MovieChat Forums > Shock Corridor (1963) Discussion > This Movie Was Hilarious.

This Movie Was Hilarious.

posted 15 years ago by kazamaru
10 replies | jump to latest

my mom and i watched this movie last night, this film just has something about it that pulls you in and you just can't stop looking, cause its so darn crazy! being a little infatuated with asylums i was really interested to see how a mental institution up and running would be like in the early days. but we found ourselves laughing more than anything, don't get me wrong it was very good and i love classic movies but this was one bat sh#% crazy film, you felt like you were going insane along with the main character. but i thought watching a person slowly slip into insanity would be a very unsettling sight, it was a little unnerving but not near as it was funny, some might accuse me of not looking at the film for its artistic and film noir and not having the maturity to appreciate fine cinema bla' bla' bla' but this is just how i felt about it. and i was just curious to know did anyone eles find this movie to be humorous and a little absurd aswell. no flaming please, just honest anwsers. hey! even really good movies can be unintentionally funny

[–] phelpsg1 15 years ago

Yes, a lot of things in this movie were unintentionally funny. The doctors discuss the case (using absurd jargon, even for the sixties), somehow not noticing that the girlfriend/sister is standing in the doorway taking stenographic notes. And the implication that the Pulitzer prize could be won just by solving a murder, even if you were too crazy to write an article about it . And I won't even mention the "nympho ward" scene. The gigantic opera singer was, I'm guessing, intended to be a comic character. We expected to find this movie dark and chilling as it showed the descent into madness (sort of like Repulsion), but it was just ridiculous.

[–] screen14 15 years ago

The movie's theme, performances, and plot devices were too often overstated. The result, as said, was unintended humor. It overshadows an otherwise interesting story.

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

I don´t think any of it was really unintentional - although this was my first taste of him, Fuller doesn´t strike me as a dumbsky and he obviously musta been aware of the over-the-topness of certain scenes and stuff he had his actors say. That´s because the more serious aspects of SC aren´t the least bit silly or overwrought - pretty much all these mental patients have their quiet moments which are extraordinarily patient and observant. I often have problems with the overly theatrical acting of classic Hollywood, but this one took place in a mental asylum for chrissakes and all the fuss on screen - often indeed hilarious - was in the service of something rather sinister and relevant and troubling. The whole thing is basically a no-holds-barred plunge into the subconscious of the Cold War era America and what´s uncovered ain´t pretty. Especially the concluding implication that you can´t live with the truth and remain sane.

As for those critics who complain that Fuller probably went mad during the production of the film (there appear to be a couple), I can only assume they´ve never seen a Lynch or a Cronenberg or a Jodorowsky picture in their lives. It´s not nearly ´that´ unhinged and to me definitely strikes the right balance of substance and aesthetic expressionist excess (yes, it looked kinda ominous at first - as if something utterly preposterous was coming my way - with the voiceover wording thoughts and the chick dancing on Breck´s chin, but by the half hour mark things seemed to fall in their place - I find it a very assured direction; this particular asylum is most certainly not run by a lunatic). And the leading performance by Breck is - some of the wilder scenes notwithstanding - great. As is the film itself.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] rockmail 14 years ago

You're fine and spot on. It's not a documentary, it's a "shockumentary" meant to sell tickets. So it's funny, weird, shocking etc., not a masterpiece.

[–] WarpedRecord 12 years ago

I wouldn't even call it a shockumentary, but it's a fine piece of exploitation cinema taken down a couple notches by its histrionics, which I found hard to digest even though I'm a huge Sam Fuller fan. 7/10 stars from me.

[–] califgrrrl 11 years ago

Maybe that was the intention of the movie. I know I felt like I needed some therapy after watching it, lol.

[–] highschoolkiller 10 years ago

this movie cracked me up!

[–] atlantajoseph 10 years ago

I think people aren't giving Fuller nearly enough credit. I believe that most of the humor in this film is completely self-aware -- which makes it all the more brilliant.

[–] lubin-freddy 10 years ago

Joseph is right.

People today, especially the narrow-cultured young, view everything through the narrow standards of mass-produced contemporary culture. Anything that does something differently, such as the works of the great Sam Fuller, aren't seen for what they are.

For a look at how this films is respected, just watch the opening sequence of Bertolucci's The Dreamers.

Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools.

[–] flaiky 10 years ago

Come on people, I'm sure the humour is intentional.

How could something so overblown and hyper-stylised, to the point of surrealism, not be ironic? Watching the film is like entering a crazy dream world, there's no grounding in reality whatsoever.

I see this as a sort of precursor to the Coen brothers, or Guy Maddin: the utter lunacy and grandiosity all serves to satirise America and the film industry. And it's damn entertaining.

That is a masterpiece of understatement.