The Rumpus Review of Funny People

funny-peopleWith Funny People, Judd Apatow set out to make a masterpiece. What is surprising is not his failure, but the fact that he got so close.

His project is deeply personal and intriguingly abstract, a bittersweet vision of a comedian’s mournful existence. Apatow’s central question is this: does an art built on antagonism towards humanity distort the souls of its practitioners? Apatow weaves his obsessions around this theme, including gender mis-communication, male insecurity, elaborate dick jokes, and the unique rhythms of comedy writing. He cast his wife, Leslie Mann, his children, Maude and Iris, and his former roommate, Adam Sandler, as the star. It feels like everything Apatow knows and loves appears in this movie, a testament to comedy and family. This intense engagement leads to an extended running time (over 140 minutes) and occasional longueurs, especially in the distended final act, but it is also what lends it such strength of feeling. Its imperfection is a virtue.

The film opens with an actual home movie from Sandler and Apatow’s days as roommates. Sandler is prank calling a local deli in the wobbly falsetto he made famous in his SNL days, harassing the owner about the gaseous implications of their roast beef sandwiches. Then Apatow fades to Sandler’s present day character, George Simmons, as he wakes up in his palatial estate. Simmons made his money with hugely successful family fare like Merman, My Best Friend is a Robot, and Re-do, where his head is CGI’d onto a baby. These brilliantly hokey concepts, seen briefly on posters and painfully funny video clips, intimate a career fraught with compromise.

Judd Apatow
Judd Apatow

There don’t seem to be any Punch Drunk Love‘s in his career, nor anything as sophomorically funny as Billy Madison or Happy Gilmore. It’s a caricatured version of the Sandler man-child persona, drained of menace, and he plays it with hangdog imperturbability. In a brief note on his New Yorker blog, Richard Brody notes that Sandler has “the solidity, the opacity of earlier generations of actors”, and I think that’s an acute observation. Sandler lets his jowls do most of the emoting, with his slightly hunched posture indicating his physical deterioration. He never telegraphs an emotion, waiting a few beats before tilting his head or exploding in short fits of anger. His sadness is overwhelming. And this is before he gets sick.

The hook, as given away in the trailer, is the news that he is afflicted with a rare form of leukemia, and that he has six months to live. This leads to the first stand-up set-piece, where he meets Seth Rogen’s character, Ira Wright, his soon to be shat upon assistant. Brooding and aimless, George books himself at the local improv club, bumping Ira to the slot after him. In a rambling monologue, George mumbles angrily about death and quietude, letting the room sit as silent as possible, challenging the audience to question his dominion.

Apatow and DP Janusz Kaminski set up these scenes in generous long shots that track back and forth, to establish the connection between audience and performer, and to avoid the airlessness of shooting inserts in the studio later. In an interview at the Museum of the Moving Image, Apatow said he stole this documentary aesthetic from Bruce Surtees’s work on Bob Fosse’s Lenny, the bio-pic about Lenny Bruce. These scenes are stylistically riveting, displaying the unique frisson between performer and rapt audience, the feel of working without a net. I generally prefer the locked-down camera style of Knocked Up and 40-Year-Old Virgin,  whereas Kaminski opts for constant motion, subtle tracks and push-ins that only distract from the rest of the action. But this is a minor quibble.

large_funnyAfter Ira makes cracks about George’s impending suicide in the next set, he gets hired for his ballsiness to act as psychologist and mother to this disintegrating celebrity. Ira talks him to sleep, sets up play-dates with former friends and family (George seems closer to Andy Dick than to his sister), and writes material for his act. George is a low-key monster, incredibly needy and impulsive, whose rage drives his comedy and ruin his relationships, including one with Laura (Leslie Mann), the woman that got away. His ability to distract people from this self-centeredness with his volcanic, sophomoric wit comes to the fore in the fascinating scenes where George and Ira collaborate on constructing jokes, shooting ideas back and forth in looping arcs of absurdity. Apatow told Jake Tapper of ABC that he wrote hundreds of jokes for these scenes, and then Sandler and Rogen would riff off of them on their own, recreating the one-upsmanship at the heart of the process.

Ira’s character is especially ambitious because of his own roommates, Jason Schwartzman’s supercilious TV-sitcom star Mark Taylor Jackson, and Jonah Hill’s acerbic stand-up Leo. Their interactions display Apatow’s gift for musical vulgarity and parades of insecurity. Mark is defensive about his low-level celebrity and cringingly earnest show (“Do you guys know who the greatest rapper of all time is? William Shakespeare!”), Leo about his plateauing career, and Ira about his non-existent one. Ira is forced to cut meat at a local grocery store with RZA (in a delightfully dour performance), before George stumbles into the club and plucks him into Hollywood. It’s tempting to see the three worlds of the film (George’s, Ira’s, and Laura’s) as separate aspects of Apatow’s own life, the professional success, the striving youngster, and the family man. The film is a kind of simultaneous autobiography, all three periods of his life colliding at once in the midst of the narrative of comic self-destruction.

