Disconnects
Human Nature screenwriter Charlie Kaufman also wrote the
celebrated Being John Malkovich. So he's, like, way
metaphysical as a humorist and modern commentator on morality,
with an approach so far out of left field he's
actually coming at us from those rooftops across the street
behind the ivy wall at Wrigley. That Malkovich's
disjointed David Lynch-meets-Frank Zappa-meets-Jim
Henson-on-crystal-meth headfuck succeeded at the box office and
scored Academy points is one of the more mind-blowing -- pun
unintended -- happenings in mainstream American cinema's recent
history. That Kaufman had the film world buzzing "what next"
loud enough to drown out all the cell phones in Hollywood is
not.
Kaufman's success in Malkovich is noteworthy and
positive. How many other screenwriters -- not writing/directing
auteurs, and not glory-hogging, "a film by" directors --
arguably the most overlooked flower in the creative garden get
top line attention like that? Granted, with Malkovich it
helped immeasurably to have Spike "Dude, I could be drinking
Zima on a shuffleboard deck with Richard Grieco and still be WAY
cooler than you" Jonze calling "action" and "cut." Yet Kaufman
matched Jonze neck and neck up Accolade Hill. To the extent that
in the two weeks since Human Nature debuted, his deeply
flawed and vastly inferior follow-up, nearly everything there's
been to read about it has started the same way: "Charlie Kaufman
wrote Being John Malkovich."
So, fairly or unfairly, Human Nature will be judged as
Kaufman's movie more than anyone else's. And, as he's written an
overly ambitious, thematically stunted winkathon that fails
biggest and baddest on the shortcomings of its script, this
judge is scoring harshly. Human Nature is largely a study
in the fine line between being innovative and being asinine. And
without Cool Hand Spike's bravura parlor tricks to keep the
hallucination within its frame, Kaufman's wheels go round and
round but don't take him real far.
I'm not sure how they could, seeing as his focus is so broad as
to not exist (I don't envy director Michel Gondry, who comes to
this having worked on some Bjork videos and commercials and
seems swallowed whole by the material). At any given time,
Human Nature is a highly stylized
through-the-looking-glass parable on: our empty obsession with
physical appearance; crass urbanization and Western culture's
Thoreau-esque overemphasis on refinement vs. life; how
(in)effective our parameters for defining civilization are; our
dangerous fascination with being someone else -- also the
backbone of Malkovich; the psychological thumbprint
parents make on their defenseless children -- in fact, the
ultimate validity of psychology as a practice at all; and, in a
muddy statement that's questionably sexist-in-a-Bob
Dylan-sorta-way, how love and lust and power can turn anyone
duplicitous and capable of great evil, especially women.
Kaufman might have turned a thoughtful and thorough treatment of
any one of those topics into a compelling script. Instead he
juggles himself stupid and winds up empty-handed, spinning
characters out of control with inexplicable actions and
foreclosing plot lines into stonewalls and split ends. What
starts as zany ends up pat and silly.
But initially, as far as Pomo crackpot morality indictments go,
this one isn't without promise. Kaufman sets his story up as a
flashback told from three perspectives: Lila's (Patricia
Arquette), Puff's (Rhys Ifans), and Nathan's
(Tim Robbins). Lila is a typical American girl with a grossly
accelerated hormone issue that causes her to grow Kong-like body
hair. This is sort of a problem when it comes to meeting men, or
really meeting anybody. Disgusted with herself and tired of the
vicious joke that her genetic composition has played on her,
Lila contemplates suicide, because anything's better than a
"life" built around playing an ape-woman in a circus freak show.
With blade already to wrist in a warm bath, Lila is dissuaded
from killing herself by a fluffy little mouse that stares her
down and sends her some much needed universal, animalistic
acceptance, body hair and all. Reinvigorated,
Lila makes her move. She decides that human understanding and
companionship pale in comparison to the same as made available
by our less judgmental brethren in the jungle. Just so, she
lets her freak flag fly, grows her hair all over everywhere,
moves into the woods, and lives in a tent off money she makes as
a best-selling nature writer/female empowerment specialist
(women in beauty parlors devour her books like chocolate-covered
editions of Cosmo and her second book is titled Fuck
Humanity).
But then, nearing thirty and living alone in the woods, she gets
horny. This combination of animal instinct and human frailty
propels her back to Starbucks
society and into hair-removal treatment, administered by a
plucky electrolysist (Rosie Perez -- and where the f has she
been?) looking to play matchmaker for Nathan (Tim Robbins), a
scientist friend with a crippling case of phallic insecurity.
Nathan's a bit of a loner, albeit an extremely well-manicured
one: his life work is teaching mice table manners, and shocking
them crisp if they don't use the right microfork to eat their
microsalads.
He's a fairly fucked up guy, so initially, the two get on just
fine. On a date in the woods, the couple encounters the feral
beastman Nathan will later name "Puff" (Rhys Ifans) and turn
into his pet project -- pun totally intended, the gnarly dog --
and Frankenstein monster. And then, as if on cue, we encounter
wacky hijinks. Things fall apart spectacularly: a va-va-voom
French lab assistant (Miranda Otto) accelerates the process by
fleshing out a romantic rectangle with the other three, feelings
and relationships get heavily damaged, and someone winds up
catching a bullet to the head. Unfortunately, the movie's
failure parallels the failures in the lives of its principal
characters. By the final scene nearly every character involved
in the big spiral has made some totally radical decision that
doesn't at all fit or make sense with regard to what's come
before.
The performances aren't the problem, however, and shouldn't be
confused with the writing: Arquette is uncharacteristically
lively as Lila, fluidly transitioning from wounded recluse to
naïve, insecure relationship rookie and on to ass-kicking
woman-scorned with chops that I, for one, never knew she had.
Robbins is singularly hysterical, painfully anal and disarmingly
haunting, often in the same shot, cementing his reputation as
one of film's quirkiest and most cerebral leading men. And Ifans
steals the movie every time he's on screen, acting as Human
Nature's id and displaying a profound talent for physical
comedy while effortlessly shifting gears from grunting Tarzan to
erudite upper-cruster. His transformation is so total that the
blazer and ascot-bedecked Puff standing in front of projected
footage of the primal creature first captured by Nathan offers a
truly jarring contrast.
Puff is also the film's best developed sociological critique:
drawn without his control into civilization, he sacrifices the
blissful ignorance of an unexamined, un-intellectualized life,
and winds up looking to alcohol, hookers, and drugs to fill up
the gaping hole in his internal fabric torn by his newly opened
eyes. The logic here is that maybe we wouldn't be so screwed up
if we weren't so plugged in. It's an argument that gets your
attention.
But, like so much of Human Nature, Kaufman's screenplay
doesn't really know what to do with that attention once it's
won. Maybe he doesn't care. Maybe the point is to throw out as
many undergraduate level philosophy essay questions as he can,
hoping something sticks along the way, but knowing full well he
can hide behind postmodernism and look deep-in-thought when
complaints over the disconnects come rolling back. Either way,
Human Nature lacks the courage to ultimately look itself
in the eye. If this is what's left in the coolsville out beyond
left field, I'm not so curious to see what comes next.
Sometimes, even the most metaphysical of ponies only knows one
good trick.
2 May 2002