Saturday, February 4, 2017
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)
The final scene of The Last Laugh is far from a happy ending. Not only does it feel disjointed from the rest of the story, but it also does not leave the audience feeling good. Gluttonous behavior is never fun to watch, and this scene was no exception. It reminded me of the scene from Matilda when Mrs.Trunchbull made a student consume an entire chocolate cake. When I was younger, I closed my eyes during this scene because it made me nauseous. This scene had a similar effect on me because it made me very uncomfortable and unhappy. We were told the director was forced to include this scene, and perhaps that is why it is so disturbing. Artists prefer to work on something they are passionate about, and so forced work in any type of art is typically either used as a way to get back at the person or group of people commanding them, or it is just poorly executed. In my opinion, this scene primarily falls in the former category. This is a way of getting back at whoever made him create this scene because it is such a grotesque exaggeration of a happy ending that it ends up being unhappy. Also it is almost making fun of the idea of happy endings by showing how preposterous they are. The director could have achieved the happy ending in a believable, realistic way, but instead he chose to have a millionaire leave a hotel bathroom attendant all of his inheritance. An ideal happy ending makes the viewer hope it will happen to them someday, but no one would even bother hoping for this because it is so far-fetched. The Last Laugh would have been a better, more realistic film if the epilogue had been omitted.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that this is a parody of a happy ending. I believe the editors telling the director to recreate the ending of the film may seem like an insult and therefore the director casually and adds on a happy ending which may or may not even connect to the film. I feel the director was offended and put no effort in creating a legitimate ending to film. The unnamed man came across the luckiest fortune which made no connection to the plot. All the work throughout the movie had no relevance to outcome of the movie. I believe it is a parody of a happy ending because it is almost a fantasy. One doesn’t just get a one million dollars off of a will from a stranger who died in his arms. Not only is this ending not realistic but completely overdone. I believe that it is purposefully overdone because he much preferred his own ending and because he was told to brighten the ending, he obliged against his will. When people are doing something against their will though, they do not tend to have much passion for it. This explains this random cheesy ending of the man pigging out at the very hotel he worked at. There doesn’t seem to be any significance in the ending other than him being happy, but what about his family and village. It only scratches the surface and doesn’t give the viewer any insight into the conclusion of the conflict. He only got a lot of money and ate out at the hotel with his friend, the night watchmen. It has no deeper meaning and is a meaningless scene.
ReplyDeleteI believe there are three points made in the ending of The Last Laugh. First, there is the obvious marketing scheme of having a moral and happy ending; very classic Hollywood style even though the film is German expressionist. Another point I believe Murnau is trying to make, is a commentary on happy endings. First he is calling happy ending ridiculous by making the ending to his film absurd and unrealistic. He does this by quickly having the bathroom attendant protagonist inherit millions by pure chance of death and an extremely unlikely will. Murnau again makes his ending unrealistic with a continuous stream of food arriving at the protagonists table, even though we do not view the protagonist order any of this food. Murnau also parodies happy endings in a second way. Most Hollywood classics moral endings end with the hero saving the day, and getting the girl of his dreams, things illustrated in early films like Birth of a Nation and The General. Murnau satires this by having his German expressionist moral ending based entirely off the concept of wealth, very different from moral values such as courage and love. Even though I believe the ending to The Last Laugh is a marketing ploy and Hollywood classic satire, I also believe there is a third point to be made through it. The ending also illustrates a part of German society of the early half of the twentieth century. That part being that your status in life is based entirely on your wealth; and that wealth itself is extremely arbitrary, based off the incalculable entity of fortune.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the point to the alternative ending to the last laugh was to parody a happy ending. This scene was very disjointed from the rest of the movie, and barely fit into the plot. In the traditional happy ending, generally the hero will get what he wants and becomes happy from it. However, in the last laugh I believe that our unnamed door man didn’t actually get all that he wanted. Throughout the story we can see how much the doorman values what his family and his neighbors think of him. He values his image above all things. Because of this, when he lost his prestigious job as door man, he was no longer respected in his community and was left feeling degraded. In the last scene when he is giving away money and stuffing himself with food, not a single family member of his was to be seen. The only person from the story that he shared his lunch with was the night watchman, who was his only friend when he lost his job. I think the creators wanted to show that not all happiness comes from money by not having his family or neighbors around him. I suspect that they know that the doorman got his money from uncongenial means and still do not respect him. I also think this last scene is meant to parody a happy ending because the doorman has not changed at all from the beginning. Throughout the story, the doorman’s only happiness comes from what other people think of him. Even through everything that he has been through, the last scene felt as if he was still only sharing his money and showing off to regain the respect that he had lost. The doorman most likely felt empty inside, and even after being generous felt empty. I believe that the deeper significance of the movie is that you cannot base your happiness off of what other people think of you, as once you lose the source of your respect you will be extremely unhappy.
ReplyDelete