As much as I like this movie, and as much as several elements from it have been part of my family shorthand lexicon for decades, I don't know that I ever thought of it as great. Perhaps my criteria differ so widely from the AFI's that it's not even a fair test. Let's examine.
My definition of a great film is one that has a solid reason to exist, and rises to that reason in every aspect of its production. While on the surface this movie is just a silly, chaotic farce, can one really call that a reason to exist? I don't see why not, especially considering the context. At the same time that this movie was released, Georges Bataille et al were spinning themselves into an overly serious echo chamber in France. The ponderous weight they gave to their project, and the deadly seriousness with which they pursued it, were no doubt factors in its ultimate failure. Is there not something to be said for mockery and parody as tools, rather than philosophical omphaloskepsis?
And if it is granted that such a goal is valid, necessary even, does Duck Soup rise to its purpose? Clearly it does. The performances, production value, and writing were all top tier, far above what was necessary for the stated ends. Why then do I hesitate to call this movie great? Is it just snobbery? I didn't hesitate to apply the label to Modern Times or The Gold Rush, both equally silly and equally well-executed. Perhaps it is snobbery, but not against comedy. The only hesitation I can find in myself is that the music was uninspired. Is that one flaw enough to justify my caution, or am I just feeling bitchy?
No comments:
Post a Comment