HAVE FUN! The Last Laugh: A Historical Analysis Films are essentially still pictures being played back at a frame rate to appear as if they are moving. In this essay we will make meaning and sense, historically and cinematically, of the “mocking montage” sequence in Murnau’s The Last Laugh (1924). We will analyse how the sequence demonstrates its place in cinematic history and how its innovations allowed the German audience to make sense of it during the post 1920’s Weimar Republic. We find that The Last Laugh is a film that is more than just moving images and throughout this essay we must be aware that although we are discussing the “mocking montage” sequence we can relate it back to the film as a whole. Our reading here will not be exhaustive but rather more focused on the camera as a narrative device indicating films historic departure from theatre and additionally, an interpretation and reflection of the German collective Zeitgeist during the context the film was born out of and how the German masses may have received it. In order to relate The Last Laugh’s “mocking montage sequence” to its cinematic, social and political background it is necessary to detail the sequence itself for clarity. The sequence that will be analysed begins at 1h:02m:08s and finishes at 1h:03m:57s. We first see a close up exterior shot of a woman who is waiting at a window porch. In the context of the narrative it is rightly assumable she is anticipating the ex-porters arrival. The camera cuts to an establishing shot looking down slightly upon an exterior setting with an open door brightly lit by an unseen light source. There is a reverse cut back to the window with the waiting woman where she is seen to be quieting a person behind her outside the mise-en-scene. Through this shot reverse shot editing the camera remains static. She then starts to brace for the ex-porters arrival emphatically. There is a reverse cut back to the exterior setting where we see a large, distorted, phantasmagorical and hunched bent-double shadow appear on the wall behind the door. The ex-porter shamefully takes a few steps out the door then scurries back stiffly through the door back outside the mise-en-scene again. His shadow remains and it takes a more rigid posture. The shadow then emerges past the door followed by the ex-porter whose walk is extremely inorganic and contrived. He awkwardly salutes a man after he walks past him. The ex-porter then appears undecided for a short while - balancing against the wall next to him. The ex-porter, shortly after, walks gracelessly out of the frame in the same stunted gait. After this the camera cuts to a tracking shot with the ex-porter facing the camera looking now more shocked than awkward. As the ex-porter occupies the centre foreground the background consists of residents laughing and jeering at the ex-porter through their windows and doorsteps as he walks past them with the camera tracking his pace. The camera holds and the ex-porter rushes out the frame and in replace of the porter we see a montage of several close ups of faces at different places cut and arranged to agglomerate the entire frame while overlaying over the original background. The faces are arranged at different angles over the frame which and the focus is on their facial features such as the eyes, mouth, cheekbones and teeth. The montage of faces is super-imposed over the urban setting of people laughing outside their doorsteps and windows. The montage holds for three seconds and then the sequence ends. Now that we have a clear description of the “mocking montage” sequence we can analyse its importance in the context of cinematic history. Richard Figgie points out that the question being asked in Germany priori to The Last Laugh release was, “What can the movies do that the theatre can not do?” (311). The Last Laugh answers this proudly. The Last Laugh embodies the historical departure from “theatrical cinema” and illustrates film as a different form of mediation, something that that can be judged by its own merits “as an artistic medium,” (314). We can analyse the cinematographic, lighting and editing techniques used in the “mocking montage sequence” to demonstrate and acknowledge this historical departure. The Last Laugh “mocking montage” sequence “explored the cinematic aspects of film […]” and thus “[…] the possibilities inherent in this visual medium” (317). “When Murnau and his scriptwriter Carl Mayer set to work on The Last Laugh, they pondered as to whether the camera could be used from the point of view of the central character” (Bade 258). They soon discovered it possible. The “mocking montage sequence” illustrates it true that the camera can be used as a subjective apprehension of a diegetic characters experienced reality. Film theorists Corrigan and White argue that, “[a] subjective point of view re-creates the perspective of a character through camera placement” (105). In the mocking montage sequence there is