The final act is where these three worlds resolve themselves, in Laura’s home in Northern California. With George beginning to accept his mortality, accepting the judgments of his family and friends in order to savor a few more moments of intimacy, he learns that the experimental medicine he was prescribed is working. He will live. Slowly all of his neuroses start to creep back, all of them directed at regaining Laura’s love. In mock gallant mode, he places all of his hopes of happiness in this one ex-actress (Leslie Mann’s real acting reel acts as nostalgic flirtation fodder). Apatow does not fall for easy sentiment here, fully exposing the selfishness of George’s game. He expects happiness to follow him immediately upon his survival, as if it were due him, despite all the fuck ups of his previous life. Apologizing is akin to absolution in his mind, regardless if his actions remain the same. So this extended final act displays an epic meltdown, constructing his false hopes before tearing them down in the face of Laura’s preference for a stable relationship. It leads to her husband’s angry return, and Eric Bana plays the cuckolded Australian gent with outsized fervor.

This section is admittedly uneven, as Apatow is far more adept at sparring dialogue than elegant bedroom farce, but it abounds in grace notes. The brief montage of George testing (and failing) himself in a fatherly role, Apatow’s girls asking if their parents are divorcing (his real-life parents split when he was a child), and the sobering brutality of George’s ultimate comeuppance add up to a poison-pen portrait of celebrity immaturity. Their struggle to adapt themselves to the world is a work-in-progress, but their continual humbling, Apatow suggests, might one day suit them for more adult relationships. But if they do grow up, will they still be funny? If Apatow is any example, the answer is yes.

SHARE

IG

FB

BSKY

TH

4 responses

  1. Alex Pieske Avatar
    Alex Pieske

    To say that Funny People fails to achieve any of the goals Apatow might have been aiming for, such as to have a character confront death and manage to avoid turning into a cliche; or to portray the complexities of old loves rediscovered, with all of the excitement and disappointment of the first time around; to make a film poignant but not maudlin, long but never boring, and so completely self-indulgent without ever forgetting about the audience ; or, more importantly, to make a movie so funny that a viewer’s balls might hurt from laughing too hard, too long (or perhaps ovaries for women, I don’t know, I have balls and I am not kidding you, they were strangely throbbing as they rarely have before); to say that any of these goals were not achieved would be an obvious misstatement.
    But to say it was not a masterpiece, well, I guess that’s for our reviewer to say, and other people who find it at all useful to use such categories as Masterpiece and Non-Masterpiece. Personally, it’s hard for me to take those people very seriously, since the word “masterpiece” always brings to my mind the image of Alistair Cooke presenting murder-mysteries on PBS.

  2. R. Emmet Sweeney Avatar
    R. Emmet Sweeney

    My balls were throbbing too! So we have that in common.

    I think “masterpiece” is a useful term to use in the context of an artist’s career, and I chose it here to convey the leap in ambition that Apatow displays in FUNNY PEOPLE as compared to his previous two films. And in no way do I claim that he fails to achieve any of his goals. My review claims that it’s mostly a success, with a few quibbles regarding pacing and the visual scheme (I generally agree with your description of the film’s strengths). And anyway, what’s so bad about having Alistair Cooke daydreams? He’s a handsome man.

  3. First off this reveiw doesnt point out that there are many fuck ups. They had the mics showing up on screen constanly and also you can see In the doctors office that its just a small cubicle in a large room. Took me two times of going to see it to make sure of this. They either did it for a laugh or the editors for the film were just so high that they sout it funny to use scenes with it or not cut it out.

  4. Tim Kraft Avatar
    Tim Kraft

    I would say that this review is giving the movie far too much credit. Or, well, let me rephrase and say that it gives the second portion of a fractured movie too much credit. This felt like it was two different movies separated by one of the biggest let-downs in the first. George got better. Apatow was doing great with the first portion of the movie, his trademark humor was dead on and the sentimentality that he seems to be getting better at was also effective. I understand the motivations to make George better, to show the audience that people don’t just change ( of course this happened right before they do end up changing but only in a way that leaves the audience suspicious about how much they actually changed because they really didn’t change a whole lot at all) instead they fell back into the same routine they were in when they thought they were dying but this time it’s a much more metaphorical death and not an actual one. That aside, watching the second part of the movie, which is when George is trying to win Laura back, I couldn’t help but wonder if Apatow had gone too far. I wouldn’t even call it the final act as the reviewer did, I would call it a prolonged re-imagining of the Great Gatsby without Fitzgerald’s depth. Apatow tried to get too serious. The Rumpus’ review of “A Serious Man” said comedy has the potential to transcend drama as it pertains to enlightening the audience about the nature of people. By abandoning his most tried and true style of comedy for a dead-end drama punctuated by a sometimes funny Eric Bana Apatow unfortunately took the movie to a place it never should have gone. I suppose that I, too, am curious about where else it could have ended up, but what I do know is that what the movie became was not a representation of people’s struggles to grow up and find their appropriate roles in their own lives. The movie abandoned comedy, eventually, and instead mixed it with drama in a way that felt muddled and confused by the end.

Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.