|
Film > Reviews > Judd Apatow > Funny People ![]() Funny PeopleDirector: Judd ApatowCast: Adam Sandler, Seth Rogan, Leslie Mann, Eric Bana, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman, RZA(Universal Studios, 2009) Rated: R US theatrical release date: 31 July 2009 (General release) UK theatrical release date: 28 August 2009 (General release) By Todd R. RamlowStuntedThe tribulations of celebrity are well known. Famous people routinely tell us how difficult it is to be them, how stardom is a burden, and how, as Adam Sandler’s George Simmons tells Ira Wright (Seth Rogan), fans “always wanted too much from me.” We want stars always to be “on,” to live up to their finely crafted PR, to remain the same. Imagine always having to be “Brad Pitt,” or “Megan Fox,” or even “Adam Sandler.” Judd Apatow’s Funny People confronts these conundrums of celebrity and identity via the special case of the celebrity comedian. Unlike more actorly entertainers, the comedian often relies on a specific shtick, quirk, tic, or bodily difference. This foundation solidifies into a fixed persona, one he can never shed. As it happens, George’s stylings and routines are strikingly similar to those of Adam Sandler. He’s a top tier comedian known for his physical hijinks and “funny” voices (actually, all pretty much the same whining, Jewish grandmother voice). Whenever George greets his fans, he feels beset by requests to do one voice or another. It’s clearly exhausting. The problem—and this is perhaps a fresh angle that Apatow brings to the “perils of celebrity” story—is that George can’t seem to stop himself from retreating into this persona. Even absent any demanding public, whether he’s hanging out with his few friends, leaving a message on voice mail, or communicating in any sort of personal way, George slips into “that voice.” As Gertrude Stein said of her childhood home in Oakland, CA, for George too, “There is no there there.” There is only the public persona of George Simmons. No surprise, that lack has limited George’s relationships, romantic, sexual, or fraternal. Also no surprise, when he’s handed a rare blood disease diagnosis and suddenly faces seemingly certain decline and death, he realizes he’s alone. Long estranged from his family and prone to one-night stands, he pines for the “one that got away” (Leslie Mann). Cue the generic tropes of the “bromance.” Deciding to return to stand-up in order to reclaim some youthful enthusiasm, George meets Ira at LA’s “Improv.” Thinking he’s found a friend in this up-and-coming comedian, George hires Ira to write material for him. This setup is immediately a problem for Funny People, a problem that might be identified in the genre of the bromance more generally. First, the bromance must be achingly self-aware; it must draw repeated attention to its own familiar male-bonding antics, or risk seeming even vaguely homoerotic. (Think: Top Gun [and Quentin Tarantino’s riff on it], Point Break, or The Fast and the Furious.) Funny People establishes its so-arch self-awareness by repeatedly referring to other bromantic fare. Upset by Ira’s growing friendship with George, Ira’s pal Leo (Jonah Hill), for instance, snips on the phone that Ira should tell George that “Paul Rudd wants to do a bromance with you.” Second, and this is connected to that strained self-reflexivity, the bromance must manage any anxiety about straight male intimacy through incessant homophobia and penis jokes. George repeatedly asserts the non-homo status of his bromance with Ira whenever Ira threatens to become too “girly” or emotional by disavowing homosexuality. When Ira gets all blubbery in public about George’s declining health, George chastises him: “People will think we just broke up.” And yet George is also obsessed with Ira’s dick. George is constantly surmising about the size of Ira’s dick, especially how his own pales in comparison, asking Ira to see it, and then telling other people about how big and scary it is. The routine makes it seem that straight guys can only express emotional investment in their pals through such overkill, acknowledging the other dick in the room, talking about it, and simultaneously denying any sexual interest in it. But I don’t think that this is necessarily true, which means that bromances like Funny People do a disservice to the friendship capabilities of straight men, making them seem stunted. Unfortunately, it seems that until we get past the contemporary moment’s fascination with the bromance, straight guys will continue to be told that the only acceptable avenues to male intimacy are broadly defined homophobia and increasingly predictable jokes. 1 August 2009Related Articles
‘Funny People’ and the Advent of the Social Network NarrativeBy Thomas Britt13.Aug.09 If the public prefers disposable, computer generated product about man-babies to dramas about human relationships, then Funny People may be plugged directly in to the zeitgeist.
|
|
Comments
This was less a review of the movie than a criticism of the “bromance” comedy genre (which I agree is getting old). There’s no mention at all of the female perspective, which is somewhat surprising for an “engendered” site such as PopMatters.
“bromances like Funny People do a disservice to the friendship capabilities of straight men, making them seem stunted.”
I think that’s sort of the point. There’s comedy in making fun of the relationships men have based on their own insecurities and just making dick jokes.
Comment by Dave from Charlotte, NC — August 1, 2009 @ 11:15 am
Dave, I was also confused as to whether this was a review. Well, not really, I just didn’t think it was.
This bromance might have a bit more verisimilitude, I think, because all the characters are comedians. It’s like they’re testing jokes on each other. Also, when you’re trying to be funny—when you HAVE to be funny—all the time, you’re going to reach for the low hanging fruit: the cock. Okay, that last bit got a little weird there…
Comment by Frank — August 6, 2009 @ 5:36 am
It wasn’t Leo who said it, it was a Hollywood guy at the celebration party where Eminem was at.
Comment by haha — August 11, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
The curious thing about this review? It makes me doubt the validity of “bromance” as any sort of discussable designation - once you decide (unthinkingly, as far as I can tell) that Funny People is a “bromance,” you move on to a faux deconstruction/indictment of the genre rather than engaging the movie on its own merits. You’re letting the broader discourse prevent actual meaningful discussion of this thing as a piece of art. This movie was more Manhattan-era Woody Allen or Lost In Translation or, hell, Velvet Goldmine than Pineapple Express and I feel like it deserves to be discussed as such.
Comment by Joe — August 14, 2009 @ 7:25 am