Crude And Cruderer
Posted on | August 14, 2005 at 11:12 pm | 10 Comments
Man walks into a talent agent’s office, says “Have I got an act for you…”
That’s the setup for the titular joke that’s at the center of the new documentary The Aristocrats (not to be confused with the Disney cartoon The Aristocats, as the movie itself reminds us). The comedian telling the joke improvises the middle section, which always describes a stage act involving a family doing unspeakably foul things to each other. At the end, the talent agent says “Ummm… that’s quite an act you’ve got there, what do you call it?” To which the man replies “The Aristocrats!”. Not a particularly funny punchline (as the movie itself makes clear), and it’s more of a shaggy dog story than a joke. But the point is that it’s a joke comedians apparently having been telling each other since the dawn of time (or at least since the first Mastodon-milk two drink minimum rule was enacted down at the Comedy Cave), and it’s something they use as a sort of secret handshake to establish their cred. The humor comes from the improvisation the joke teller does and just how uncomfortably darkly humorous he can get.
When I first heard about this movie (from the South Park excerpt that was posted on the web), I thought it was going to be 90 minutes of one comedian after another telling his or her version of the joke, with some possible analysis or whatever thrown in between recitations. In actuality, there are few complete tellings (it’s mostly just excerpts) and lots of discussion about the joke. This turns out to be a good thing, since otherwise it would’ve gotten a bit too repetitious. As it is, there is a lot of repetition, and it succeeds in making you numb to the horrors of the joke, while still allowing for lots of uncomfortable laughs. The most humor seems to come from when comedians don’t follow the formula exactly and do their own spin on it (Martin Mull, for example, intertwines it with the old “roo-roo or death” joke). Sarah Silverman also does an interesting variation on the joke, or rather on the telling of it.
I’m going to rate this one a Wait on my movie rating scale. Since this is a documentary, the only real advantage to seeing it on the big screen is for the communal movie-going experience and to watch the reactions of your fellow movie-goers. In keeping with the spirit of the joke, it’s a somewhat uncomfortable communal experience (hint: don’t take someone to see this on a first date… or even a second… or third… or tenth…). I’ve heard there have been a lot of walkouts, but the crowd I was with (which was fairly sizeable) must’ve gotten the message that this flick isn’t for everyone and sensitive people should stay away, since I think everyone stuck around. But it’s worth seeing and has some really funny moments. Still, I would’ve felt more at ease viewing it at home.
The other movie I saw this weekend, and which also rates a Wait on the scale was Wedding Crashers. It’s kind of a throw-back to the old 80s R-rated sex comedies like Animal House, which was refreshing in a way (wow – brief nudity! very brief…). Lots of funny stuff in there, although Christopher Walken didn’t get to do his usual far-out monologue (fyi, Kevin Pollak does a humorous Walken take on the title joke in The Aristocrats). Rachel McAdams is really cute as the potential love interest for Owen Wilson’s character, but after an initial few scenes where it seems like she’s a really interesting person, she quickly devolves into a blank plot device with great eyebrows. You just really wonder about someone like that who can be with the Bad Boyfriend and not figure out what a sleaze he is. Vince Vaughn and Isla Fisher (who looks like she’s a teenager but is actually like 29) steal the show as the wacky will-they-or-won’t-they-end-up-together couple.
The major problem I had with it was that it was so predictable. I was able to easily tick off the act transitions (yep, here’s the second act turning point) and there were very few surprises. Although the surprises that were there, like the extended cameo from an ex-SNL and current box office star, were nice. But man, you could practically write the ending from viewing the first scene. Perhaps that’s the kind of thing that Hollywood needs to bring people back into the theaters. It certainly seems to be doing well enough. But really, it’s made for the small screen. Unless you need a (20th) date movie to go to because The Aristocrats was sold out…
Latre.
Comments
10 Responses to “Crude And Cruderer”
August 19th, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
OK, I’m embarrassed to ask for help in understanding a dumb summer comedy, but I didn’t really follow why Vince Vaughn ended up with….who he ended up with. Did you get it? You want to answer here or go to e-mail?
