Friday, February 3, 2012
Shiny, Happy People
The concluding scene of The Last Laugh depicts the incredible gluttony and generosity of the unnamed, demoted doorman after he miraculously inherits a fortune from a dying American millionaire. He feasts on mounds of food, eating caviar as if it were candy and drinking champagne as if it were water. A tracking shot of the "spread" emphasizes the opulence and indulgence of our hero. What is the point of this ending? Is is a happy ending or a parody of a happy ending? Is this supposed to be objective reality or a fantasy? Is this a cynical commercial ploy or is there deeper significance to the ending?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While the ending of the Last Laugh is a happy one, it is a parody of how movies were to end. Before the scene is filmed where the doorman receives his riches, there is a message displayed on the screen informing the viewer that this ending is not how real life works. Oftentimes in films, the ending of a movie benefits the main protagonist even when the situation is not realistic for a positive outcome. Murnau pokes fun at these decisions by including a final scene where the main character prospers and gets, the last laugh. This ending is not only a satire of the classic "happy ending", but is also meant to fall in line with fairy tail endings, and pure fantasy. Nothing portrays the wide difference between fantasy and reality more than a ridiculous fantasy ending, that does not belong there. In a real life scenario, the chances of the doorman inheriting the fortune is not a likely one. The chances of him dying alone and without money or a family is far more likely. The true purpose of Murnau ending the movie like he did, was to call out his fellow directors and say that we need to be real. There is nothing wrong with a fantasy movie. However, movies should also be a depiction of real life rather than a circus like show with a fairy tale ending.
ReplyDeleteI think the last laugh is doesn't go to the unnamed doorman. It is Murnau who really gets the last laugh. It really feels tacked on. Likely, the producer didn't like the original cut of the film and told Murnau to tack on a happy ending. The whole scene is so ridiculously unbelievable that it almost feels like Murnau is saying: "hey producer! Want a happy ending? Well you get a happy ending."
ReplyDeleteThe scene is in so much contrast with the rest of the film that it left me incredibly dissatisfied. I am willing to bet that the original viewers of the film felt similarly. Watching the entire film gives one a sense of watching something profound, but then the last scene slaps them in the face and leaves a bad taste in their mouth, but I think this is exactly what the director intended.
Upon reflection, the fact that this scene stands in such sharp contrast to the rest of the movie may actually make everything else more satisfying. There is an overwhelming sense of fatalism, that the doorman is doomed to being stuck in the bathroom. And then this scene shows up. It implies that, maybe people aren't doomed. But it is so ridiculous and over the top that it is easy to tell that Murnau is saying that life doesn't work that way.
In my opinion, the ending is a complete parody on happy endings. My impression was that the director filmed the scene with incredible disdain for whoever forced him to include the tacked on ending. The typical "feel good" movie ending sometimes involves an incredibly lucky protagonist, but the extent to which the doorman is lucky is just absurd. Who in the world would ever write a will granting immense riches to a random person? The restaurant scenes are just ridiculous. No one in their right mind would eat a mound of caviar or order so much at one meal. I was also surprised to see a man who has lived a life in poverty to spend so much on so little. The ending could have shown the doorman returning to his family and introducing them to a better life, or if he needed to spend money, then he could have spent it on the people in his neighborhood (in addition to the other doormen). Instead, absolutely nothing of importance happens. The ending is completely devoid of a deeper meaning. It ruined the atmosphere shown in the main parts of the film by adding a farcical ending. I think the director intentionally made the ending so bad in order to make a statement on movies with unnecessary happy endings.
ReplyDeleteIn the film The Last Laugh, the story ends, but the film does not. In order to “please” the audience, the director included an epilogue of sorts, which depicted the sad, old, former doorman inheriting a generous sum of money from his dead family. Whoever wrote this scene must have been completely psychotic, or just irritated that the director thought a happy ending “necessary” for the film to be a success and to be liked by the public. Personally speaking, I think it would have made the movie much better and truer to real life if a) the movie had just stopped right at the original ending so that we could understand the real meaning of life (to get old and die, not to get old and inherit some ridiculous fortune) or b) if they would have added the extra sequence on the end of the film, but then at the conclusion of the sequence he wakes up in his apartment with his wife, only to go back to work as the bathroom attendant in the hotel because the entire scene was just a dream. This would make the ending so much more understandable and relative to real life that people might be able to connect with the film more if this was the case. Overall, the “happy ending” was absolutely ridiculous and completely unnecessary to the film; it completely ruined the entire movie and the director and the writer(s) should have realized that even if it was a parody on a happy ending, it still undermined all of their hard work on the original film.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this particular ending is clearly to end the movie on a happier note than the general tone of the movie. To truly learn the answers to the next two given questions, one would have to ask F. W. Murnau. This is a task made impossible, however, by the fact that he has been in his grave for some 81 years. Instead we may only conjecture blindly about the answers. Accordingly, I will proceed to do this. As to whether or not the highly unlikely ending to the movie is intended to be a happy ending or a parody of a happy ending, I would suggest that it is the former. The atmosphere and characters appear to be quite jovial. As to whether or not the ending is supposed to be objective reality or a fantasy, it is even harder to say. While the final events of The Last Laugh are certainly plausible, they seem to be astronomically unlikely to occur. Therefore, examining this from a probabilistic standpoint, I side with the latter option: that the ending is more likely something of fantasy. As for the final question, I do not see how a scene in a movie could be a commercial ploy or have "deeper significance".
ReplyDeleteAs stated before the last scene of the movie is shown, T. W. Murnau uses the last scene to end his movie on a lighter note, even though he believes that life does not usually have a happy ending. Even though Murnau was somewhat forced into a happy ending even though he preferred the actual ending (the doorman spending the rest of his life as a bathroom attendant) the addition of the final scene can be seen as a commentary on many aspects of society. This ending can be seen as a satire on the traditional “happily ever after” which is a common attribute of most movies today as well as during the time of The Last Laugh. This also shows the viewer how ridiculous the happy ending is when the doorman mysteriously inherits the entire fortune of a random millionaire who was never mentioned before throughout the entire movie. T. W. Murnau definitely could have been trying to parody the classical approach to ending a movie, but he could also have used his ending for other messages about life. In this movie, the doorman starts off with a great job and a group of family and friends who love and respect him. After an unfortunate turn of events, he is demoted and loses his job and ends op rejected by those closest to him. With the addition of the final scene the doorman’s luck changes once again and he is in an even better position than at the start of the movie. I believe that T. W. Murnau could be trying to compare life to a coin-toss or a dice-roll where nothing matters but good luck. With good luck, the doorman has a good life and a good job, but just like being dealt a bad hand in a card game his luck runs out and he ends up as a miserable bathroom attendant. The reverse is also true for the final scene. T. W. Murnau uses the last scene to show that the characters have no control over their own destiny and even with years of job experience and great family relationships, everything can be turned around in an instant.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jackson’s theory completely, the ending felt thrown on, it was too extravagant and over the top to be believable, and even the explanation of it barely seemed plausible. This of course hints towards the director’s anger and a rebellious subtext to the new ending against the producers for demanding a happier one. This is definitely an explanation of the politics surrounding the film but I see a different possibility. What if the director had another idea to critique to pompous rich demographic of Germany? If that were the case, than the conclusion of the film would not only be that society is soul crushing and unforgiving but that it only holds these conditions true to the poor and middle classes. The first class is constantly rewarded without reason and flaunts their good fortunes to the world.
ReplyDelete