"People don't change." That's a frequent quote from Matthew Weiner, the creative mastermind behind "Mad Men." It's a sentiment I tend to agree with, but it creates a conundrum for character-based dramas. If people don't change, how do you create meaningful action? Some character studies ignore this issue and pay little attention to plot. That's a fine approach, but some movies aim for more. How to do that without giving the audience a dishonest ending, one that tells us a character will now live happily--or perhaps unhappily--ever after, when he'll probably just revert to his old ways?
I won't spoil the ending, but "Mud" faces this trap and then artfully finds its way out. The protagonist, Ellis, is a 14-year-old who seems to be seeing his illusions about love crashing down around him. His parents are on the brink of divorce and he's fallen for a 16-year-old who gives him just enough attention to break his heart. But he's also helping Mud, a drifter played by Matthew McConaughey, to reunite with his girlfriend, played by Reese Witherspoon.
Another movie would have McConaughey and Witherspoon ride off into the sunset, reaffirming Ellis' faith in the power of love. An extremely downbeat ending was also possible. But "Mud" takes a more honest approach. It shows us that the characters have had significant experiences and learned from them. They may or may not apply those lessons. But that's how life tends to be. It's about experiences, not magical personal growth.
***
"Mud" also offers a good opportunity to reflect on the talents of McConaughey. By now every seemingly every film critic has recounted his comeback tale since he started taking movies seriously again. But McConaughey is a rare breed of actor. He's not just a movie star, someone with a distinct persona who's fun to hang out with for two hours. He's also a talented actor. Will Smith and Tom Cruise have plenty of charisma, but they're basically playing themselves in every movie. McConaughey has a definite brand, but he's also capable of slipping into a role. He's more like Jimmy Stewart, Katherine Hepburn, or Paul Newman. They all had familiar personas, but they were talented enough to carry real films, not just popcorn flicks. McConaughey is now on track to join their ranks as a screen legend.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
This is 40
It's hard to overestimate the influence of Judd Apatow on mainstream American comedy. Of course, he's known for creating the "man-child with heart" persona in his directorial efforts, "The 40-year-old Virgin" and "Knocked Up." But he's also produced breakout films for Will Ferrell, Seth Rogen, Jason Siegel, James Franco, and Kristen Wiig. Throw in his work on television on "Freaks and Geeks" and "Girls," and there's almost certainly no one who currently has a bigger influence on American comedy, on screens both big and small.
All of which has made him just a little too powerful. There's no one to tell him "no" at this point. That can be a good thing: he's free to make movies about the concerns of contemporary adults, which Hollywood has all but forgotten. But there's also no one to reign him in, to save him from his worst impulses. The result is that his good ideas get half-buried in indulgences.
Last time out, he gave us "Funny People," a good story about the emotional neediness of comedians that somehow got hijacked by an awful love-triangle plot. That storyline was so bad that it seemed suspiciously like an excuse to cast his wife and kids, bolstering his family's income while allowing him to hang out with them on set.
This time around, he's returned to the Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann couple from "Knocked Up." This allows him to not only cast his family again, but also get some sequel money. (Somewhat hilariously, the end credits tell us that the movie was "written and directed" by Apatow and also is "based on characters created by" Apatow. I would hope this was the case if he wrote the damn thing, but I assume it was contractually necessary to get those extra royalty checks for writing a sequel. Fittingly, IMDB tells us the film was "written by Judd Apatow and Judd Apatow.")
But that's not the real problem here. Apatow wants to tell a story about the struggles of marriage, and he's got the right angle: he's not afraid to show how ugly being a spouse and a parent can get. But he has no real story. That would be fine if he could keep the running time fleet, but the man who normalized the two-hour comedy seems incapable of going under that mark now. The result is a bunch of flailing subplots that mostly go nowhere. The biggest of those, Rudd's money troubles, seems awfully tone-deaf: the man owns a record label, has a huge house, takes his wife on a lovely vacation, throws a lavish party, and gives his dad obscene amounts of money. But there are others: Mann looks for a thief at the store she owns, the couple spar with a rude child and parent, Rudd tries to eat fewer cupcakes. Apatow tries to tie it all together with a huge final set piece, but he's like a juggler who's taken on too many bowling balls.
