in the plot become progressively more dramatic and bring out the realization of the truth that dominates society.
Chaplin on the other hand relied on his body and facial emotions/expressions. Chaplin used daily life situation into his comedies. His comedic pieces usually had more of a storytelling type feel. His style was known as realistic type of comedy. Due to their respective styles, Chaplin was considered a warm hearted comedic while Keaton was a cool headed funnyman.
After Lennie was shot the guys show up and Curly and Carlson congratulate him, but in the movie it just ends right after George shoots Lennie. There were many differences between all the characters described in this story. The book displayed the relationship between George and Curley to be full of hatred. During the movie there was not much hatred displayed in the relationship between George and Curley, it just seemed like they did not get along very well but no hatred. Lennie was described as a huge monster in the book, so the thought was that he was completely out of the ordinary, but when I watched the movie Lennie was just big but he was not out of the ordinary.
Bias Analysis #1: Long Editorial I know not one person whom believes that the new reported on television is not liberally biased. I often come home to find my father complaining about the media’s slant towards democratic views yet he is frequently preaching what they report as fact. These so called “truthful” accounts are delivered in a similar way as the orchestrated scenes of movie; just as movies are created to induce a certain emotion or address a question, media coverage is meant to fuel paranoia and incite a desire for change which would benefit a minority of people. In Bernard Goldberg’s book Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, he attempts to tackle the issue of liberal media bias in the large East-coast news organizations. In his narrative, Goldberg begins by explaining his current situation of exile from media coverage despite his 28 years of service.
Act 1 Scene 1 ( The Narrator makes it to Harlem, he goes to the Jolly Dollar Bar. He enters the bar.) Narrator: “Good Evening Brothers” McAdams: “Shit” Other Man: You said it, man he a relative of yourn? McAdams: “Shit, he god damn sho aint no kin of mine!” Other Man: “He must be drunk, maybe he thinks he’s kin to you.” (The narrator leaves the area in confusion.) Act 1 Scene 2 Narrator: “Well, I’ll be damned if it aint the good brother, Where you been ?
Social background, personalities and beliefs influence the way individuals think. The 3rd Juror was a vengeful and aggressive man who is the last juror to change his vote to not guilty. At the end of ACT I, when he yells angrily at the 8th Juror ‘I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him’, the 8th Juror says ‘you don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?’ This conflict contributes to a major turning point because it brings closer to a unanimous ‘just verdict’ as other jurors learnt about flaws from strongly prejudiced people, like the 3rd juror. He contradicts himself by saying ‘Anybody says a thing like that…they mean it’ earlier in ACT 1 because he struggles to detach his personal feelings from the boy as he sees his own estranged son in the 16 years old defendant. Furthermore, the 10th Juror’s angry monologue at the end of ACT II, he demonizes people who are ‘different’.
I could imagine if I were them I would be thinking look at this new guy challenging the boss and doing it in a polite but direct way. Later in the story Nippers becomes angry at Bartelby and his actions and choice of words to the lawyer. Nippers tells the lawyer that he want to black Bartleby eyes. Nippers is twenty five years old he is young and as many young men today easily angered. The lawyers does not even know how to respond back to Bartleby many times as he denies what the lawyer ask of him to do.
It was extremely successful and got him out of debt. Mark Twain’s writing in his dark years focused on human greed, cruelty, and questioned the humanity of the human race. His anti-government writings and speeches threatened his livelihood. He was labeled as a traitor by many, and consequently several of his writings were not published until years after his death. They were not published “ … either because magazines would not accept them or because of a personal fear that his marketable reputation would be ruined” (“Mark Twain’s Later Years”).