The concluding scene of The Last Laugh depicts the incredible gluttony and generosity of the unnamed, demoted doorman after he miraculously inherits a fortune from a dying American millionaire. He feasts on mounds of food, eating caviar as if it were candy and drinking champagne as if it were water. A tracking shot of the "spread" emphasizes the opulence and indulgence of our hero. What is the point of this ending? Is is a happy ending or a parody of a happy ending? Is this supposed to be objective reality or a fantasy? Is this a cynical commercial ploy or is there deeper significance to the ending?
I think that this ending is a parody of a happy ending, and represents the greed of man during the 20th century. I think it’s kind of obvious that the director did not want to create this ending, and simply made it so extravagant and outrageous that it’s so unrealistic and unbelievable from the audience's standpoint. The initial pan of the lavish feast establishes just how vast the opulence of the scene is, and also provides a visual example of just how much money the main character has inherited. The irony of his previous coworkers now serving him like slaves further indicates the satire of this ending. Also, the fact that he gained all of that wealth from pure luck seems to add to just how parodical the entire sequence is. The money never seemed to be an issue when he was fired from the doorman position and demoted to the bathroom. It seemed to be more of a conflict of pride rather than financial concerns. So, it seems truly satirical that all of this man’s problems would be solved from gaining an enormous sum of money, when the true problem lied in his sadness from demotion. As the audience, it felt as if this ending was a dream sequence. It just felt too outrageous to be possible and even fulfilling for the protagonist in any sense. However, while it seems unbelievable that the main character was fulfilled, it did seem to be the case for him, which causes me to believe that this ending truly showcases the shallowness of society in the 1920s and the greed of man. The fact that the protagonist forgot all of his troubles with his demotion and moved on to become the guests that he used to serve seems superficial. The chaos of the scene and the depiction of the waiters running around to serve him and his friend wielding more dishes than the last seems to further emphasize the greedy nature of the protagonist, as it is humanly impossible to eat all of the food that was shown in this scene. In conclusion, this ending seemed to be over-the-top in its lavishness and therefore satirical to portray the greed of man and the state of upper class society in the 1920s.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of The Last Laugh, I feel the author was trying to encapsulate many different thoughts and emotions to his ending. One idea of why the author ended like that was to appease Hollywood and the publishers because it was such an abrupt and somewhat unfinished ending when the man is just falling asleep in the bathroom chair. While the ending was last minute and not the director’s choice, he definitely was not unintentional with the emotion he was conveying in the end. The ending scene was a parody of how 99% of films end with the unexpected twist that works out great for the man character. In this case, an old millionaire happens to die right in his arms, and the millionaire said in his will that however dies in his arms will inherit his fortunes. The likeness for that to happen is very unlikely, and the filmmaker showed some of the crazy irrationality that comes with the fairytale ending. People are reading the periodical and laughing in the first scene of the ending. The newspaper is telling an outrageous story, and people are laughing and almost making fun of the whole situation. The director showed them hysterically laughing to show how much of a joke the fairytale ending was. The stereotype of this ending continues when he goes to the bathroom between him eating these huge food spreads. He sees the bathroom guy and is very nice to him. He hugs and gives him some sort of money or valuable goods in his pocket. He smokes a cigar with him and treats like a friend. Going back to where you came from and treating people how he wishes he were treated. It is all very stereotypical and fairytale-like. As I watch the ending, I do not feel like it lines with the story and the plot; it feels out of place and insane to be considered the ending. I think there is a deeper meaning to all that is happening. I think the outrageous and out-of-place ending makes the viewer question the validity of happy endings and how they most likely do not happen out of pure luck. Especially for the time frame in Germany, many people dreamed of this type of life where they were not in debt from WW1 and unemployed anymore. People needed a millionaire to die with an immature will, but the director tells the population that this 180 flip of assets and lifestyle is only a dream.
