SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE
UK, 1970, 112 minutes, Colour.
Angela Lansbury, Michael York, Jane Carr.
Directed by Harold Prince.
Something for Everyone is a rather disturbing comedy. It is very black and would be relished only by those who appreciate what it is trying to do. This kind of black comedy overturns conventional moral standards, establishes its own and works logically within them. The results can seem outrageous. Here the setting is story-book land, Austria, where the beggar becomes the prince by an unscrupulous self-centredness and useof power, hatred, sexuality, murder. But it is all played for black laughs. There is a message certainly, but many audiences would find it hard to find or take the message. The film has some resemblance in theme to Entertaining Mr Sloane, Joe Orton's black comedy, filmed about the same time. It seems cousin also to Pasolini's Teorema. The film was directed by noted Broadway producer-director Hal Prince.
1. How ironic is the title?
2. This film is obviously 'black' comedy: What is 'black' comedy? It is obviously outrageous. How outrageous can it be? Is good taste the only limitation - or is good taste a limitation?
3. What relationship to orthodox morality has black comedy? Although it flouts conventional moral standards, it could not make its impact without the audience's knowing (and accepting?) conventional moral'standards (otherwise it is not black or outrageous). Is this true? What is the purpose of black comedy - merely to flout conventions or to flout with a purpose? How moralising is black comedy? Is shocking conventional people, seeking out hypocritical attitudes sufficient reason for portraying black comedy?
6. In the light of the preceding questions and discussion, is this film truly a black comedy?
7. How ironic was the setting of the film - especially by the fairy-tale opening, the castle and the Bavarian settings?
8. How was the whole of the film symbolised by Conrad's catching the butterfly that the priest had been chasing for thirty years? How lucky really was he? Did you like him at the opening of the film? Why?
9. How did Conrad use people? How did this affect your attitudes towards him?
10. How did the tone of the film change when Conrad committed his first murder? Did the film keep reminding you that he was a cruel go-getter or did it at times lull you into forgetting what he was like?
11. Did you enjoy watching his manipulating of people - e.g. the chauffeur and then the whole family, his gaining his job at the castle?
12. To estimate the impact of the film and the black comedy of Conrad and human nature consider his manoeuvres for his own power and his manipulation of people's affections. The hotel maid; the castle servant; his destruction of the Nazi servant by way of revenge and for climbing in power; the affection of the rich girl, his marrying her off to a homosexual for money for the castle, his murdering her; the affection of the homosexual son and his marrying him off, (his reassuring scene - tricked by the clothes? - almost his undoing but more murders solve it): the rich family - using them and killing them; the Countess - attitude to service, plans for the castle, her relying on him, sexual relationship, his proposed marriage and becoming lord of the castle; the daughter - her observing of him observing others, 'catching him with his pants down', her final triumph over him.
13. How effective was the social satiric comment on the rich and on hypocrisy and the greed of the newly rich etc.? How outraged were sensibilities by Conrad's attitudes and behaviour and his unrelenting plotting, many audiences could only laugh in unbelief as manoeuvre piled on manoeuvre? Why was Conrad bisexual? What tone did this give to the whole proceedings?