August 19th, 2005 @ 12:49 pm
The answer is easy: Because the script called for it. What would the last act have been without it? Owen Wilson wouldn’t have been able to mope by himself.
On another level, it’s the old thing about how if two people don’t seem right for each other, you just know they’ll end up together. “Doth protest too much” and all that. Oh, those crazy kids!
August 19th, 2005 @ 11:07 pm
Re: the Aristocrats – I’m a bit surprised at how anyone can be as close to ambivalent about the movie as you seem to be, but I’m glad you didn’t hate it.
In case you were wondering why Sarah Silverman’s bit was about obscure local (NYC) talk show host Joe Franklin, it’s worth noting that the creator of “Girls Gone Wild” is named Joe FRANCIS…
And I’ve just heard from the editor of the film, in the CD version of the movie Doug Stanhope’s version is uncut, end-to-end. “Glorious” is how he described it.
August 20th, 2005 @ 7:32 am
Is Joe Franklin actually obscure? I would have thought that Billy Crystal’s imitation of him during the “Steinbrenner Year” (’84-’85) of SNL would have made Joe Franklin famous outside of the Big Apple. But then again, that season is now over twenty years ago (sigh)…
August 20th, 2005 @ 8:03 am
Ben, I think my (perceived) ambivalence probably had to do with the fact that it was so hyped and that I knew so much going into it, that it really failed to shock me. Or maybe I’m just jaded. So I went in looking for some laughs, and I found some, but it didn’t totally bowl me over. I can see why it would register more with people around the standup community.
I kind of knew who Joe Franklin was, or at least had heard the name before…
August 24th, 2005 @ 12:32 am
IMHO Joe Franklin qualifies as obscure, but what do I know. I know his show ran for like 50 years, and NYC is a big population center and all that. But even when Billy Crystal was doing him (and that was the last year I even watched SNL) I didn’t realize it was a character based on a real person. It would surprise me if many people who aren’t from that area would know the name. Of course, you see him in the film; I presume that’s only to underline that he cooperated with the joke, since they don’t really explain who he is.
Rogj, the movie’s intent isn’t to shock. The joke’s intent is to shock, sure, but the movie is about the art of standup and getting a peek into how the performers’ minds work (or in Izzard’s case, fail to…) Unlike places such as the UK or Australia, comedy isn’t really treated as an art form in this country – so you get profiles of musicians and actors all the time, but very few documentaries about comedians. And to date it’s the 2nd most successful documentary of the year. I think they’re kicking themselves that they didn’t put any penguins in…
August 24th, 2005 @ 7:52 am
Ben, I think I should’ve said “failed to surprise me” (since I knew so much about it going into it) rather than “failed to shock me”. I don’t care what the movie’s intent was – it shouldn’t be anything other than to entertain. If it were just for comedians, or just to peek into the demented minds of comedians, then that’s bad. But happily, I was entertained. I was just sad there were no penguins.
August 24th, 2005 @ 6:12 pm
Now that’s a bit shocking – a movie should have no purpose other than to entertain? Yowza. It’s “bad” if the movie is only about peeking into the minds of comedians? Jiminy!
It’s a documentary. By definition their first priority is not necessarily to entertain, but to – well, document. Inform people, while preserving information (from a certain point of view) for the future. Not being boring helps ticket sales but does not improve a work’s quality as a documentary.
August 24th, 2005 @ 6:20 pm
Even a documentary has to be entertaining, especially if you’re releasing it in a theater and are expecting people to pay money to see it. People are not going to be pay to be informed, unless it’s presented in an entertaining manner. I suppose if you don’t care if it makes money, then it doesn’t have to be entertaining, but then why go to all the trouble and spend the money to make it in the first place?
Yeah, yeah art vs commerce. I’m not reviewing the quality of the movie, I’m usually saying whether I’m entertained or not. But I still think those go hand in hand.
August 25th, 2005 @ 12:53 am
I guess it just comes down to phrasing really – we’re not hugely in disagreement, but the way you worded a few things seemed a bit extreme to me.