Movies That Provoke Thought Through Comedy

Occasionally, there are important films that tend to greatly provoke serious thought as to their heavy social, political, cultural, or other meanings, either implicitly or explicitly understood.  The best of these, ironically, do so through humor, which can be either in a broad or narrow sense, as to what is done in the movie to provoke laughter. 

People, on average, tend more readily to remember jokes, funny incidents related, or just plain good stories; the last mentioned, at the least in terms of Western religious culture, is paralleled at its best by the many parables of Jesus Christ; and, in a much lesser sense, by the pleasant stories of such writers as, e.g., G.K. Chesterton.

Two movies that are held to be here worthy of some special note, because of the greatly stinging and truly disturbing social, political, and cultural commentaries contained in them, are both two comedies: “A Blast from the Past” and the other one is more simply titled: “Just Visiting.” 

They are, especially if seen more than once, quite disturbing cinema productions that will, sooner or later, provoke either strong negative or positive reactions; no one truly cognizant of the deeper meanings involved (or, at least, suggested) will just take a purely neutral position, if these films are watched with some degree of conscious intensity and not simply dismissed as being silly comedic things. 

In both productions, one seriously senses that there is necessarily something going on well beyond the easily observed jocularity, which can be taken for granted, of course.  One hopes, moreover, that they will be significantly rescued from the usual popular-culture oblivion, by this presented attempt to excite some well-deserved interest in these films.  And, discussion would be appreciated to let this reviewer know if he has totally misinterpreted these productions.

It is hard to immediately know if the producers and directors had, of course, deliberately made such films for the true and direct purpose of shoving such (slightly disguised?) commentary into the faces of the prospective viewers.  But, each time such films are seen, a viewer can get more and more out of these films by reflecting and thinking profoundly upon what the situations are manifestly portraying for viewing, beyond the simple and quite obvious plots. 

A Blast from the Past

In a “Blast from the Past,” the (amazing) proposition is put forth as to what if an American family, in Los Angeles, CA, in the very early 1960s, had elaborately prepared for surviving a nuclear war.  The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and, in particular, the very day of President John F. Kennedy’s speech to the nation concerning it makes this family decide to, thus, hide in their underground fallout shelter in case of a likely nuclear attack.

It was directed by Hugh Wilson and had starred: Dale Raoul, David Foley, Deborah Kellner, Nathan Fillion, Brendan Fraser, Christopher Walken, Alicia Silverstone, Sissy Spacek, Dave Foley, and Joey Slotnick.  A typical characterization of it, however, as merely a “lighthearted fish-out-of-water romance” hardly does true justice to the much broader realities of the work, though the plot appears simple enough, of course, as a farce about the Cold War Era, and its just often assumed neurotic aspects. 

To continue the storyline: ironically, a jet fighter pilot, during a routine flight, must eject from his plane; the abandoned jet plane lands explosively upon the couple’s house and burns it terribly.  Not having access to either a radio or TV makes these two people, a husband and his pregnant wife, falsely think that a nuclear war has actually started and that their house was, thus, at the center of a nuclear attack. 

They then deliberately lock themselves up, for 35 years, just awaiting the predicted time when the expected nuclear fallout would supposedly have basically dissipated, before going to the surface to see what the world of the survivers is like; in the meanwhile, they raise a son, whom they have (appropriately) named Adam. 

The father surfaces first and finds what he considers to be a largely destroyed world, which is, in reality, merely his own old neighborhood 35 years later, filled mainly (he assumes) with mutant humans due to the radiation poisoning, etc.  He strongly feels that normal human life and, in fact, wholesome American society, as he once knew such things, can no longer really exist as such; dismayed, in his mind, by such horrid things as, e.g., rampant pornography, he decides to still live, with a pessimistic fear, within their deeply underground fallout shelter.  The assumed devastation and evident destruction of a once-healthy society and culture disheartens him greatly.

To keep, however, descriptive matters rather brief, it will be just noted that Adam is sent to the surface to gather supplies for the family and to seek, if possible, a woman to marry— if she is not a mutant.  He is, thus, supposed to return the supplies to the underground compound, so that they can continue their former existence until better times, if ever, may return to America.  The ending of this movie is not given here, however, so as to encourage people to view this highly interesting and, moreover, intriguing film.

What will be explicitly stated is that there definitely appears (at least, to this reviewer) to be a great deal of commentary being given, as the various characters go about curiously interacting with each other.  America seems, shockingly, to have definitely lost the Cold War in that American society and culture is terribly depicted as having been, in a sense, mainly destroyed or, at the least, totally warped beyond basic recognition; and, this is certainly most especially concerning contemporary urban life and its implications.  Adam, however, finally comes to realize that no nuclear war had occurred, during the course of the story.

Deliberately sharp contrasts, at a minimum, are clearly and cleverly made between the once socially, culturally, morally, and spiritually superior America of the 1950s/very early 1960s versus the mostly quite decadent, degenerate, and mainly nihilistic America of the 1990s/present day.  Watching this movie, at least several times, grippingly forces people to come to recognize that all the joking, cognate farcical acts, various comedic situations, even the vilely extravagant cursing used, etc. are still designed, one guesses, to help to steadily or quickly provoke the viewer into thinking long and hard, profoundly and consciously, about this country’s contemporary domestic realities as gross moral failings.