ReplyDeleteBecause the producer of the movie did not want to end on a “happy ending” I believe he created this ending as a sort of protest against his employer. Therefore, I would call it a parody of a happy ending. Firstly, the possibility of this happening is so farfetched, that it is very difficult as a viewer to accept the main character’s enjoyment. Not only did he not earn the money, but we didn’t even see the actual scene where the millionaire died. If the director had instead added such a scene, and had the main character display heartfelt emotion or anything that would let him be deserving of such wealth, than the viewer might be able to stomach it. But, because it was not, such an inconceivably rare occurrence is just left to the viewer to visualize for themselves. In that sense, I believe the director was still able to succeed in displaying his initial intended message: that the world is bleak, not everyone gets to enjoy it, and even for those who do, it does not last forever. This final scene feels like a fantasy world, with a jump cut from a character so depressed he looks like he could die any second, to a character who has everything he could want and more to spare. Although the character could be pictured to be in such a situation if he had money, as evident by the party scenes earlier in the movie, it still just doesn’t feel real. The impression given by the final fade out of the director’s desired last scene is so much more impactful than that of the new one, adding another layer to the forced feel of the final scene. The director was tasked to give a “happy scene,” and he did exactly that; however, because of its outrageous claims for suspension of disbelief and its juxtaposition with the rest of the film, it just doesn’t fit. So even though the scene may be the reality of the film, and there are no special effects to signify it being a dream of the main character, it comes off as little more than a parody, his hopeful desire that could never really come to pass.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think the purpose of this ending in the film was simply to give the viewers a happier and more exciting ending than the original one the director wanted, there is also a deeper significant meaning behind it. This ending seemed incredibly surreal, as the protagonist went from depressed in the bathroom to suddenly rich and feasting on whatever food he wanted literally overnight. The point of this ending seems to be to show how money can give happiness, as the viewers can see the exaggerated joy and jolliness in the protagonist’s face and body language. His life has clearly taken a shift and he is actually happy. Suddenly instead of giving towels to other men in the bathroom and helping them wash their hands, he is giving money to the man who gives him the towel in the bathroom. While at first it seems like a happy ending, with him eating tons of exquisite foods, surrounded by gifts and waiters, riding on a carriage, it actually feels more like a parody of a happy ending. Instead of fixing his problem of a loss of pride and self-worth from losing his job, perhaps by having him move on and look for other jobs, or accepting the separation between his identity and his old job as a doorman, we are given an ending which seems fantastical and very unlikely to ever actually occur. The sudden gain of that much money might help him in many aspects of his life, but we never see if his relationships that he ruined were ever mended. We don’t see his family (the older woman and the newlywed couple) ever in the ending, and we don’t know if they ever forgave him for lying to them.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the ending of the film was a complete and utter parody. This end of this film seems to poke fun at other movies by saying that every story cannot have a fairytale ending. The overall film conveys a very sad tone as it displays a man losing his job along with his pride in the style of traditional German expressionism. The suddenness in the change of events for the doorman is certainly meant to show that it is extremely unrealistic. He goes from being a bathroom attendant to a rich man that can afford anything that he desires. The film also does not spend much time saying how all of this came about. If the ending was supposed to be natural, the creator of the film likely would have spent more time explaining it. I believe that the filmmaker wanted to use the panning camera angles to display the grand nature of the feast. He wanted to show film viewers that this grand life is not accessible to the common man. He tries to show that it takes a miracle such as this for someone to turn their life around. I believe that the film is taking a satirical approach to showing a man getting knocked down by life. By exaggerating the ending, the filmmaker is showing that these types of things cannot happen in the real world. As the doorman becomes wealthy due to sheer luck, he is now free to access all of the benefits of the world. The fact that this movie is in the style of German Expressionism makes me believe that it is meant to attack our emotions. By rewarding the character when he is down, it makes the viewer think about what they are missing in their own lives. This film serves as a cruel reminder of reality.
