BEFORE: Already I'm starting to change my routine, and I'm not even officially under-employed yet. You see, for the last 16 years I've kept my eyes open for interesting animated commercials while watching TV at home, so that I could dub them to VHS and then 3/4" and add them to a library at work, where we've been tracking the commercial animation market, and keeping tabs on what the competition's been doing. This was the first weekend in years where I didn't have to do that (barring holidays and vacations), so I had actual free time. (Plus I started to transition from watching a whole bunch of TV I don't care about, like sports, to watching only TV I want to watch, which still feels like an odd concept.)
So we went out to that chain restaurant that's currently advertising "All You Can Eat Ribs", because I figured I've got that kind of time now. But here's how they get you: the first plate of ribs, no problem, but that second plate of ribs has fewer ribs, and a greater ratio of french fries to fill you up. My third plate of ribs took much longer (I think they were hoping I'd get frustrated and leave) and when it did arrive, yep, fewer ribs and even more fries. I wanted to stay there for two more rounds of ribs, just to really stick it to them and get our money's worth, but at some point I can't make my wife sit there any longer while I test how many ribs I can eat. Yep, I'm an adult.
Linking from "Admission", Paul Rudd carries over for his third appearance this week.
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Knocked Up" (Movie #835)
AFTER: This sort-of sequel to "Knocked Up" features many of the same characters - in fact two background characters from that film are given their own story here, and at least three minor characters appear as inhabitants of the Apatow-verse so we can check in on them.
I don't know where this trend started, but it seem like movies today have to fill up every minute of screen time with random characters and events. Sort of the opposite of "My Dinner with Andre", which was all talk, no action. There's some talk in "This is 40" (OK, mostly yelling) but there's also a ton of random action, so the film ends up feeling like it's firing in many different directions at once, rather than being focused on a coherent linear series of events. Sometimes more is more, but sometimes less is also better.
First off, way too many characters doing way too many things. The trainer, the record company employees, the store employees, the best friend, the other best friend,
When this film was over, I watched a bit of the classic film "The Great Escape", one of my favorite war/prison films. That's a different genre of film, of course, but it's a great example of how you can have many different characters, each with their own storyline, but working toward one main purpose, escaping the prison camp. (Another one of my favorite films has been running lately - "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World". Same concept - you've got many characters with different storylines running concurrently, but they're all working toward the same goal, getting the hidden money).
Here we've got the relationship between a husband and wife, we've got them trying to raise two daughters properly (whatever THAT means), we've got a strained relationship with one father, another father who's constantly borrowing money, we've got one failed business, another troubled business, troubles at school, troubles in the bedroom - enough, already. I thought people went to the movies to forget about their problems, now here they all are, up on the screen. And this movie ran for more than two hours, it definitely could have used some trimming to give it some more of a focus.
I took great interest in the relationship aspect of the film, because that's the kind of film I want to write, at the core of my proposed story is a relationship that gradually falls apart - so there has to be a break-up scene, and there may have to be shouting in it, but I think perhaps also there should be some quiet resignation. My experience has been that once people get past the yelling stage, there's a less loud acceptance stage, where someone realizes the relationship just wasn't meant to be, and walking away is probably the only chance to find happiness again someday.
In my case children were not part of the picture (thank God), but there was yelling, and then there was a more business-like attitude that took over. It went something like, "I'm going to go stay at my parent's house for a week, which should give you time enough to move your things somewhere else, and we'll meet up in a few months to see if we want to either get back together, or sign some papers."
Everyone's situation is different, of course.
The couple portrayed in this film alternates between working together and feeling stuck with each other. They're growing together and pulling apart at the same time. That should be an interesting combination, and perhaps it rings true, but it also makes for a confusing film, because everyone's motivations are always changing. He wants her to be happy, but he also wants time for himself, and he needs time to work on his business, but he also needs to carve out time to be with his family.
Then we've got the failing businesses - the husband runs a fledgling record label that seems only able to sign "retro" acts like Graham Parker, so it's failing miserably, trying to sell vinyl albums in a world of digital downloads. Actually I think the problem wasn't being digital, it was finding Graham Parker fans who knew what a digital download is. I couldn't name you one song by this artist, and I find it refreshing and unusual that he was willing to allow a movie to play with his dinosaur-like image in this way. I'm also interested in using a band from the 80's as a focal point in my screenplay, and this fills me with hope.
But there's an appalling lack of communication here between the characters, most notably between the husband and the wife. You would like to think that over the years, communication would get better between two people, but this film demonstrates that this is not always the case. He feels unable to talk to her about their financial problems, as well as other things, and she's hiding a pretty important piece of information herself. It's only when they have a third party to focus their hatred on that they even come together at all, and I don't think that's the most positive way of going about things.
The end result is, no two characters are ever working toward the same goal, and that's very frustrating indeed. OK, maybe you can say that everyone just wants to be happy, or is at least willing to settle for "making it through another day", but does that necessarily mean that everyone is going to be at cross purposes with everyone else at every single moment? No wonder they all yell at each other, because they can't even agree on what it means to be happy. Having sex makes them happy, until it's revealed to be complicated and frustrating also. Having a party makes them happy, until they end up arguing with both of their fathers. Same deal with work - for both of them it had to be fulfilling at some point, until it got frustrating or they found a way to mess it all up.
I understand you've got to have some conflict if you're going to have a storyline. But this is much too much, there's conflict in every single aspect of this couple's lives, and they prove time and time again that they are either unable to navigate through it, or handle it in any constructive way. So I'm forced to conclude that these people are toxic, in that they are magnets for trouble, all the while going about their daily lives with blinders on, refusing to acknowledge that if they're not part of the solution, then they're part of (or perhaps the entirety of) the problem. Again, maybe this is the larger point that's being made here, but I'm not sure how constructive that point ended up being.
NITPICK POINT: Both husband and wife are having financial problems - yet for her birthday they drive off to an expensive-looking resort, and there's a montage of them ordering from room service, again and again and again. Then for HIS birthday, just a week or so later, they throw a big party where they pay for all the catering, outdoor tables & chairs, wine and beer, etc. Are they both so clueless that they're willing to celebrate their way into the poor house? How long can they continue to spend money that they don't have? Or is part of the reason that they're having financial problems due to the fact that neither one knows how to live on a budget?
Worst of all, this is one of many plot threads that never gets resolved. Does the guy's record company ever have a success? Can Graham Parker have another hit record? Do they ever do anything to get back the money the store lost? Does that bill for the spa weekend finally come due, and does the couple have to sell one of their cars to pay for it? I guess we'll never know.
Which then sort of raises the question - if you're going to end your movie in a seemingly random place, without resolving anything, why couldn't you have just done that 20 minutes earlier?
Also starring Leslie Mann (last heard in "Rio"), Maude Apatow, Iris Apatow, Robert Smigel (last seen in "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry"), Annie Mumolo, Megan Fox (last seen in "Jonah Hex"), Albert Brooks (last seen in "Private Benjamin"), John Lithgow (last seen in "Cliffhanger"), Charlene Yi, Jason Segel (last seen in "Can't Hardly Wait"), Chris O'Dowd (last seen in "Thor: The Dark World"), Lena Dunham, Graham Parker (as himself), with cameos from Michael Ian Black (last seen in "Wanderlust"), Dan Bakkedahl, Tatum O'Neal, Melissa McCarthy, (last seen in "Identity Thief"), Billie Joe Armstrong, Ryan Adams, Bill Hader (last heard in "Monsters University").
RATING: 5 out of 10 episodes of "Lost"
No comments:
Post a Comment