Isnt it ironic:- that the 'Make 'em laugh!' Scene.... - Singin' in the Rain (1952) Discussion

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

I disagree, but I can see your reasoning. In a modern context, it isn't funny and the dancing is probably mediocre for today. But, back then, it was probably hilarious.

In terms of the movie, I see the scene as a subtle parody of the silent-movie era acting, e.g. Charlie Chaplin. The whole walking-into-a-wall, and hitting a plank, etc. work as something of a reference to the silent movies and over-acting within them.

As for the dancing, if I assume correctly (that's an if), Gene Kelly was a keen perfectionist, and he choreographed every scene, and if it didn't please him, there would be endless reshoots. He made Debbie Reynolds' feet bleed. So, even if the scene isn't as 'exciting' as you'd like, having to be as physical as Donald O'Connor was in that scene would be incredibly painful to do over and over.

As for your comment about the backflips ("something that any average gymnast could do better."). Of course they could, that's their job. Donald O'Connor is an entertainer, not a gymnast.

Personally, I think the movie is fast-paced, so the slow songs that you mentioned always mess up the pacing a little for me, but that's my opinion and I don't expect you to agree.

reply

[–] ConnorBradley67 12 years ago

The scene was very taxing for him due to his smoking habit on top of having it do it over and over again.

reply

[–] TheLightFantastic 12 years ago

I never found the number funny but I do think O'Connor's dancing is fabulous. It's obvious that the number was demanding and I wasn't surprised when I read that O'Connor supposedly collapsed after filming it.

Was the number really suppose to be hilariously funny? I think the idea was that it was suppose to be entertaining, not gut busting.

reply

[–] pullman1881 11 years ago

Remember, the movie takes place in the late 20s when slapstick was considered to be funny (e.g., the Keystone Cops). I never find slapstick funny, but in the context of the film, it makes sense. And Donald O'Connor was terrific!

reply

[–] lxb-668-398627 11 years ago

dont forget that at THIS time there were no parkour and break dancing. This simply didnt excist- And If u get this as background in your head.. the scene is very special. Until that ..the people have never seen something like this before.. and even if there were some movies before... this was a hard and good performance.. by the way.. Donald recorded this scene with a lot of hard work and a really great choreography.. but that part was distroyed by a accident and so he had to do it all again. And this although he needed some days at BED after the first recording ;)

reply

[–] murph24 12 years ago

Couldn't disagree more. You may have been "cringing," but I've seen Singin' In The Rain at least five times in movie theaters, and "Make 'Em Laugh" had the majority of the audience cheering on each occasion - that is, when they weren't laughing uproariously.

I think it's one of the most joyful, exuberant and (yes) funniest musical numbers ever put on film. And needless to say, Donald O'Connor performs it magnificently.

reply

[–] terryperring104 12 years ago

.......'different strokes' I guess. I think most people will find this very unfunny. The kind of people who laugh at this sort of thing tend to be older and very gentle.

I'll wager your not a Monty Python fan????

reply

[–] murph24 12 years ago

I'll wager your not a Monty Python fan????

Are you kidding? Monty Python rocks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWh9JbBZC_Q

Just curious - why would you think that someone who likes "Make 'Em Laugh" wouldn't like Monty Python?

reply

[–] donelp 12 years ago

I LOVE this scene! One of my favorites!

reply

[–] Redhawkof2008 12 years ago

The kind of people who laugh at this sort of thing tend to be older and very gentle.

I'm 22 and found this funny, so au contraire.

"It was a horrifying thought. Our once proud nation...shaped like a wiener dog."

reply

[–] terryperring104 12 years ago

He (O'connor) is trying so very hard, its embarrassing to watch. Were you smoking something?

reply

[–] Redhawkof2008 12 years ago

I'm not saying it was knee-slapping funny, but a got some smiles out of his act.

"It was a horrifying thought. Our once proud nation...shaped like a wiener dog."

reply

[–] hf_jai 11 years ago

Umm... no. On all counts. MOST people really like this dance number. And no, that includes members of all generations (granting that not too many young people have even seen the movie). "Gentle"? Hardly. I'm a retired Army officer and no what anyone would call "gentle." And yes, I am a hard core Monte Python fan.