ReplyDeleteI believe the director of this film intended to draw a comparison between the real world and a fantasy. Initially, the man was a positive person with an outgoing personality, but this soon evolved into a desire to withdraw from his family and friends. He is discovered after some time in hiding but continues to hide and sleep in the restroom due to humiliation and guilt. The fantasy scene is particularly similar to the happy ending of a standard Hollywood film. Everything appears to be too good to be true, with unlimited food, drinks, and plenty moments of joy by everyone. It's practically a joke on happy endings, as the director portrays the situation as a pipe dream rather than an actual happy ending. This makes the audience believe that the man will wake up at any minute. It is common that many films have these fanciful happy endings, and the director intentionally made the conclusion as cheesy as possible to provide commentary and to contrast what the true ending is. The lesson communicated by the film's closing is that the real world is often full of depressing and unpleasant outcomes. This conclusion creates a more significant impact on the film’s actual ending. The film's ending also emphasizes how money can bring happiness, as demonstrated by the man's excessive body language. Instead of handing towels to other men in the bathroom and assisting them with hand washing, he is now handing money to the man who hands him the towel with a huge grin on his face. The man's ideal of a life worth living is a life full of money, happiness, and success.
ReplyDeleteOne word to shortly describe this film is depressing. The silence and artistic choices only add to this emotional feeling throughout the movie, which is why I feel as though the ending seemed out of place. This ending felt unsatisfying and out of place because its almost like it was pulled out of thin air. It was sudden compared to the recent events in the movie. And while happy endings are almost a standard in movies, it just did not fit here. It’s almost as if the director of the movie took pity on the doorman and randomly gave him all the fortune he could imagine. Of course, I wanted to see the doorman have a happy ending, but the way it was done didn’t feel natural or worked up to, it just happened suddenly. I would’ve been more satisfied, all be it, a little depressed, if they had a more realistic ending to this story. However, despite all this, movies don’t need to be realistic to be good. This film showed the true sadness and pain that is everyday life for a lot of people, but the happy ending to this movie leaves you feeling better than you did throughout the main conflict of the plot, which is the purpose of happy endings.
ReplyDeleteI believe the concluding scene of The Last Laugh is a parody of a happy ending. The director wanted the movie to end with a sad scene and did not think a happy ending was necessary or fit the theme of the movie leading up to that point. The studio made him add to the movie and create a happier ending, so he did just that. He created an ending that consisted of a millionaire dying in his arms, and that millionaire just so happened to write in his will that whoever is with him when he dies, should inherit all of his money. This scenario is completely fantastical and outrageous. He then proceeds to have an extravagant dinner full of expensive main courses and champagne. The scene completely contradicts the feeling of the whole movie. The Last Laugh covers themes of grief, sadness, and depression, but the director did not want to throw all of this away just to have a positive ending which is why I believe the ending to be sarcasm or parodical. He purposely made the scene stick out and seem out of place almost making fun of the studio for forcing him to do such a thing. I think the movie should have ended when the director desired rather than the studio because the unhappy ending is more emotional and is consistent with the theme of grief. I do not have a great understanding of the beginning of the movie, so it is difficult to talk about specific plot points in depth. Regardless, I believe the original ending should have been the only ending. One of my favorite movies of all time is Scarface, and its theme revolves around the dangers of greed and being power hungry. *Spoiler alert* Tony Montana, the main character, is killed at the end of the movie which really solidifies the movie’s message: “Being powerful does not make you invincible”. This ending is definitely on the sadder side, but it makes it memorable and leaves the viewer with something to think about.
