Family Argument

email this story
read comments (33)
post a comment

Family Argument

A couple weeks from now, I'm guessing, we're going to start seeing pieces about how Steve Carell is messing with his funnyman handle by playing a suicidal gay gloomhead in Little Miss Sunshine (Fox Searchlight, 7.26).

The lead graph of these pieces will be a rhetorical question -- will those who loved Carell's broadly funny shtick in The 40 Year-Old Virgin (and who can't wait to see him in Get Smart) go for the mixed-bag, funny-dark humor in his latest film?

Steve Carell doing the old leaping-from-the-van action in Little Miss Sunshine

I've said a couple of times before that Carell's performance in Little Miss Sunshine is his best ever. He's ten times funnier in this than he was in Virgin. Funnier because he's playing an ascerbic, very bright Marcel Proust scholar -- one who feels quite real and fleshed-out. The laughs may be fewer in Sunshine, but when they happen they seem richer and more invested in something tangible.

Not that this will stop square-peg journalists and their editors from running "Carell is stepping out of the box" pieces. They know, after all, that a lot of people out there like their movie comedians to be funny in a broad and familiar way. These are the good folks who just say no when comedy stars turn up in quirky dark-current laughers, as Jim Carrey found out when he made The Cable Guy.

It may be that even Christina Applegate, Carell's Anchorman costar, is feeling a bit alienated by Little Miss Sunshine's in-and-out tonality. She addressed the crowd before it played last Sunday night at the LA Film Festival closer, and all she did was snip, snip, snip about how unusual it was and that it goes into dark places, blah, blah.

And then I spoke to a critic friend the next day and he was saying, "I dunno... Carell does a lot of moping in this thing...it may not go over."

This was after he read my rave review, which I put up the following day (7.3). He also said, "I guess we saw different movies."

I responded by saying, "You are once again holding down the fort on a small island with three cocoanut trees for sustenance, and a few kindred souls for company."

And he said, "Well, I'm not sure what that means. Are you presuming that I think that anything that's popular is bad, or that I like movies that only a `few kindred souls' like and dislike all else, or that any movie that isn't popular is bad?

"How do you know that Sunshine will be a hit? Have you done a measurement? I have absolutely no idea how many folks will like Sunshine, and neither does any- one else.

"What I mean is, you need to consider the possibility that it might tank when it opens."

And I replied, "What this means is that when a film like Sunshine has actual recognizable humanity and doesn't act like The 40 Year-Old Virgin but gets laughs and at the same time has the character and cojones to rapel down into the caves of darkness only to climb back out and be hah-hah funny again...that's really unusual.

"You can't just sit there and go 'Gee, I don't know....it didn't work for me and people in general may hate it.'

As if this needs to be pointed out, a scene from The 40 Year-Old Virgin

"The basic theme of Little Miss Sunshine is that as fucked and miserable as families may feel in each other's company, they'll stand up and support each other when dealing with the outside world. That's a basic truism -- families all over the world are like this -- and don't take this the wrong way but you have to be made of silicon chips not to recgognize that."

I had written earlier that "people went apeshit for Little Miss Sunshine at Sundance last January, and again last Sunday night."

And this guy replied, "'Apeshit' is a wildly exaggerated term. I've seen 'apeshit' only a few times recently -- maybe Me and You and Everyone We Know at Park City's Raquet Club, and portions of the Palais audience for Babel or Volver. I shouldn't have to tell you that the Sunshine audiences in Park City or at the Wadsworth last Sunday in no way provide sober gauges for how it'll be received by real audiences.

"Do you really think that an auditorium full of people from Fox Searchlight, big Fox, and the Los Angeles Film Festival is going to be less than abuzz over that movie?" this guy continued. "I had the distinct impression that there were 'laughers' (those nefarious paid folks strategically placed near press during early screenings) seated behind us, and I recognized one outside after the screening.

"Fox Searchlight has has paid good money for bad before -- this would hardly be the first time that's happened, particularly a deal done at Sundance. It may, on the other hand, also do well on its investment. I don't know, and neither do you and neither do they."

