The first one is type of humor appears in The Simpsons Movie used Raphaelson-West's theory (1989) and the humorous effect in the movie whether it successfully translated into target language or not that used Allison Ross’ theory (1998) about humor features. In the conclusion of her study, she stated that “there are three types of humor, those are three data of linguistic humor, four data of cultural humor, and five data of universal humor. In addition, the humorous effects are found namely two data of linguistic humor and three data of cultural humor are failed to be translated into Indonesian
Despite this emphasis on excitement, the intensified eroticism actually takes away from the meaningfulness of the movie. White’s review of Wild at Heart explains that Lynch, “congratulates that sophisticated insensitivity by overdoing delirium and using excesses of violence and sex to entertain decadent tastes” (14). In other words, Lynch caters to those viewers who are looking for aesthetically pleasing and overly stimulating scenes in a film rather than those that are more substantial and interesting. Sailor’s character, although over the top with his Elvis impersonation, is one aspect of the film which is somewhat representative of American life in the 90s, at least for men. He repeatedly explains that the snakeskin jacket he wears, “represents a symbol of [his] individuality, and [his] belief in personal freedom” (Lynch).
In Bottle Shock, a recurring element throughout the movie is the French superiority and snobbery over American made things. It was clear in the way that Steven acted around his friend, Maurice, and how he acted was he arrived in California. Maurice calls Steven out on how his shop, L’Academie du Vin, should be called L’Academie du Vin Français, because all he sells is French wine and that really doesn’t give his shop an international perspective or opinion in wines from other regions. Maurice even tells him how he read in the newspaper that the Californians are making wines that people think will begin to surpass the French. This leads to Steven’s idea and adventure of going to Napa Valley, California to find wines for a blind tasting competition in Paris.
"Everything must have a purpose?" asked God. "Certainly," said man. "Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this," said God. And He went away.” (265) to be not only an essential reading in the novel but also a fundamental piece of information on the topic of satire in Cat’s Cradle.
In the film adaptation of the novel, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, some of the original aspects that make the novel so timeless are not included in the movie. However, due to the vastly different medium that film is and the abstractness of the novel, it makes sense why some things would have to change in order for the story to transfer to the screen successfully. While many die-hard fans of the novel denounce the film version of their beloved story, others celebrate the presence of Adams’ wit in the movie especially through the cartoon representations of the guide entries. First of all, the Hitchhiker’s Guide is pictured much differently in the movie than in the novel. The creators of the movie portray the guide as an informative cartoon sequence, which really helps in moving the story along for those who are unfamiliar with the story.
This movie was sought out by the creators to give the viewers a rudimental ambivalence reaction from the beginning of the film of its opening sequence, which is a card reading “Once upon a time”, there is nothing suggestive about this opening that tells us anything further of the film, it is innocent and harmless but at the same time, it causes confusion from the viewers from the misleading title. The film then becomes to be consisting of seemingly irrelevant titles that come up, and to the explicit scenes that are somewhat nonsensical within the
Society was trying to create a “happy” environment, but the changes they made didn’t make society better in Bradbury’s eyes. To express his criticisms of society, he used his novel Fahrenheit 451 for all people to read them. Bradbury describes three significant social criticisms throughout the book. Bradbury demonstrates how society hides from reality by using
Moreover, some elements of the original show were omitted due to their cultural inappropriateness. In her doctoral dissertation The Adaptation of U.S. Television Programs in Foreign Markets: How Japan and France Put their Distinctive Spin on The Simpsons, Shari Ross Altarac points out that “numerous episodes dealing with taboo subjects such as homosexuality are censored from the Arab satellite network MBC.” (as cited in Rodríguez Martín ,2015). The witty lines and the hilarious comments and acts of the characters are funny because of what they relate to, since they are connected to the deep roots of the original targeted society and its culture. Once one watches The Simpsons, and then watches Al Shamshoon, one would immediately sense the huge gap and the inability of the Arabic version to deliver the amount of entertainment one feels and the smart implied messages one understands when watching The Simpsons. Hence, there is need to explore what goes wrong when trying to adapt such shows, what affects them when they are transformed into Arabic, and why they become successful, or not.
Kubrick : Audience Responses to 2001 : A Space Odyssey in the Late 1960’s”, based on fan-letters to Kubrick which applaud, interrogate and criticise the film, showcasing no substantial consensus as to what 2001 actually means. These divided responses range from expressions of livid confusion and dismissal, elaborate conspiracy theories, esoteric analogies, to an appreciation of the Stargate sequence by members of the hippie counterculture who viewed it as “The Ultimate Trip…but not of the space variety” (Krämer 1). The reason why 2001 transcends articulation and escapes definitive attachment of meaning is explained wonderfully none other than Kubrick himself : 2001… is a visual, nonverbal experience…I prefer not to discuss it’s meaning as it is highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates … his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses … it has
In the case of Percy Shelley v. American Movie Classics (AMC), I endeavor to establish that the Breaking Bad Finale Trailer: Ozymandias does not infringe on copyright laws, but rather it is a remix, or transformative work, specifically identified as “redistribution”. As defined by the esteemed Professor D.W. Edwards, redistribution is the “sharing and updating an already circulating text” (47). By adding to a preexisting text, in this case Shelley’s Ozymandias, a new product is created, thereby reaching a new audience. Therefore, by exploring the rhetorical devices, I will establish that the Breaking Bad Finale Trailer: Ozymandias is a successful remix as it reaches a different audience than Shelley’s intended audience and also mobilizes collective