ReplyDeleteThe ending of the Last Laugh is depicted as a parody of a happy ending and an unattainable fantasy. Up until the epilogue of the film, the filmmakers of the Last Laugh express the realities and natural occurrences of life. For example, the doorman is fired causing his mental health to decline, which is a very plausible thing to happen in society. Then suddenly, the doorman goes from the darkest point in his life to a state of utter bliss with the snap of a finger. It seems as though the filmmakers were forced into creating this alternative ending. Instead of making a semi-optimistic ending, they decided to create this over-the-top, unbelievably happy ending to remain true to their original ending. The filmmakers depict the idea that, in order for the doorman’s life to drastically change to a content state, the impossible would have to occur. For instance, the doorman receives the wealth that changes his life when he happens to be in the right place at the right time. He earns his fortune when someone, who has a will that says his money belongs to the one he dies by, passes away by his side. The chances of this rare case occurring are slim to none. The filmmakers exaggerate the happy ending to illustrate that erasing the doorman’s past requires a miracle. After being fired from his job, the doorman is ridiculed and shamed; then, he becomes depressed and starts to get drunk to fill the void of losing his job. The filmmakers create this parody happy ending of the doorman shoveling cake and caviar into his mouth to make the statement that the doorman’s past can only be forgotten if some insane luck comes his way.
ReplyDeleteThe end of The Last Laugh was a cynical commercial ploy to fulfill the needs of the production company and the viewers. The company end seemed to be a parody of a happy ending because it is unbelievable and frustrating. The "happy ending" basically came out of nowhere to try and entertain the viewers rather than what the director wanted. The director's ending concludes with the main character wasting his life away and waiting for his death. This ending makes more sense because it actually follows the storyline of The Last Laugh and the themes within it. Many viewers admired the main character which made it difficult to have a depressing ending. Rather than the sad ending, the production company created a fantasy ending to accommodate what the viewers wanted. The new ending has the main character almost randomly inherit money and he becomes a millionaire. He is constantly eating expensive food, drinking champagne, and giving away his money to almost everyone. This ending is unbelievable and frustrating. It did not fit with any major ideas within the rest of the movie. It also came out of nowhere which made me lose interest because I thought the film was over but then continued to its alternate ending. Also, it made me lose partial respect for the film because they changed the ending as a result of their fear about how the audience would react to the film rather than how they felt. It felt like a desperate attempt to save a movie that did not need to be saved.
ReplyDeleteI believe that then ending of The Last Laugh was a parody that did not accurately represent the true ending of the story that the director was trying to show. The story is a constant buildup of how the main character as the doorman gets older and more unable to work. Once he is demoted from his original job, he loses a sense of his own pride and that is the main point the story tries to convey. The new job of the doorman washing people’s hands in the bathroom and cleaning the floor. The doorman is shown to be miserable and defeated. The final scene begins with a wide moving shot of the doorman feasting at a fancy restaurant eating large amounts of the most expensive ingredients. This ending is obviously a fairy tale ending and makes no sense because of the strange way he acquired wealth. He tries to show that it takes a miracle such as this for someone to turn their life around. By exaggerating the ending, the filmmaker is showing that these types of things cannot happen in the real world. The doorman becomes wealthy in the most unlikely way and he is now free to access all of the benefits of the world. The fact that this movie is in the style of German Expressionism makes me think that it is meant to grab our emotions by rewarding the character when all is lost. It makes the viewer think about what they could have in their own lives. In reality this situation is completely unlikely where you are given a lifelong fortune due to luck.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the ending to The Last Laugh was a parody to a happy ending to a movie. The director originally intended for the movie to have a sad and dramatic ending, but the studio made him change it. The new ending has the man miraculously catch an older man in his arms as a he dies. On the older man’s will, it states that the last person to see him before he dies is set to inherit his fortune. The man that dies, also happens to be millionaire and now the man who caught him,, who used to be a member of the lower class, is now a millionaire. As a result of inheriting all the money, he know parties like crazy, drinks champagne like its water, eats spoon fulls of caviar like it’s ice cream, and seems to have unlimited attention and food. So after working for pennies hoping that he could get his job as doorman back, the man’s life does a complete 180 degree turn in the other direction to where now, the only thing he has to worry about is how much more steak and cake he can stuff into his body. To me, the ending just does not fit the movie at all, and acts as a way to make fun of happy endings. The director’s version of the ending fits the actual movie a lot more and relates more the melancholy and sad themes of the movie. The studio ending does not gel well with the rest of the movie and really makes it feel like it was just added on.