And then I replied, "You're speaking as if movies are dice and they may tumble around and come up seven, or they may come up snake-eyes.

"If people don't like something when it plays in Wichita, then what can you or me or Fox Searchlight do about it? Nothing. But this film is not a pair of dice on a Vegas craps table. It's a movie with a pulse -- a kind of organism with a certain astuteness, a certain alchemy, and a very particular comic tone. (Why am I pointing this out to you? Why don't you see this?)

"This movie is funny and yet full of raw family material. I've got kids, and some- times they do scream and rant and say how much they despise their parents. Seven year-old girls at the dinner table would want to know why their uncle tried to commit suicide, and a lot of them would find it fairly silly that he did so because a love affair with a student fell apart. And every other family has crusty old curmud- geons who tell their sons to fuck themselves and that they can say anything they want.

"And there are hospital bureaucrats who are unfeeling monsters. And there are wicked Orange County witches who live in that horrid Jon Benet Ramsay world. And there are positive-attitude assholes who constantly spout about always winning but who tend to exemplify the other side of the coin. Family members do fight all the time, and wives do attack their husbands as soon as they lose a source of income.

"A lot of it is horrible...despair, gloom, helplessness...and yet it all can turn on a dime and be funny the next minute. It's a matter of the filmmakers recognizing life as it often feels and behaves and then putting it all together in a darkly ironic, half-comedic, very lifelike form."

Then the guy said his wife didn't much care for Sunshine, and that worried me.

"If you don't like something or don't think it will go with the general public...well, I can deal with that. But your wife scares me. Your wife and Applegate...a couple of wild cards."

July situation<< previous | next >>Euro Snakes

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 6, 2006 at 12:05 AM

comment #1

Rich says ...

It's nice to see that the ivory tower critics have the same kind of silly dialogues we see here on these boards. "It's not funny! Is too! Carrell sucked! Did not! It will be huge! In your dreams!"

Audiences don't always shy away from comedians that broaden their range, though they tend to be choosy. They didn't like Cable Guy, but Truman Show did okay. Razor's Edge tanked, but people dug Rushmore and Lost in Translation. Good Will Hunting? Yep. One Hour Photo? Not so much.

It still comes down to the movie and whether the actor is any good in it. The biggest mistake this site consistently makes is equating box office with quality.

Posted by Rich at July 6, 2006 4:57 AM

comment #2

Chris Molanphy says ...

"You're speaking as if movies are dice and they may tumble around and come up seven, or they may come up snake-eyes."

This is the most cogent part of your argument. You're right â€“ 'Sunshine' will probably be neither a seven nor snake-eyes â€“ it'll be a solid five, box office-wise. I don't think it'll be 'Happy, Texas' but I'll be (pleasantly) shocked if it makes 'Pulp Fiction' money.

Where I disagree with you and am sympathetic with your friend is his dead-on assessment of the difference between festival and screening audiences and the general populace â€“ and before we throw this canard into it, I'm including blue-staters like you and me in that "general audience" tag. If we're comparing Carell pics, 'Virgin' made over $100m, and even if 'Sunshine' is a serious arthouse hit (with some multiplex crossover), it'll be lucky, and its execs will be happy, if it crosses $40m. 'Napoleon Dynamite,' one of the biggest Sundance-spawned hits ever, never crossed $50m and made much of its coin on DVD.

A more ridiculous quote from you:

"You are once again holding down the fort on a small island with three cocoanut trees for sustenance, and a few kindred souls for company."

No, Jeffrey, all due respect, but actually *you're* the one on the three-coconut island, the one composed of urbane, comedy-loving blue-state sophisticates who DIDN'T love 'The 40-Year-Old Virgin.' You are the ONLY person I know, in real life or otherwise (critics I've read, Oscar voters I've seen quoted, etc.) who didn't admire and wasn't pleasantly surprised by the wit, smarts and hilarity of '40YOV'; and I live in NYC, so no cracks or comparisons with 'RV'-loving mouth-breathers.

