To the memory of those who made us laugh: the motley mountebanks, the clowns, the buffoons, in all times and in all nations, whose efforts have lightened our burden a little, this picture is affectionately dedicated.
In order to commemorate those who made us laugh: comedians, clowns, and harlequins of all kinds throughout the ages-their efforts have reduced our burden a little, this film is a special tribute.
Sullivan is a well-known Hollywood director. He is an artist with a sense of social responsibility. His worries about the polarization between the rich and the poor prompted him to make a film with serious social themes that reflect class contradictions, but the producer and boss hope that he will continue his previous success and continue to create in line with the market. They used his superior life experience as an excuse to advise him not to make such a movie. So in order to experience the low-level life, he decided to pretend to be a tramp and start a journey despite the objections of his friends. After traveling through several twists and turns, the poor life activities at the bottom shook his determination. Just when he decided to return to his identity as a rich man, he became a hard laborer by mistake. He experienced the torture of inhumans in prison, but was surprised to find that superficial and popular comedy brought great joy to people. This paralyzing art form is exactly what the vulnerable groups in dire straits need most.
Therefore, the film said in the opening speech: "This film is to commemorate those who made us laugh, comedians, clowns, and harlequins of all kinds throughout the ages. Their efforts have reduced our burden a little."
The author of the film seems to be just emphasizing the importance of commercial art through the film. But in my opinion, such a speech cannot conceal the negative meaning of this film.
The 1930s and 1940s were a period of great turmoil in the world. Wars, revolutions, economic crises, unemployment and displacement, oppression and resistance were the main themes of that era. On the one hand, the film exposed the profound social sufferings, on the other hand, it portrayed the poor class as A numb lamb that can only be treated with material charity and spiritual comfort. The film beautifies the inequality in the world as a matter of course and cannot be changed, and isolates the lives of the superior and the inferior into two completely parallel worlds. The logic it tries to deduce is: radical social criticism is not only unreasonable Being welcomed by the upper class does not help the suffering of the lower class. Obviously, the film not only opposes the revolution, but also does not allow mild reforms for social ailments. Regarding the established social structure, the purpose of the film is to maintain the instability of the status quo by strengthening moral conscience and advocating kindness and gratitude. This is manifested in compassion and generosity in the upper class, and obedience in the lower class. And docile. In short, the upper layer and the bottom layer should be independent of each other and should run on their own tracks as always.
I can’t say that such a frustrating result is that the director deliberately did it. The director may not have strong political intentions in the creative process. Perhaps he is just like the protagonist in the play expressing what an artist should have. Worries and good wishes for social prosperity and stability are just like the laughter that Mickey Mouse cartoons in the film brought to prisoners. Perhaps the original intention of the director was to hope that the poor people would be happier. However, the strong contrast between the living conditions of the rich and the poor in the film is extremely irritating, and it cannot but make people feel uncomfortable. Under such circumstances, social injustice is brought to an end in the spiritual song of religion and the smirk of cartoons. , How can this not let people feel disappointed!
After watching this film, I can’t help but sigh. Each of the films mentioned in Martin Scorsese’s documentary is so unique, either in terms of artistry or thought, and it is worthy of its entry into the palace of film history. This film has many technical highlights, and the one that I admire the most is the use of lens blur to express the consciousness of the characters. This should also open up ideas for future psychoanalytic films.
View more about Sullivan's Travels reviews
