The films Red and It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World have very little in common. And, what they do have in common, have to be connected in sort of a vague way. I will be focusing on the difference between the vague connections.
One of the first things that I noticed that the films have in common is that they both contain humor, and the humor only lasts for about two-thirds of the films. The difference, however, is in the type of comedy. The comedy found in Red comes from the fact that the situations that the characters encounter are unrealistic, and they deal with it in an unrealistic way such as when John Malkovich’s character bats a grenade with his gun back at the grenade thrower and explodes him. The comedy in It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World comes from its actors: they are comedians put into real life situations, and we expect them to get out of the situation in a funny way.
The second commonality I noticed was that both films contain a form of greed and deal with it differently. The difference here is that in It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, the main characters are dealing with greed over hidden money. How the characters deal with greed is through comedy. In Red, however, the main characters are attempting to survive an assassination attempt spawned by a greedy arms dealer. Greed in this film is shown as a bad attribute to have.
The last and probably biggest connection I found between the two films is that they both appeal to an older audience. It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World appeals to an older audience because it contains many actors and comedians from the era it was made in, so an older audience member will know much more about the actor and possibly appreciate the actor more than a younger viewer might. Red appeals to an older audience for almost the same reason as It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World except that the film was made in this era.
Red and It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World do not have much in common, and what they do have in common has very little relation to each other. Both films contain comedy, greed, and an allure for an older audience.
The humor in Mad world was mostly laughed at the film itself. Mostly the audience laughed at the poor quality in humor that did not live up to our present date. Difference in humor to Red was the audience laughed at the humor instead of the quality of humor in the film. Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteNot really because what is considered good humor varies by age and from person to person. Just because the humor in "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" is dated doesn't mean it's not funny. That's like saying that the humor found in Shakespearean plays is poor quality just because it's outdated.
ReplyDelete