I am seriously looking forward to 'Sunshine,' believe me; but when it comes to Carell and '40YOV,' you are alone, alone, ALONE.

Posted by Chris Molanphy at July 6, 2006 5:02 AM

comment #3

Alan says ...

Rich's comments reflect my first thoughts about Carell while reading this piece: Rushmore, Good Will Hunting and, especially, The Truman Show. Clearly, stepping outside the box is not always the worst thing in the world - those performances were what actually brought me around to really enjoying Murray, Williams & Carrey, instead of thinking 'I'll catch that flick on cable one day'.

Here's the thing about Cable Guy - while it was 'dark', Jim Carrey was still doing his over-the-top schtik. In Truman Show, it was toned down, and when the shit hit the fan in that movie, it was gone entirely.

Posted by Alan at July 6, 2006 6:00 AM

comment #4

delbomber says ...

Hold the phone...audiences went apeshit over "Me and You and Everyone We Know"?????? I NEVER want to hear audience reaction as a gauge of a film's worth ever, ever, ever again.

"Me and You..." was a quaint, quirky, decent little pet project that never lived up to the madness and zeal of the opening scene. I'm a fairly discerning watcher, I'm able to *get* movies that work on different levels or speak to raw, emboldening experiences we all go through...this didn't have it. IMDB's 7.5 is about right...so what was the hooting and hollering about? The ending in-joke of which the audience felt a part? Suckers. Apeshit???

As for 'Sunshine'...The passion with which Jeff is defending this movie is setting our expectations way too high, I'm sure. In defense of his own with-it sense of humor, he's unwittingly cultivating a readership backlash.

Posted by delbomber at July 6, 2006 6:42 AM

comment #5

Nicol D says ...

This film has been way off my radar, but the more I read about it I would be stunned if it were a hit.

Dysfunctional families are a dime a hundred in Hollywood. Dark comedies from Sundance about dysfunctional families that play to the Montana crowd seem like an even tougher sell.

Even the poster reeks of pretension and when I see that the film is directed by some ex-music vid types, I think the BO is sealed.

Carrel is talented but he is not a name draw yet. Virgin sold based on concept, not Carrel.

This film may very well be funny and a quiet classic, but nothing I have seen or read about it inspires. It seems like just another trip through a culture that Hollywood knows so well and tries to cultivate...the broken family.

Didn't come from one. Can't relate.

And the whole spoof of child pageants...WTF!

Because Hollywood treats children with the utmost respect, right?

This film seems very pretentious. That stark yellow Brown Bunnyesque poster with Carrel's oh- so-fey-see-I-can-play-gay flailing arms just reeks of it.

Even the over composed frame that accompanies this article seems so look-ma-I-can-direct!

Understand I am not saying this is not a good film. What I am saying is based on everything I have seen on the net about it, Carrel better start dialing up 99 real soon.

Posted by Nicol D at July 6, 2006 7:58 AM

comment #6

Gareth says ...

Long time listener...yadda yadda..

This entire piece sounds like the value of the film will be determined by how many people "get it". A films worth, initially, is absolutely predicated by it's buzz, by how essential a part of the current popular culture it is, but that fades in the memory like weekend grosses.

Irrespective of objective notions of worth, a film that works for you or moves you has earned value for simply achieving that. Is your fervour at defedning the prospects of "Little Miss Sunshine" a response to the culture that won't accept it, or the industry that may not make more of these films if this does not do "Pulp Fiction numbers", which it won't.

I'm in love with this film already and it doesn't get to London till September.

Posted by Gareth at July 6, 2006 8:06 AM

comment #7

dayv says ...

Does anyone else find it funny that Wells sees Little Miss Sunshine as the The Cable Guy of Carrell's career? Judd Apatow co-wrote both The 40 Year Old Virgin and The Cable Guy. I would argue that The 40 Year Old Virgin was Carrell's Cable Guy (just a far better one). Also, Carrell co-wrote The 40 Year Old Virgin. He wasn't slumming. That was a serious pet project for him.

