KING, QUEEN, KNAVE
West Germany/US, 1972, 92 minutes, Colour.
Gina Lollobrigida, David Niven, John Moulder- Brown, Mario Adorf.
Directed by Jerzy Skolimowski.
King, Queen, Knave is black comedy. Black comedies often are difficult for audiences. They are satirical, exaggerated in character and situation, requiring effort in identifying targets, checking one's sympathies or antipathies for the object of attack and responding to the good or bad taste of the modes of humour. All of which is evident in Jerzy Skolimowski's black satire on big business, money, marriage, sexuality, society and hypocrisy. It is funny, it is puzzling, it is amoral, it is farcical about murder. David Niven, Gina Lollobrigida and John Moulder Brown star in an ironic triangle of greed, lust and death that is treated ironically and for laughs. Well-made but for satire-lovers.
1. What was the purpose of this film? Was it an entertaining film? A puzzling film? The basic response to the film?
2. The significance of the credits with the characters on the cards? The implications of the cards for each of the characters? Were they characters or caricatures? As representatives of attitudes rather than personalities? How would you describe each of them? Your response to them?
3. The film was clearly black comedy. What is the significance and tone of black comedy? Why does it appeal? Why is it so outrageous? Audience response to outrageous’ black comedy? The quality of farce in such comedy and its serious overtones? How successful was this film as black comedy?
4. What was the attitude to human nature? The implications seemed to be that it was bad. The presentation of greed, pride, luxury, power, deceit, sexuality, cruelty and murder. How well did the film integrate these ugly aspects of life with comedy?
5. The significance of a German setting? An Englishman building up power and money after the war? The almost fairy-tale atmosphere of his success? Considering Frank as an ugly Cinderella figure transformed by fairy godmother etc.? Was this fairy-tale overtone helpful in understanding the comedy and the twists it was given?
6. Audience response to the firm of Dreyer: its success, power, Charles' building-up the firm, and its influence in Germany?
7. What did Charles represent as regards human nature and achievement? His talent and business? His pretensions in society, his salesmanship, his being bored with life, the games that he played, his sexual relationships with the girls (and the farcical visualisations of these - the bath, the bikes, skiing?) his relationship to Martha, his love, his patronising of Frank and ambitions for him? What did Martha represent? Greed, position in society, lust and seduction, ambitions, overcoming poor background, manipulation of persons, murder, and happy ever after life? What did Frank represent? Basic awkwardness, stupidity, (the seemingly over farcical nature of his sliding at the airport and missing the plane, his glasses and his stumbling at the gate etc.)? His hidden talents, his sexual drive, the drawing out of his response to Martha, his ingenuousness, his cunning, his ability to be led and to organise? How complex and innocent was he? How successful?
10. What was your reaction to the plot to kill Charles? The irony of the execution of the plot and Martha's death? How was the film laughing at plots and fate and mistakes? Is this what happens in real life?
11. How was it evident that Frank would over-reach himself? His change of dress and appearance, riding in the car with Charles, to his fate?
12. How important was the background plot of Ritter and his models?
13. How ironic was the whole film? Of people's anxieties - Charles and business, Martha and assignations with Frank, Frank and his repressed and overt sexuality, his ambitions? Symbolised by chases and farcical mistaken identities, Martha hiding, Frank deceiving Charles the models going berserk in the demonstration. the eventual mishap of the murder?
14. How satisfying e.g. ironic was the ending? And the exposure of the truth to come? Could Frank get out of it? Was this too pessimistic a film about human behaviour? Or was it an enjoyable black comedy criticising human foibles?
