Should movies be viewed on a singular, stand-alone basis, or should they be incorporated into the throngs of any sequels that follow, the filmmakers’ personal lives and previous films, or the stories behind the making of it? This is a question that plaques many films. For example, take American History X. The story of director Tony Kaye’s fallout with Norton and the studio are well documented, and, since many people (myself included) dislike Tony Kaye, they find more problems with the film than seem to really be there. See Scott Tobias’s article on the AV Club’s New Cult Canon for more. I personally love the film, partly because when I watched it I was hearing about a racist act at my school, but mostly because the performance by Edward Norton is absolutely absorbing. I can ignore, with this film, the lack of held together tone and Tony Kaye’s pretentious visual poetry for the overall theme and performances. Or Pirates of the Caribbean, as I pretend the other two sometimes don’t exist. To contrast, I cannot seem to like Ray primarily because in real life, Jamie Foxx annoys the hell out of me. It makes no sense and is not deserved, yes, but I can’t seem to get over this. There’s a point I’m getting to, don’t worry.
I feel like the above problems are precisely the issues people raise with Judd Apatow’s Funny People. People dislike Seth Rogen either on a comedic basis or immensely for some other reason, hate Adam Sandler for his usual shtick and bad movies, and Judd Apatow because not every movie he makes is The 40 Year Old Virgin (one of, in my opinion, the most overrated films of all time). Apatow’s finest film is this personal study, and I am here to defend it.
The film’s title is a good starting point, being an exercise in irony all it’s own. The film, while being rather funny (though crude and repeated), is not really a funny movie. It is a film about funny people, about comedians. The film reminds of Man on the Moon, albeit focusing on the modern Sandler-esque comedy. Instead of focusing on the drama of a comedic genius (?) in Andy Kaufman, it focuses on the serious things behind the fart jokes. It is injected of course with a lost love story, fueled by the near non-existent and unrealized chemistry between Leslie Mann and Sandler. Ignore this point though; it is a decent love triangle, but nothing worth noting. The rest of the film is where the interest lies. Sandler is playing and almost perfect version of himself, or better put, a lonely version of himself. The best part, almost entirely of the film is the opening credits, which features a real life Sandler home film showcasing what humor used to be, a great tie laughing among friends. Now in his character’s life, it’s banking millions and selling it to both kids and adults, and if it’s just adults, it must be culturally digested and mind-numbingly idiotic (think The Hangover). His only sense of salvation from wealthy mediocre life is the woman he loves, but since he cannot have that, he settles for trying to relive his old life, doing stand-up. Sandler’s story is one that deserves really a movie focusing on it entirely, instead, there’s another part to this film.
. . . here’s where things get tricky . . .
I really don’t understand why critics don’t like Sandler’s story in the film. I can understand why they don’t like Seth Rogen’s enigmatic comedian who “is no longer fat.” Again, here, Rogen is basically playing a less successful version of himself, yet not with the same interest as Sandler. I can see why someone wouldn’t like it, there are a plethora of reasons, but I do. I find Rogen relatable to Sandler in this film, and I think you couldn’t have the emotionality of Sandler’s performance without Rogen’s character, which I’m ok with. The supporting cast in this film is all well and good, especially Eric Bana, but they amount to basically just a bunch of one liners, but funny one liners.
I find this film misunderstood, primarily due to the reasons at the top. If you can view this again, removing all Rogen/Sandler/Apatow hatred, and watch it as a modern day character study injected with the bad humor, it pays off. Yes, it becomes what it seeks to emotionalize and in some ways trivializes this point, but it still maintains what it wants to be. I want a film to focus on the seriousness of comedians, and I got that here, albeit the Apatow version. Eh, I’ll settle, he has a right to.
No comments:
Post a Comment