Wells' analysis of this reveals how utterly out-of-touch he really is. He talks down to people like Apatow like they're Hollywood hacks when, any discerning viewer of comedy (both TV and movies), will tell you that Judd Apatow is one of the heavy hitters of his generation (on the strength of Freaks and Geeks alone). Of course, Wells will argue that, because The 40 Year Old Virgin doesn't deal with suicide, being gay, and vows of silence, it is somehow a less credible comedy than Little Miss Sunshine. Which is complete nonsense. LMS may be terrific but, for comedy to be great, it just has to be funny. Everything else may contribute to LMS being a better movie, but it has nothing to do with how funny it is. Wells only embraces comedies for their non-comedic elements, just like he only embraces horror films for their non-horror elements. His taste is so narrow, it's pathetic.

And is it just me or does this heavy coverage of Little Miss Sunshine seem a little bogus in light of Wells' admission that the writer crashed at his place last summer? Also, as much as Wells has dismissed Wes Anderson since he stopped returning his calls, he has to admit that this movie is a total Wes Anderson clone.

Posted by dayv at July 6, 2006 8:10 AM

comment #8

Dave Poland's Gut says ...

Sounds like another boring indie "comedy"

Posted by Dave Poland's Gut at July 6, 2006 8:22 AM

comment #9

Anonymous says ...

Nicol D, it sounds like you're just opposed to style of any kind. You dismiss every self-conscious, stylistic nuance that the movie displays in its advertising like its somehow a crime to break from the norm. "First The Brown Bunny has a weird poster and now this movie has a weird poster? How dare they!" Why is it that conservatives love conformity so much?

Posted by Anonymous at July 6, 2006 8:29 AM

comment #10

Dixon Steele says ...

Jeff,

Movies may not be dice, but the audience's reaction to them most certainly are. How many movies have gotten great reactions at Sundance only to flop with the general public? (Happy, Texas, anyone?)

Glad you love LMS and I want to see it. But stop overhyping it. You're smothering it with your love, which, in keeping with the picture's themes, is very dysfunctional of you. Enough already.

And Chris, you talk about Napoleon Dynamite not doing $50 milion is exactly what's wrong with the numbers obsession these days. For a no-budget picture like this to gross nearly $45 million is amazing (and I didn't even like it that much). Whatever it did in DVD and TV was pure profit (and I hear it was massive), well over $60 million. In my book, that's nothing to look down on.

Posted by Dixon Steele at July 6, 2006 8:38 AM

comment #11

Jeffrey Wells says ...

WELLS TO DAVY -- ISSUE #1:

MUCH OF THE FIRST HALF OF 40 YEAR-OLD VIRGIN WAS ABOUT WILDLY IMPROBABLE BEHAVIOR AND CRETIN-LEVEL SLAPSTICK FOOLERY. HAVING AN INVOLUNTARY SPASM AND KICKING A WOMAN WHO'S SUCKING YOUR TOES ISN'T FUNNY. GETTING INTO A CAR WITH A TOTALLY DRUNK BLONDE AT THE WHEEL ISN'T FUNNY -- IT MEANS YOU'RE A TOTAL FOOL. THE BLONDE THROWING UP IN YOUR CAR ISN'T FUNNY -- IT JUST MEANS YOUR CAR WILL NEVER SMELL CLEAN AGAIN, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU WASH IT. THAT'S FUNNY? SCREAMING AS YOUR CHEST HAIR IS BEING RIPPED OUT OF YOU IS SLIGHTLY FUNNY BUT NOT THAT FUNNY. THE FIRST HALF OF THE FILM WAS ALL ON THIS LEVEL...LOW, PRIMITIVE, THROWAWAY.

Also, Carrell co-wrote The 40 Year Old Virgin. He wasn't slumming. That was a serious pet project for him.

SHOWING THAT HE HAS A WAYS TO GO AS A WRITER AND CREATOR OF HIS OWN STUFF.

I USED TO FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT APATOW BACK IN THE MID '90S. NOW HE'S OLDER WITH A FAMILY AND HE'S JUST GRINDING IT OUT AS BEST HE CAN. HE'S A VERY SMART GUY & NOT A BUM, BUT HE'S NOT THE COMIC GOD FROM MT. OLYMPUS EITHER.