ReplyDeleteThe ending of The Last Laugh was most definitely a parody of a happy ending, as the film was supposed to end sooner, though the director was forced to extend the movie and end it happily. The concluding scene did not seem to fit with the rest of the film and completely disregarded the themes from earlier in the film. In addition, there is no transition between the protagonist’s state of mind, almost instantly healing from his depression due to some miracle. The protagonist becomes incredibly happy, despite still not achieving his previous goal of being the doorman, which he had previously been demoted from. The sole purpose of this ending appears to be to give the film a happy ending, even if the happy ending really wasn’t what the film needed. Near the beginning of the concluding scene, a tracking shot illustrates the sudden transformation of the protagonist, immediately becoming a millionaire without much explanation. The ending scene could be considered a sort of fantasy, as it portrays a miracle situation that the protagonist could probably only dream of. Everything before the ending appears to be quite realistic in the portrayal of the demise of the protagonist, though the ending has a more magical tone to it, not seeming quite as realistic as the rest of the film. Almost everything in the final scene seems to be completely out of place, as though it were part of an entirely different film. The characters act quite differently from how they had before, and the ideas of the film completely shift.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the final act of The Last Laugh was a dream had by the doorman. In actuality, it was probably a hastily written script because of demands made to the director. However, a good film allows the viewers to speculate I guess. So, the three reasons of why it is a dream include: the unrealistic premise and that in the final scene in the bathroom he seems to fall asleep. The presence of the night guard means its night. Perhaps since the position that the doorman takes as the camera fades out, one where he is slumped over in a chair in a resting position, means that he fell asleep. One could make the counter point that earlier in the film when a dream sequence is shown it is far different that what is seen at the end of the film. Such is a valid argument but fails to recognize that in the dream sequence where he has super strength he is dreaming in an intoxicated state so of course their will be distortion affects and the like. There is one aspect that both of these sequences share, that being how both envision the ideal situation for the doorman. Its evident that the doorman dreamt up this scene because the events of the second dream seem like the idea of what being wealthy is from the perspective of someone looking in on wealth. For example, eating and serving caviar like its mashed potatoes and that the name of the millionaire who died in his arms name was Mr. A. G. Money.
ReplyDeleteThe ending to the Last Laugh was more of a parody then an actual ending for many reasons. One of them being the ending doesn't match the rest of the films theme and is just flat out unrealistic. The whole movie starts out with the main character being happy with his life and then suddenly he loses just about everything. On top of the ending not fitting the theme of the movie the way the protagonist receives the money is even more ridiculous. Despite the ending being outrageous it fits the name of the movie rather well in the sense that the protagonist does get the last laugh. The ending is definitely a more fantasy like ending because of just how it happened. To inherit millions of dollars because a millionaire randomly died in your arms while going to the bathroom unrealistic to say the least. There might be another meaning to the ending in the sense that the director left it up to interpretation by leaving details that it could be a dream.
ReplyDeleteThe happy ending depicted in the film The Last Laugh shows a false sense of reality. Throughout the film it shows the slow decline of the main characters work and life. I think it is showing the flaws in social norms and the loss of one’s job/age is detrimental. The whole film is building up to the moment when he loses everything that he has but with the happy ending acts as if everything was okay and worked out in the end. Money is what carries you in that type of society and the only reason he was able to prosper in the end was because he inherited it. Money is like power and gives you a spot in the social class that’s considered “better”. For the point of the movie aspect it adds a light and comical ending for the viewers but it’s fake and unrealistic. If you analyze it more and aren’t just watching it for the movie purpose but for a deeper meaning it shows how harsh social norms in society can be. In fact, we still have those today. He had a great life with lots of friends and a good amount of money to support him but because he got old and started aging and losing his memory and functionality he got replaced. That right there represents a lot of what happens in the real world. There’s always someone better and someone who can always replace you. But on the brighter sides of things there’s also a way to come back from that in a less fantasy like way that the movie showed.
ReplyDelete