Also, it's time to say it: Apatow has contracted a very serious case of Cameron Crowe Disease, the rare but serious condition whereby a director loves everything on his iPod so much that he has to share as many of his songs as possible with the world. Crowe at least throws some variety into his movies, but Apatow seems to have an endless supply of bittersweet acoustic songs to tug at your heartstrings. (If you don't like Graham Parker, tough--Apatow will ram him down your throat in this film.). He also throws in songs by Alice in Chains, Stone Temple Pilots, and Sublime, just in case you haven't owned a radio in 20 years.
I feel a little guilty rambling on about the shortcomings of "This is 40." Apatow has some good insights here: how men find fun in aggression, how one person tends to fight more to improve a relationship, how festering problems for a couple can be buried and then explode. But there's a lot you have to wade through to get there. My wife was asleep by the time the big climactic scene rolled around, and I can't say I blame her.
All of which has made him just a little too powerful. There's no one to tell him "no" at this point. That can be a good thing: he's free to make movies about the concerns of contemporary adults, which Hollywood has all but forgotten. But there's also no one to reign him in, to save him from his worst impulses. The result is that his good ideas get half-buried in indulgences.
Last time out, he gave us "Funny People," a good story about the emotional neediness of comedians that somehow got hijacked by an awful love-triangle plot. That storyline was so bad that it seemed suspiciously like an excuse to cast his wife and kids, bolstering his family's income while allowing him to hang out with them on set.
This time around, he's returned to the Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann couple from "Knocked Up." This allows him to not only cast his family again, but also get some sequel money. (Somewhat hilariously, the end credits tell us that the movie was "written and directed" by Apatow and also is "based on characters created by" Apatow. I would hope this was the case if he wrote the damn thing, but I assume it was contractually necessary to get those extra royalty checks for writing a sequel. Fittingly, IMDB tells us the film was "written by Judd Apatow and Judd Apatow.")
But that's not the real problem here. Apatow wants to tell a story about the struggles of marriage, and he's got the right angle: he's not afraid to show how ugly being a spouse and a parent can get. But he has no real story. That would be fine if he could keep the running time fleet, but the man who normalized the two-hour comedy seems incapable of going under that mark now. The result is a bunch of flailing subplots that mostly go nowhere. The biggest of those, Rudd's money troubles, seems awfully tone-deaf: the man owns a record label, has a huge house, takes his wife on a lovely vacation, throws a lavish party, and gives his dad obscene amounts of money. But there are others: Mann looks for a thief at the store she owns, the couple spar with a rude child and parent, Rudd tries to eat fewer cupcakes. Apatow tries to tie it all together with a huge final set piece, but he's like a juggler who's taken on too many bowling balls.
Also, it's time to say it: Apatow has contracted a very serious case of Cameron Crowe Disease, the rare but serious condition whereby a director loves everything on his iPod so much that he has to share as many of his songs as possible with the world. Crowe at least throws some variety into his movies, but Apatow seems to have an endless supply of bittersweet acoustic songs to tug at your heartstrings. (If you don't like Graham Parker, tough--Apatow will ram him down your throat in this film.). He also throws in songs by Alice in Chains, Stone Temple Pilots, and Sublime, just in case you haven't owned a radio in 20 years.
I feel a little guilty rambling on about the shortcomings of "This is 40." Apatow has some good insights here: how men find fun in aggression, how one person tends to fight more to improve a relationship, how festering problems for a couple can be buried and then explode. But there's a lot you have to wade through to get there. My wife was asleep by the time the big climactic scene rolled around, and I can't say I blame her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