Of course, Wells will argue that, because The 40 Year Old Virgin doesn't deal with suicide, being gay, and vows of silence, it is somehow a less credible comedy than Little Miss Sunshine.

VIRGIN HALF-RESCUES ITSELF IN THE SECOND HALF, BUT IT'S FAR LESS GROUNDED IN RECOGNIZABLE REALITY THAN SUNSHINE IS....AND A COMEDY WITHOUT SOME KIND OF RECOGNIZABLE REALITY IS A CAR WITH A HAMSTER ON A TREADWHEEL ENGINE.

Which is complete nonsense. LMS may be terrific but, for comedy to be great, it just has to be funny.

IT JUST HAS TO BE FUNNY? YOU'RE LIKE KOKO THE TALKING GORILLA SAYING, "KOKO HUNGRY! KOKO EAT! KOKO NO BEARNAISE SAUCE. KOKO NO FOIE GRAS. KOKO NO SAUTEED ONIONS. KOKO WANT YELLOW BANANA. EAT YELLOW BANANA. YELLOW BANANA GOOD."

Everything else may contribute to LMS being a better movie, but it has nothing to do with how funny it is. Wells only embraces comedies for their non-comedic elements, just like he only embraces horror films for their non-horror elements. His taste is so narrow, it's pathetic.

MOST HORROR FILMMAKERS CATER TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T GIVE MUCH OF A SHIT ABOUT CREATING A RECOGNIZABLE MILIEU AND BELIEVABLE PSYCHOLOGY...IF SOMETHING IS REALLY AND TRULY FUNNY, IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE OF ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY -- THE FILMMAKER IS USING A PIECE OF WHAT LIFE IS REALLY LIKE OUT THERE, AND TWISTING OR TURNING IN JUST THE RIGHT WAY...A PHYSICAL BIT, A BRILLIANT LINE, A BANANA PEEL OR A SLIPPERY GRAPE ON THE FLOOR...SO THAT IT NOT ONLY GETS YOU BECAUSE OF THE ENERGY OR VERVE OF THE ACTORS OR THE DIALOGUE, BUT BECAUSE VIEWERS RECOGNIZE THAT WHAT'S MAKING YOU LAUGH IS AT THE SAME TIME SOME KIND OF HONEST REFLECTION OF WHAT LIFE IS ACTUALLY LIKE OUT THERE.

MICHAEL ARNDT STAYED HERE LAST SUMMER, I STAYED AT HIS PLACE...BIG DEAL. WHAT DO YOU THINK I'M DOING, SAYING I LIKE HIS FILM OUT OF A SENSE OF DOMESTIC ALLEGIANCE? BECAUSE HIS SHOWER PUT OUT GOOD HOT WATER EVERY MORNING I'M LOOKING TO PAY TRIBUTE TO THAT SO I'M LYING AND FANTASIZING ABOUT HOW WELL-WRITTEN THE FILM IS? THE CIRCUITS IN HALF OF HIS APARTMENT STOPPED WORKING AT ONE POINT AND THE WI-FI WAS DICEY AT FIRST, AND I HAD TO WORK OUT OF THE KITCHEN AT ONE POINT, AND EVERY MORNING YOU CAN HEAR POUNDING NOISES COMING OUT OF THE ELECTRONIC STORE DOWNSTAIRS...BAM! BAM! BAM!

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at July 6, 2006 8:52 AM

comment #12

oddDuck says ...

Wells cracks me up, and makes some VERY good (but also some arguable) points, but the ALL CAPS MAKES HIM COME OFF LIKE A BIT OF A NUTCASE.

Posted by oddDuck at July 6, 2006 9:18 AM

comment #13

Thompson says ...

Seeing Wells compare a poster to Koko the gorilla in all caps has to be the highlight of my morning.

Posted by Thompson at July 6, 2006 9:25 AM

comment #14

Scott Mendelson says ...

