SCRI:I:N’nLess Than ZeronMonty fython’s The Meaning of Life;nWritten by Graham Chapman, JohnnCleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, TerrynJones, Michael Palin; Directed bynTerry Jones; Universal.nDoctor Detroit; Written by CarlnGottlieb, Robert Boris, and BrucenJay Friedman (from a story by BrucenJay Friedman); Directed by MichaelnA. Pressman; Universal.nby Stephen MacaulaynDifference is the key to comedy. Thatnis, in order for something to be comedic,nthere must be evidence of a norm fromnwhich the object or situation departs.nAn emperor strutting without clothingndoesn’t merit a second look in a nudistncolony. The need for difference is particularlynstrong in the subgenre satire.nComedy and satire that are all figurenwithout ground are buffoonery or raillery,ntrifles, oddities. Although Dr. Johnsonnwas mistaken with regard to the objectnof the following comment (Sterne’snTristram Shandy), the general observationnis correct: “Nothing odd will donlong.” The British humor troupe MontynPython’s Flying Circus has been on thenscene for a number of years; it made itsnbig mark in American circles in 1972nwith its film And Now For SomethingnCompletely Different Both the playersnand the film ivere different. Since then,nPBS has brought more of the skits andnblackouts to audiences of television;nMessrs. Chapman, Cleese, Idle, etc. havenbrought more of the same to the screen.nStanley Kauflitnann of The New Republicncalls the crew “six of the wittiest mennalive” with regard to Monty Python’snThe Meaning of Life. These men circan1983 are not witty; they are odd. What’snworse, they have made themselves conventionallynodd (not a contradiction mnthe final quarter of the 20th century) bynperforming variations on the same visualnslapstick routines over and over andn42inChronicles of Culturenover again. Key to their latest chowdernis the titiUation that is supposed to benevoked by hearing grown men “talkndirty” in public. Someone should advisenMr. Kauffinann that such expressionsnare considered “wit” only in elementarynschool lavatories and should mention tonthe Flying Circus that Lenny Bruce hasnbeen dead for a number of years. Beyondnpotty mouths (literally and figuratively),nthere is nothing to the film but a numbernof juvenile antics. Moreover, there isnnothing that permits differentiation betweennsense and nonsense. To call itnmeaningless would be to give a secondnsomeone the opening to say, “Ah ha! ThenAbsurd!” and thus to tag the file with ansmidgen of philosophy. But the film lacksnPreterminal FilmmakingnThe Hunger; Directed by Tony Scott;nWritten by Ivan Davis and MichaelnThomas; MGM/United Artists.nIf the period of commercial filmmakingnin this country is thought of in thencontext of the life of a man, then whennParker Tyler, a notable, idiosyncraticnfilm critic, wrote The Hollywood Hallucinationnin 1944, the industry was innits mature thirties. Tyler didn’t think so.nIn 1983 the industry is well into a periodnof decline and is showing clear signs ofnarteriosclerosis. Two observations madenby Tyler in that book, while making sensenin his context, are applicable to the situationntoday, especially to The Hunger,nthough innumerable other recent releasesnare equally ripe—or spoiled. ThenHunger is a vampire film, which meansnthat it is a part of a subgenre that hasnbeen in decline since Tod Browning’snDracMte (1931). O^wcwto was followednby features ranging from Dracula’snDaughter (1936) to Dracula’s Dogn(1978), and seemingly came to afiill circlenwith the adaptation of the Broadwaynnneven a jot of anything beyond itself, andnit is nothing more than a mere cinematicnsoap bubble.nPressman’s Doctor Detroit is alsonlight, but at least it has a mooring. It usesnthe Don Quixote theme, even to thenpoint of making the wimplike hero anprofessor of literature who teaches LenMorte d’Arthur and who fights to protectnthe well-being {honor is no longernthe word) of a group of working girls.nThis movie is another case of recycling,nbut it at least has the merit of beingnwhimsical. However, it generates a powerfulnsuspicion that the theme wasn’tnselected because of its timeless grace asnmuch as because original approachesnare rare in filmmaking today. Dnplay of the same name in 1979. The firstnwas lean and convincing. Since then,nthings have become increasingly extraneous.nAs Tyler noted about the industrynin general, “Literature in the movies hasnassumed a minor role precisely in rationto the increase of technical cinema effects.”nSo, ^vhile Browning’s film paysnattention to Stoker’s novel, the post-1931nfilms have concentrated on blood,nsmoke, mming humans into all maimernof beasts, and the like. The Hunger e^^cmnatesnthe Count and his relatives, andnthere are no signs of the well-knownnincisors. Still, camera tricks are far morenimportant than the story line, which isnso thin that it borders on the nonexistent.nNarrative is replaced by makeup. Thisnconcentration on the tricks of face paintnbrings up another comment from Tyler:n”the most dependable money-makersnare the star-personalities to whom thenart of portrayal and the art of drama arenthe most remote considerations.” In thisncase, dfrector Tony Scott makes use ofnthe “talents” of a feding French actressnwho has been employed by directors in-n