the “mobile subjective shot, in which the camera gives characters point of view but moves” (Bade 259). When we see the ex-porter walking inorganically we don’t get the camera mimicking the ex-porters eyes yet the shot is still wholly subjective in the sense that we experience the ex-porters experience through objective camera placement. His placement within the frame and the tracking shot gives us the impression we are moving with the ex-porter. Robert Herlth on the set with Murnau says that “we had not unchained the camera for merely technical reasons […] we had found a new and more exact way of isolating the imagine, and of intensifying dramatic incident” (Eisner 65). We have already established an empathetic connection with him from earlier sequences so the surrounding people jeering at him in the mise-en-scene and our eyes seeing the ex-porters shock at the sight of the people jeering at him implies a powerful subjective apprehension of the ex-porters mindset and emotions. We feel his shame along with him. In this case we still feel the ex-porters subjective perspective through camera placement. The camera techniques establish an emotional bond with the audience, which wholly conveys the idiosyncratic possibilities within the filmic medium. It also signifies a historic departure away from the prevalent notion that film is just purely an extension of theatre and should be judged as so. The same can be said for the static shot-reverse-shot at the beginning of the “mocking montage” sequence. We already know prior to the sequence that the ex-porter has riddled himself with shame due to being demoted. When we see a static shot of the woman anticipating the ex-porters arrival the shot acts symbolically as a subjective extension of the ex-porters shame. We have a case of the power of subjectivity extending beyond the subject of shame and into the person shaming. We anticipate and feel the ex-porters internal shame before he even appears in the mise-en-scene and as mentioned earlier, the tracking shot that follows only enriches and enhances the shame. This too is apparent when we see Murnau’s creative and artistic use of lighting. Although the ex-porter is not in the mise-en-scene upon his arrival in the sequence we see a distorted and phantasmagorical shadow that literally entails the ex-porters shame. Lighting and cinematography here are standing “upon the thresholds of its own methods” (Figge 317). They are narrative devices being used to give The Last Laugh a subjective narration. Lastly we will analyse how montage and editing played a principle role in the development of film during the 1920s as an artistic and individual medium. We examined earlier that the camera does not necessarily have to mimic the eye of the ex-porter for the shot to demonstrate his subjective state of mind. The “mocking montage” sequence ends with a montage in which the camera literally mimics an exaggerated, hyper-mediated imprint of the ex-porters vision and state of mind simultaneously. It is a climactic end to the theme of shame and humiliation in the “mocking montage sequence.” Montage here is characterised as “the combination of two or more images in simultaneously in one frame.” (313). The ex-porter walks off frame after which it is then replaced by jeering faces superimposed over the original background. The camera here acts as a hyper-mediated subjective apprehension of the vision the ex-porter just experienced. We are literally “seeing” what he saw. Murnau focused on capturing the facial features that accentuated the “mockingness” of the features and then agglomerated them at sharp angles over the frame. The low-key lighting created a high contrasted image [sharp contrast of the blacks and the whites], which resulted in shadowy and sinister looking facial features. We don’t need to see the ex-porters reaction to his public shaming because his experienced reality becomes innovatively imprinted on the screen and we thus experience his shame subjectively. The camera acts as a “living narrative instrument” (Ott 66) that which tells a subjective narration. We have a “recreation of the characters perspective” (Corrigan and White 480) and it wholly and graciously demonstrates that the camera can be seen as a tool that has the potential to depart cinema from being perceived as a sub category of theatre. It shows film can be viewed as an individual art form. Our last discussion of the “mocking montage” sequence will scrutinise the importance of editing that has been overlooked amongst much literature about The Last Laugh. Editing “generates emotions and ideas through the construction of patterns of seeing” (163). The Last Laugh has a constructed pattern of cuts that has been consciously organised too fully embody a subjective narration. The organisation of the shot reverse shot is the process by which makes sense of two events that would otherwise appear to occur in isolation. We thus by virtue of editing, that is