I can't speak to Well's motives for loving Sunshine, and I heartily disagree with his assessment of 40 Year Old Virgin, but I saw Little Miss Sunshine two weeks ago and liked it quite a bit. It's not reinventing the wheel, but it's a fully-fleshed out dysfunctional family comedy that doesn't make the mistake of trying to be about every family. It's a very specific character study and on that level it works very well. Everyone in it is in top form and it's themes are noteworthy (what I took from it: no matter how messed up we are, we all crave someone, anyone who looks up to us and admires us, in the hope that their inflated opinions of us might be correct).

As for Carrell, it's to his credit that Sunshine AND Virgin are as good as they are (I don't watch The Office, but I've heard good things). It's not a battle between mass market and arthouse. Both films are intelligent triumphs and shouldn't be placed at war with each other.

Scott Mendelson

Posted by Scott Mendelson at July 6, 2006 9:28 AM

comment #15

oddDuck says ...

Despite having enjoyed 40 year old virgin much more than Wells, I agree almost 100% with his criticism of the movie. The flick has two completely different vibes alternating throughout. You've got the gross-out low-brow gag humor involving his coworkers which takes up a large chunk of the movie. This material could easily have been written by someone far less talented than Apatow. Then you've got Carell WITHOUT his coworkers -- most importantly his interaction with Catherine Keener (who is just so incredibly charming and breezy and funny in this movie) -- THIS is what elevates the film into one that it is possible to sorta love.

Posted by oddDuck at July 6, 2006 9:37 AM

comment #16

delbomber says ...

ugh, did someone say pretentious? Is there anything that screams pretense more than that VW Bus??? Unless you're a Libyan, you don't drive one of those but to convey how hip, groovy, and bohemian you are.

Posted by delbomber at July 6, 2006 9:37 AM

comment #17

Nicol D says ...

"Why is it that conservatives love conformity so much?"

Quite the opposite.

If you had actually read my post, what I wrote was the exact opposite. That this film feels like every Hollywood 'indie' type film.

'Indie' has become a conforming genre in and of itself, especially when the concepts are espoused in most mainstream films anyway.

For an 'indie' Hollywood film to be non-conformist, it would probably have to be something along the lines of a big screen version of the Cosby Show.

Steve Carell as a depressed gay university professor with a dysfunctional family...dime a hundred friend...dime a hundred.

Posted by Nicol D at July 6, 2006 9:43 AM

comment #18

lesterg says ...

"THE CIRCUITS IN HALF OF HIS APARTMENT STOPPED WORKING AT ONE POINT AND THE WI-FI WAS DICEY AT FIRST, AND I HAD TO WORK OUT OF THE KITCHEN AT ONE POINT, AND EVERY MORNING YOU CAN HEAR POUNDING NOISES COMING OUT OF THE ELECTRONIC STORE DOWNSTAIRS"

Awesome, it's not even January and we're getting a preview of this site's Sundance coverage.

Is there no apartment, townhouse, condo or duplex in America that can satisy Jeffrey Wells?

Posted by lesterg at July 6, 2006 9:52 AM

comment #19

Pinko Punko says ...

A lot of bloggers respond to comments by inserting their own words in all caps into a copied comment. I think the better way to do it (Jeff) would be to use italics for the other person's quoted lines. I know Jeff wasn't shrieking about stuff, it just looks that way. I do like how the discussions are blossoming here.

Posted by Pinko Punko at July 6, 2006 10:02 AM

comment #20

Dayv says ...

Should I respond to you in caps, Wells? Okay, I will (you started it).

JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOUR INSISTENCE THAT THOSE WHO LIKE LOW BROW COMEDY (IN ADDITION TO HIGH BROW COMEDY) ARE SOMEHOW GORILLAS FORGETS A SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF YOUR OWN RECENT GORILLA-LIKE HISTORY. YOUR ART-HATING, ANTI-INDIVIDUALISM RESPONSE TO MARIE-ANTOINETTE COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY A GORILLA. AND DITTO YOUR INCESSANT ENTHUSIASM FOR OBVIOUS, HEAVY-HANDED RUBBISH LIKE CRASH.