Maybe when you get a little older you'll grow mature enough to enjoy great talent and creativity in all different genres of all different art forms.

reply

[–] terryperring104 11 years ago

I'm 51. Hey, did I say I didnt like it? I think the dancing and atheletic skills of O'Connor a tremendous. I just find his 'gurning' cringe-making.

reply

[–] keith-moyes-656-481491 11 years ago

Teddyperring - you're wasting your time.

When most people really love a movie, they can see no flaws in it. Of course, that is rubbish. There is no such thing as a perfect movie. You have mentioned one thing in this picture that bothers you. It doesn't bother me as much, but there are other slight weaknesses that I could mention.

Gene Kelly was not much of a singer. He could hold a tune and his voice was pleasant enough but it lacked power and range - the picture might actually have worked better if his songs had been dubbed (heresy!).

Kelly unwisely gave himself a couple of huge close-ups which only reveal he was somewhat older than the movie implies. In fact, when I saw the movie recently, they made me check his age on this site. At 42, he was probably already past his peak as a dancer and arguably a bit too old to be wooing the 19 year-old Debbie Reynolds's character.

He also wanted to involve the audience as much as possible in the dancing sequences, so he pushed the camera in as close as he could. But this means these sequences are very tightly framed and in my DVD version the dancers' feet actually go partly out of shot on a number of occasions. I find this a bit distracting. I am sure this is not what Kelly intended, but if it happened during the DVD transcription process it must also have been a problem in many cinemas when it was first shown.

However, none of this affects my overall enjoyment of the picture.

reply

[–] terryperring104 11 years ago

'Teddy'?? I'm Terry.
I agree with all you say there. Especially Kelly's voice. A bit dry and whispy.

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 2 years ago

Just watched it and laughed - yet.again!

reply

[–] ry-sz 11 years ago

That's because it's not supposed to be "funny", it was more like a tribute to old physical comedies.

reply

[–] dailyshampoo48 11 years ago

it was more like a tribute to old physical comedies.

Sort of. The old, silent physical comedies are descended from vaudeville. O'Connor himself was a vaudevillian, so that was kind of his schtick. These days humor tends to take the form of verbal witticisms (or fart jokes, but we'll ignore that), but it wasn't always so. I think it's okay to not think it's funny; the movie is over 60 years old and tastes have changed since then.

reply

[–] RubyHypatia 11 years ago

I agree that it's outdated humor, but still charming. I don't care for the gross humor of today, but I do love shows like Arrested Development, Malcolm in the Middle, The Big Bang Theory, My Name is Earl, just to name a few.

reply

[–] Lost_Woods87 11 years ago

I disagree. I found it quite cute and comical but I watch a lot of old movies. I still find modern comedy hilarious but I also like this as well. I can also see why some people in modern day just wouldn't find it appealing so to each his own.

reply

[–] arnoldbabar 11 years ago

What a bunch of joyless icebergs.

reply

[–] pc-daisy 11 years ago

I'm with you mate! Donald O'Connor was one of the best and as for the song/number, it was 1950's humour and supposed to be a bit stupid or 'corny' as the Americans would say, but unfunny? Not IMO. What do you want from a classic musical made in the 50's and set in the Roaring 20's?

reply

[–] TANSD76 11 years ago

I'm not going to say it's the most hilarious thing I've ever seen but I thought it was quite charming. It's not really a number that makes you laugh (for me personally) but one that you can't help smiling while watching. I thought it was a great send up of that kind of physical comedy and goofiness while also being a great example of it. It's just joyful. I can see why you might not find it funny but to say that he's trying too hard or that you didn't enjoy it... I just don't understand that. It's one of the best numbers in the movie.