the construction and linkage of cuts, are able to see that in the “mocking montage” sequence the woman in the window is waiting for the ex-porter and additionally see by virtue of the editing that she is anticipating his shame. This ‘pattern of seeing’ is a constructed process and art form that embodies and tells a subjective narration of the ex-porter. This innovation was seen in Robert Weine’s, “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. There were 378 cuts in the completed film with a logical interweaving both of shots and sequences (Ott 50). “The result [was] an emotional experience that is both intense and highly subjective” (50). Although The Last Laugh truly engaged in an innovative, artistic and subjective narration we can see that it acknowledged the editing innovations from its historical antecedents. We see The Last Laugh as a historical milestone but also a humble borrower of other past milestones. “The Last Laugh was voted among the ten best films in the history of cinema [in 1958], by an international jury of critics at the Brussels International Exposition” (Eisner 5). Film theorist Siegfried Kracauer went on to argue “the German screen exerted world-wide influence, especially after the total evolution of its studio and camera devices in The Last Laugh” (Kracauer 4). We can say finally that the fact The Last Laugh was featured internationally in New York, the capitol of Theatre in the United States of America, is indicative (brilliantly) of its historical stance as the developer of film as an art and the demonstration of some of the possibilities inherent in the filmic medium (Figge 307). The “Mocking montage” sequence is a prime example of this films historic success and it certainly encapsulates the overall subjective flavour of the whole film itself. It is quiet clear then, upon analyses of the “mocking montage” sequence, the cinematic impact of The Last Laugh and its place in the history of cinema. But we can also analyse a film in terms of the social context it was born out of. We can say much about The Last Laugh as a whole, but the “mocking montage” sequence says much in particular about the zeitgeist of the post-war German people and much about the important role German people placed on authority and additionally, the consequences of placing such high stakes on authority. The “mocking montage” sequence illuminates clues about the state that the Weimar Republic was in post 1920s and much about human condition of Germans during that period. But in order to make sense of the “mocking montage” sequence and develop these claims we must explore and understand a few facts about post World War One Germany. The focus will be on the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles was one of the more momentous and significant treaties that ended the war between Germany and the global Allied Powers. Germans faced mass humiliation and shame upon the ramifications the Treaty imposed on Germany. “The ill-conceived Treaty of Versailles caused many Germans to reject the politicians who had signed the humiliating peace” (Morris 61). Historian J.W. Hiden argues, “the terms of the treaty signed between Germany and the Allied and Associated Powers at Versailles were so objectionable to the German masses, and thus how to conduct foreign policy, formed the subject of prolonged dispute between parties and was therefore directly related to the internal peace of the republic.” (10). It is quiet clear that Germans where heavily and vehemently reluctant to agree to the signing of the treaty. “The 138 votes in the National Assembly against authorising the government to sign which included the Democrats, were only the most immediately obvious sign of rejection and resentment felt by the entire German population” (10). The resulting consequences and conditions of the Treaty of Versailles were equally humiliating. “Germany’s overseas investment and property in enemy countries were confiscated […] the additional five year ban on protective tariffs […] [t]he loss of resources in the detached territories of the East and of the coal in the Saar region and […] Germany being forced to treat the long dominated and partitioned Poland as a great power” are the few of many conditions and consequences Germans faced after the signing of the treaty (12). The humiliation does not stop here. Historian Nelson Hall outlines that: “The treaty also called for the destruction of the German military. In future, the German army could consist of no more that 100,000 men. It was forbidden to possess large guns and was allowed only a limited number of smaller ones. [The] treaty [also] forbade the Germans to possess even one submarine. Perhaps the most severe aspects of the peace treaty were the provisions designed to fulfil Wilson’s demand for compensation for the destruction of war. The victors required Germany to accept full guilt for the outbreak of the war and to pay for all civilian damage and the cost