You know Larry Charles: he's the guy who forced "Borat" on an unsuspecting world. He's at it again--making fun of unsuspecting fools, that is. I suppose it is tempting to appear on camera, no matter the circumstance (why else would people still agree to sit with a 'Daily Show' correspondent?). But the technique -- which can be amusing up to a point -- soon becomes tedious. And its more of the same here: why make a thoughtful critique of religion in today's society when you can just make fun of the wingnuts?
This movie is a veritable parade of wingnuts. I don't blame Bill Maher--he is a comedian first, so it is natural for him to go for the joke every chance he gets. But time after time, all we get are snippets of interviews with the most extreme members of one faith or another (Christians, Muslims, Jews, pot smokers) . Even the serious commentators who agreed to appear (scientist Francis X. Collins is the only one who comes to mind) get the same treatment: anytime anyone comes close to thoughtfully challenging Maher's premise, the movie quick-cuts to Mormon cartoons or an evangelical/Godspell song-and-dance number.
In the most-egregious example of this technique, the filmmakers send a film crew all the way to Vatican City, yet don't bother to find a more competent advocate of the Catholic faith than some nut Maher interviews on the street!
The best part of the movie comes towards the end, when Maher goes to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Here I actually learn something--but it comes much too late to save this picture. In what should be the movie's strong point, the equivalent of Maher's closing "Real Time" essay, where he looks into the camera and delivers a scathing attack on the latest outrage of the day, is undermined by this hack director, who insists on diverting our attention with an MTV-montage of violence and extremism (which we are supposed to take "on faith" was religion-inspired) while Maher's point is completely drowned out. If Charles was striving for a "call to action" moment, like the end of "An Inconvenient Truth," he fails miserably. If Charles thinks he can clone the Michael Moore formula, he has only left out the intelligence, the wit, and the courage to confront an issue head-on.
Now for the good stuff . . . The Profane:
The author of "Fight Club" penned this outrageous look at a sex addict who works in a Williamsburg-type colonial village by day, and by night cons people into giving him money after they save his life by performing the Heimlich maneuver on him (and in-between visits his mother in a mental institution). That's the best synopsis I can give, but it fails to convey the hilarious sordidness of the piece. This guy--and the people he interacts with -- are real losers! But the creators of this indie hit have an obvious fondness for these oh-so damaged characters, which is conveyed in every committed, whacked-out performance: from Sam Rockwell in the lead, to the great Anjelica Huston as the deranged mother, to Kelly Macdonald (last seen in "No Country For Old Men"), down to the perfect supporting turns by Heather Burns ("Miss Congeniality I & II"), newcomer Gillian Jacobs (as a stripper named Cherry Daiquiri--"not her real name") and the director himself. You might not have heard of this movie--it is not to everyone's taste--but neither was "Fight Club". . . and you remember the first rule of Fight Club, don't you?
The summer comedy blockbuster of the year!
Ben Stiller nails it, in his scathing send-up of all of our worst fears about Hollywood's egotism, excess, greed, and crassness. To wit: Actors are pompous asses, and so is everyone else in Hollywood! No, that's not a revelation, but never has it been driven home so relentlessly. Outrageous and offensive it is -- but it has to be! Not since Austin Powers (I) has a comedy been this silly, daring, ridiculous and laugh-out-loud funny throughout.
For better or worse, Stiller has developed his craft at the feet of the Farrelly Brothers, which becomes obvious in the movie's most controversial segment (repeated references to the leading man's role in a movie as a mentally-challenged man, in a blatant attempt to earn an Oscar). But the at-times uncomfortable laughs are at the expense of an industry that will exploit anyone, not at the expense of the so-called 'retarded.'
Yes, Tom Cruise is great in a supporting role --I've known that since "magnolia." It is Robert Downey, Jr. who steals the show, however, proving to be equally adept at comedy as he is at drama (witness last year's "Zodiac.")
No comments:
Post a Comment