Did Madagascar Have an Appropriate Ending?

[00:00:00]The Madagascar series is famously one of the biggest farces of the new millennium. Whether it comes from the comically stoic militarystyle penguins, the insane but lovable King Julian, or even just the antics of the four main characters, one thing these movies definitely have down to a science is how to make viewers laugh in the most memorable ways possible. But that being said, do these movies have much to offer beyond that? And should they even try to? because some who worked on the original movie have actually expressed disappointment with the film's third act. And that is when things get more serious and the jokes become blacker and less frequent. However, though the movie is ultimately intended to just be a goofy funny time for a couple of different reasons, the climax is probably the most appropriate one for the story that was being told. And today I'd like to argue for the merits of the final third of the original Madagascar movie to the best of my ability. And obviously there will be major spoilers ahead. So in case you've never seen this movie or its sequel but plan to, you shouldn't proceed with this video. You have been warned.

[00:01:14]Okay. So, while the tone of the third act does at first glance appear to be at odds with the rest of the film, that's actually not all that uncommon in comedy movies, because any writing expert, which I'll freely point out I'm not, as I was entirely self-taught, will tell you that the third act is when the characters are supposed to be at their most desperate and the circumstances at their most dire culminating in an event that leads the story to its conclusion.

[00:01:41]Now, obviously depending on the type of story, this can be as big as the world ending or as small as who will win a race. But either way, the point is that the climax is always the most serious part of the plot, even in comedies.

[00:01:55]Seriously, only an extreme parodies or farces will things be just as comical as the rest of the film? As even the lightest comedies know that a climax with real stakes that the audience is invested in makes for the best storytelling. Now, I didn't delve too much into comedy myself in my days of writing books, but knowing when to be serious and knowing when it's time to be funny is one of the most important things every writer must learn. As I explained in my video on the genre, which you can find a link in the description to, because even when their stories aren't overly comedic in nature, almost any story is going to need levity at some point. But now you're probably wondering what all of this has to do with Madagascar.

[00:02:41]That the movie knew exactly what it was doing by making things more serious in the third act despite just how funny it had previously been. Especially because it perfectly suits the story it was telling under all the jokes. Because in essence, Madagascar is about a zebra who spent his whole life in captivity and wants to get a taste of what it feels like to live in the wild, which is something his fellow zoo friends are not on board with. But when circumstances cause all of them to end up on the island of Madagascar, Marty most definitely gets his wish, only for him to quickly realize that for all of its glamour, there is a downside to nature.

[00:03:21]And not only is this perfectly demonstrated in the what a wonderful world montage where he sees just how cruel the wild really is, but there's also the fact that without being fed raw meat, Alex's feral survival instincts start kicking in, causing him to repeatedly try to kill his own best friends in a fit of starvation, which hits very close to home for Marty in particular. In other words, the more serious tone of the third act is meant to not only show the consequences of Marty's actions, but also reinforce both the moral that the grass is always greener somewhere else and to always be careful what you wish for.

[00:04:01]Now again, considering just how big of a farce Madagascar really is, some might question if it would have been better for it to stick to a lighter tone while also getting this across. But one also has to keep in mind that the movie isn't actually overly serious for that long.

[00:04:16]Once the penguins come back into the picture, things get a lot more comical and actionoriented, which is much more in line with what the film had been. And as I already explained in much greater detail in another video, which you can also find a link in the description to ultimately culminates with the good person Alex is overriding his need for food and redeems himself by driving off the Fousea for good and saving everybody in the process. And though that doesn't quite match up with Marty wanting to experience the wild, it's still clear that he's learned his lesson regardless and reinforces the friendship between him and Alex that have been established as extremely important to both of them from the very beginning.

[00:05:00]And this is why from a purely writing and thematic standpoint, Escape to Africa arguably has a better climax by comparison. Because while all the characters have their own personal problems that they have to deal with, what's given the most focus and attention is Alex finding his family and not quite living up to what his father expected him to be. So, as a result, this culminating in him ultimately saving his father by simply being who he is and doing what he knows how to do and earning his acceptance as a result is a much more logical and streamlined story on paper. as the beginning, middle, and end all more or less match up. But while the original Madagascar definitely has a much rougher structure, that honestly suits the kind of movie it's trying to be.

[00:05:51]Because simply put, Madagascar: Escape to Africa is trying to tell a story that happens to be funny. Madagascar is a comedy that tries to tell a story. The original is all about putting the characters in absurd situations and letting the laughs flow from the resulting chaos with the story serving a lot more to get the characters from situation to situation as well as justify those actions as I explained in the affforementioned video. But it smartly doesn't just forego the story or any of its more deeper elements for the sake of a joke either as that's what a bad comedy would do. In many ways, it's similar to the road to El Dorado, which I went over in another video, which you can also find a link in the description to in that they're both extremely farcical in nature and put the jokes ahead of the story. But one important thing they share is knowing when to be serious and letting the story take center stage for a while. Because as I explained before, that's ultimately the smart way to write a comedy because it allows the audience to actually be invested and care about the characters beyond their ability to make them laugh.

[00:06:59]To put it simply, unlike the tightly written structure of the sequel, Madagascar basically lets the characters dictate the story through their actions, making the whole plot feel like the culmination of their decisions exclusively, and Alex going feral as the result of not eating meat, the food becoming a problem because they see the zoo animals as the perfect opportunity for a big dinner, and the penguin showing up and leading the fight to save Marty and Alex all do feel like the direct consequences of their earlier actions. Again, story-wise, it's definitely not perfect, but for the kind of movie Madagascar is, it works very well, particularly because it doesn't abandon the humor altogether at any point for too long. Because ultimately, the movie is meant to be a funny farce and commits to being that except for when it's absolutely necessary for the story not to, just like in the affforementioned road to El Dorado.

[00:07:58]Basically, was the third act of Madagascar as perfect as it could have been? No. As I just said, it's definitely rough around the edges, and if anything, feels a little conventional compared to the wacky, one-of-a-kind shenanigans of what came before. So, there was room for improvement. But at the same time, that doesn't mean that what's presented doesn't work. Because, as I just spent the entire video pointing out, it most definitely does.

[00:08:26]If anything, the best climax it could have asked for would have looked very similar to the one in the finished film, just a little more polished up. Because, as I noted before, ultimately, a good comedy is one that tries to do something more than just make the audience laugh and does try to at least say something worth saying. And despite how hard it commits to its farcical nature, Madagascar manages to do just that by allowing itself to get just a little more serious by the time the third act rolls around.

[00:09:02]Okay, I think I've made my point here.

[00:09:05]So now I'd like to hear from all of you.

[00:09:07]Do you believe that the climax of Madagascar works just fine despite maybe feeling a little out of place with the rest of the film? or do you believe it should have been totally different? Or do you believe that there's absolutely nothing wrong with it and is perfect as is? Please feel free to let me know in the comments below because you don't have to agree with anything I said in this video just because you watched it.

[00:09:29]Movies are very subjective, especially comedy, and you are free to feel however you want about them. And if you think I had this topic all wrong, that is absolutely fine. And thank you all for watching. It is all appreciated and I hope to see you all next time.