When the unnamed doorman in The Last Laugh is demoted to bathroom attendant, his world collapses. At the end of the film he is estranged from his family, fellow workers and neighbors and only the night watchman gives him succor. Is this film a tragedy in the Aristotelian sense (that is, does he fall because of some tragic character flaw?)? Is it an indictment of the society of the time? A study of the inevitable effects of aging? Or, to put the point another way, whose fault is the doorman's downfall?
The Last Laugh, a film directed by F.W. Murnau in 1924, is a noteworthy analysis not only of society's attitude towards human beings but also of the Aristotelian definition of tragedy. The protaganist, an unnamed old man who worked as a doorman of a grand hotel, does not fall because of a tragic flaw or a mistake. However, he instead becomes a victim of societal and ageist prejudices that undervalue the aging workforce. The film's innovative usage of camera movements and absence of intertitles except for one important one places the audience firmly in the doorman's emotional turmoil. The visuals clearly depict his pride in the most prestigious uniform and his very bitter disappointment when he is downgraded to a bathroom attendant. This part makes him lose his identity and social standing. The stark contrast between the grand hotel entrance, which signifies his past glory, and the confined, dark bathroom, underlines his sharp decline. Thus symmetry in the image shows the indictment made by Murnau of the harsh society that judges one's worth based on profession. In addition, the movie criticizes societal superficiality by showing the doorman's isolation, which is illustrated by his estrangement from family and neighbors, who used to admire his high status, and the final destiny, being alone, in the company of a night watchman. Murnau's film goes beyond the narrative of aging or individual flaws; it is really a profound commentary on the societal structures that determine value and identity, such that the doorman's fall is more about the societal constructs of his time than his own personal failures.
ReplyDelete