And I prefer it to Joseph Gordon Levitt's attempt where I did feel a tiny bit uncomfortable because it seemed like he was actually hurting himself.

reply

[–] dsac1-137-868711 11 years ago

Isn't sad that so many people can't seem to put this scene in context of the time. We're so used to seeing gymnastics of today. In the 50's the physical demands were such that women were refused such things as the marathon in the olympics. The dance and the theme were, as stated earlier, a tribute to the silent era that was being subplanted by the talkies. We maybe older, but we've seen the changes and advances both in sophistication and abilities in dancers. Talent will always show through whether by Fred and Gene or the break dancers of today.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

I loved it and enjoyed the manner in which (presumably) Kelly and O'Connor incorporated all the studio props and workers into the choreography. It's very clever IMO.

reply

[–] terryperring104 11 years ago

agreed- it is very clever and acrobatic. It just ain't funny.

reply

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

If fate doesn't make you laugh, you just don't get the joke.

reply

[–] StarskyandChinaHutch 11 years ago

You obviously have yet to enjoy the subtle pleasures of honky-tonky monkeyshines, and you have my pity.

reply

[–] wwkentucky 8 years ago

Disagree. I think you're really, really, really wrong. His facial contortions (especially after hitting the brick wall) show off O'Connor's excellent comedic timing and control. His face is so rubbery, it's hilarious. My favorite parts of his dance are when he runs smack into the wooden plank and when the mannequin slaps his face. He was a brilliant physical comedian and a terrific dancer.

reply

[–] terryperring104 8 years ago

Are you an 'older' lady or chap? No offence intended. It seems to me that this sort of humour appeals to the older amongst us. Dare I say at least-that you don't like Monty Python, The Goons or-Radio 4 humour? (mind you the Pythons are all in their 70's now anyway)

O'Connor tries WAY to hard in this scene; its so FORCED! Not funny-if you can be objective about 'funny'? YOU find it funny so therefore it IS. But it wont make my ilk laugh.

This scene is funny in a 2nd generation way-like-''people used to laugh at THIS?'' That's funny!

Lets agree on this-he was a really brilliant dancer.

reply

[–] wwkentucky 8 years ago

I'm 49 and was first introduced to this film around 1977. My introduction to Monty Python came just a couple of years later, and I've always loved their humor. I'm not certain about The Goons --- if you mean Spike Milligan, Peter Sellers, et al., from Britain's old "Goon Show" radio series, then no, from my limited exposure to them (I'm an American), I haven't found them particularly funny. This could be the result of a generational divide or a cultural one, or more probably a combination of both. I've never heard of Radio 4. In my opinion, O'Connor's performance would only be forced if he were "forcing" himself to do bits of schtick that he personally didn't think were funny, and this happens maybe only once or twice in the whole routine --- toward the end, in front of the sofa, when he trips himself, falls, and struggles to get back up. But even that doesn't diminish the earlier laughs I've enjoyed or the overall humor of the piece, which, as mentioned by others in this thread, was choreographed (in part by O'Connor himself) as a salute to the great slapstick clowns of the Silent Era. I think his pantomime "romance" with the mannequin, his dexterity with the hat, and even his mugging seem to come quite naturally to him and flow seamlessly outward.

reply

[–] CapnKaos 8 years ago

Nah, I think you're just not in the loop so to speak. Most people remember this scene with fondness and a lot of that is due to Donald O'Connor's massive talent.

And before you feel the need to say anything, I first watched this movie when I was a youngster of about 12 and it's been a favorite of mine ever since. I'm also a huge fan of British comedy such as Monty Python, the Goons and Beyond the Fringe.

What you can gather from this is that while it might not be up your alley, that doesn't mean that everybody likes or dislikes the same things as you.

reply

[–] terryperring104 8 years ago

Maybe I should change the title to 'isn't it ironic that 'I' don't find it funny'?
I am fond of this movie period. It's just this one scene, makes me cringe a bit. I guess people feel the same about Vic Reeves.....whereas, I love him, so funny...

reply

[–] CapnKaos 8 years ago

It took you four years to figure that out?

reply

[–] liscarkat-2 7 years ago

"it isn't funny and the dancing is probably mediocre for today"

A monument to cluelessness.

reply