of the armies occupation” (67). We see here then that is its quiet clear that Germans where publically outraged and humiliated over the Treaty or Versailles - down to upright rejection of it. They thus were forced to sign a treaty in collective shame – ultimately disrupting external foreign affairs and internal affairs too with a backlog of debt and maxims they must abide by and pay. The years of post 1920s were therefore an enigma off political and social shame coupled by intense internal upheaval. Its overall Zeitgeist was shame and resentment. How then might we read the “mocking montage” sequence in terms of these facts? Siegfried Kracauer argues that “[the] films of a nation reflect its mentality in a more direct way […] First, films are never the product of an individual but rather something that can be identified as an industrial production” and secondly that “films address themselves and appeal to the anonymous multitudes” (5). With this in mind we can say that firstly the “mocking montage” sequence can be read as Germans ultimate shame, their inability to fully resign and accept the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles alongside their xenophobic tendencies towards foreign Allied countries. When we see the static shot of the woman anticipating the ex-porters arrival she acts as the how the Germans may have perceived the Allied Powers in the face of their defeat. It is a reflection of the collective German humiliation and shame. The distorted shadow only entails this humiliation. The fact the ex-porter still wears his uniform, although demoted, outlines that Germans have not yet resigned to the fact they had been defeated. Only after the German military authorities knew they could not use force to counter the signing of the Treaty would they sign it (Hiden 11). We can now mention that it’s the cinematography, lighting and editing, as referred to earlier, that helps us understand and make sense of the subjective shame of the porter. The role of editing, lighting and cinematographer too would have helped the German audience understand the porters shame and humiliation and naturally relate it back to theirs. The tracking shot, in which we see the ex-porter walk shocked and fearfully amongst the shaming also illustrates the prevailing xenophobia within post World War One Germany. We have established that The Treaty of Versailles disrupted foreign affairs, and that Germany viewed the Allied Powers in a very vengeful and angered light. We see the ex-porters fear and humiliation as he faces the camera, looking at us, looking at the German audience, while the people in the background insult and jeer at him. This would have appealed to the German audiences understanding and experience of their collective shame and humiliation at the time; they could see a manifestation of their countries collective Zeitgeist on screen. The mockers jeering at the ex-porter followed by the montage can be read as a climactic and heightened allegory for how the Germans felt at the hands of the Allied Powers victory and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. We understand that the “mocking montage” sequence can visually demonstrate to us its place in the history of silent film and that its cinematographic innovations explore the possibilities of characterisation inherent in film. That we use our understanding of the cinematographic, lighting and editing techniques to analyse how the film represents Germany’s shame and how German’s may have read the film is also indicative that film is far more than just moving images. The Last Laugh is a crucial landmark in the history of silent film and a critical part of our understanding of the Weimar Republics social and political history. Works Cited: Bade, James, N. “Murnau’s ‘The Last Laugh’ and Hitchcock’s subjective camera.” Quarterly Review of Film and Video. Volume 23 (2006): 257-266. Routledge. Print. Corrigan, Timothy and Patricia White. The Film Experience: An Introduction. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. Print. Eisner, Lotte H. Murnau. London: Secker & Warburd, 1973. Print. Figge, Richard. C. “Montage: The German Film of the Twenties.” Comparitive Literature Studies 12.3 (Sept., 1975): 208-322. Media and Society: Montage, Satire and Cultism between the Wars. Print. Hiden, J.W. The Weimar Republic. London: Longwood, 1974. Print. Kardish, Laurence. Weimar Cinema, 1919-1933. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2010. Print. Kracauer, Siegfried. From Caligari to Hitler. London: Dennis Dobson Ltd, 1947. Print. Morris, Warren B. The Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. Illinois: Nelson-Halll Inc, 1982. Print. Ott, Frederick W. The Great German Films. Canada: Citadel Press, 1986. Print. Overy, Richard. Complete History of the World. London: Times Books, 2011. Print.
Posted on: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:53:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015