The strongly made comparisons do seem to make people think that this country, not the Soviet Empire, had really lost the Cold War, instead of achieving the triumph that is usually just assumed as a fact of world history.  This nation, for the most part and concerning heavily its corruptive urban culture and related society, has become, more or less, an open cesspool regarding morality and ethics. 

Changes in social and cultural and moral attitudes, from the early 1960s into the 1990s, are made to appear as if they are, in fact, essentially equivalent or functionally equal to having had lost a war, without there being any (consequent) recovery upon the part of American society.

Watching the movie just once, however, may not stimulate much thought along these lines because it might be simply understood as a minor farce put into the form of a simplistic film; it could then be psychologically dismissed as such; most viewers probably would not, admittedly, grasp the greater issues and ideas that are fully contesting for attention.

 “A Blast from the Past” needs, thus, to be seen several times before one can then get at the much fuller context and content, put into a definitely holistic perspective, that mentally compels any truly thinking person to finally recognize the extraordinary, raw, biting commentary, as pungent wit, being thoroughly exposed; this is, certainly, through the highly forceful and surely illustrative dialogue, furthermore, used by the superb actors who easily articulate the various points of view and attitudes that are put into continuous contention; there are various kinds of interrelated, troubling social “confrontations” that are not really meant as such.  

The movie, though presented as just a silly comedy on its plain surface, is a really gigantically staggering indictment and, one must add, basic condemnation of contemporary American social and cultural conditions and realities; this is meaning in explicit terms of the greatly dysfunctional societal and cultural realities that sadly exist, as if this nation had, in fact, suffered the truly terrible aftereffects, dire and dreadful consequences, of a devastating war. 

Whether one agrees or disagrees with what seems to be the hard thesis of this film, however, it may very well be worth watching, for at least the sake, if nothing else, of properly clarifying one’s own values and morals, ethics and attitudes.  Perhaps, the creators of the film wanted to shock people through the clever comical antics involved or, as the case might be, they may not have been fully conscious of what the total impact of the flick might be.

Just Visiting

The other film is just titled: “Just Visiting.”  It was directed by Jean-Marie Poire and Jean-Marie Gaubert and had starred: Jean Reno, Christina Applegate, Matthew Ross, and Christian Clavier.  Briefly, it is about a strangely told, time-travel scenario of a medieval French lord who is transported, by black magic, to the 21st century.  He there meets up with his (remaining) female descendant who is about to be tricked into selling off her entire ancestral estate in France, by her unscrupulous lover, who is not really in love with her— but is, also, fooling around with his secretary. 

Although the lord, Count Thibault, returns eventually to his own time, his descendant ends up finding out that her boy friend is merely a vile cheat and fraud, so she keeps her patrimony and, moreover, pays a visit to it.  As chance has it, she meets there a good man who, it is suspected, she will marry due to his great and obviously immediate respect for her; he, as well, seems to obviously possess those solid, fundamental, positive, and traditional values that were, in fact, well represented by her noble ancestor.

Again, though clearly made as a comical flick, it still roughly bites into the major social and cultural failings and flaws of contemporary America (and, probably, the modern Western world in general).  A great deal has been lost to civil society, one suspects, in the West, when it finally lost all sense of the ideals of chivalry, (though the Middle Ages and its problems or flaws are yet jokingly given) but still are really acknowledged as essentially good, more than most viewers may fully realize, meaning if they only see this film just once. 

Again, to appreciate the intense moral, social and cultural criticism more thoroughly, it is necessary to watch this movie several times; this firmly helps, as with the other film reviewed, to better understand and comprehend more and more of the clearly exposed themes that are covered; the themes do mainly contrast the assumed venality, cupidity, vulgarity, crudity, and hypocrisy of one era with another; but, nonetheless, the contemporary era, possessing a highly corrupted civilization, still falls far short in this unfortunate comparison. 

While the French lord may be possessed by what most 21st century people would call sure crudity, nonetheless, he still, basically, exemplifies well what are regarded, by the film, as the chivalric attitudes that make his good masculine virtues (and some crudeness) still shine forth, meaning as compared to the often hidden or covert social and cultural barbarities of the modern age; unlike most modern males, he acts like a true man certain of his purposes and values, though presumed, during part of the story, to be completely lost in the city of Chicago, Il.

The seemingly eternal qualities of aristocratic attitudes, measures of greatness of character, versus the observed vulgarities, pettiness and spite, of both medieval and contemporary “peasants” are displayed for judgment and comparison. The descendant of the French nobleman is depicted, furthermore, as strengthened mentally, psychologically, ethically, and morally by the notable and noble impact he has had upon her sense of right and wrong, duty and responsibility.  Her innate capacities and abilities are, as displayed increasingly, remarkably enlarged by the “ennoblement” of her, due to the friendly association and close friendship developed between them. 

As a caveat, these two disturbing films are really suitable only for adults who ought to be able to handle the adult situations presented and the extreme foul language, especially as in the movie: “A Blast from the Past.”   One wonders, among other intriguing questions, if the people seeing the movies are supposed to be laughing at themselves, not just what they are looking at in the film. 

Is it really that funny, furthermore, to lightly or, perhaps, truly enthusiastically laugh at a greatly decayed, contemporary civilization knowing that it is, in fact, one’s own?   And, what does that say about the American people?