WHAT YOU DON'T SEEM TO COMPREHEND IS THAT MOVIES ARE COMPRISED OF BOTH STYLE AND CONTENT. A MOVIE LIKE NAPOLEON DYNAMITE, FOR EXAMPLE, DERIVES ALL OF ITS EMOTIONAL CONTENT FROM A VERY SPECIFIC APPROACH TO FORM. IT'S COMPLETELY FAKE IN MANY WAYS, BUT IT STILL HAS RESONANCE FOR PEOPLE WHO APPRECIATE ITS COEN BROTHERS-MEET-TIM BURTON SENSIBILITY.

CONTRARY TO YOUR WORLDVIEW, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO EMBRACE BOTH LOW BROW AND HIGH BROW, ENTERTAINMENT FOR ENTERTAINMENT'S SAKE AND ART FOR ART'S SAKE. DON'T POSITION YOURSELF AS SOME KIND OF ADVOCATE FOR GREAT CINEMATIC ARTISTRY. I DOUBT YOU'VE EVER EVEN WORKED UP THE COURAGE TO SEE A FILM BY CLAIRE DENIS OR ARNAUD DESPLECHIN.

AND WHAT'S WITH YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT ALL MOVIES ARE TRYING TO OFFER YOU PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALING OR COUNSELLING FOR YOUR TROUBLED FAMILY LIFE? SOME MOVIES ARE VERY CONSCIOUSLY not ABOUT REALITY AND THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN WAS ONE OF THEM. THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO ITS IRONIC SENSE OF HUMOUR BUT, IN YOUR LITERAL-MINDEDEDNESS, YOU DIDN'T GET IT. DO YOU REALLY THINK EVERYONE ELSE POSTING COMMENTS HERE LIKED IT BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID AND YOU DIDN'T BECAUSE YOU'RE ENLIGHTENED? I KNOW IT'S NOT LIKE ONE OF THOSE DAMN "ART FILMS" YOU HAVE SO MUCH TROUBLE WITH, BUT YOU STILL DIDN'T GET IT.

AND YOUR DISMISSAL OF HORROR ON THE BASIS OF ITS PSYCHOLOGICAL ACCURACY IS RIDICULOUS. YOU'RE JUST BYPASSING THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE GENRE (WHICH IS PRIMARILY STYLISTIC) AND JUDGING IT ON THE BASIS OF A CHARACTERISTIC YOU VALUE IN OTHER MOVIES. IT'S LIKE DISMISSING A WESTERN BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY MUSICAL NUMBERS. AND, OF COURSE, MANY HORROR FILMS ARE EXTREMELY AUTHENTIC IN THEIR HANDLING OF PSYCHOLOGY. DID YOU EVEN BOTHER SEEING THE DEVIL'S REJECTS, A DECEPTIVELY COMPLEX FILM THAT USES ISSUES OF AUDIENCE IDENTIFICATION/SYMPATHY TO MAKE ONE OF THE MOST POTENT STATEMENTS ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL SITUATION (A WORLD OF VILLAINS BATTLING VILLAINS WHO RUB OUT ANY GOOD, UPSTANDING PEOPLE WHO GET IN THEIR WAY) THAT HAS BEEN SEEN ANYWHERE. EVEN FILM COMMENT RAVED ABOUT IT. IT'S ALSO THE CLOSEST ANY RECENT FILM HAS COME TO CHANNELLING THE AESTHETICS AND PHILOSOPHIES OF FILMS I'M SURE YOU APPRECIATE LIKE THE WILD BUNCH AND BONNIE & CLYDE...AND, BECAUSE OF YOUR WEIRD BIAS AGAINST HORROR FILMS, YOU DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER MENTIONING THAT FILM HERE.

Posted by Dayv at July 6, 2006 10:07 AM

comment #21

Anonymous says ...

So what you're saying Nicol D is that "a big screen version of the Cosby Show" is the kind of indie you're really looking for. I'll stick with Little Miss Sunshine.

Posted by Anonymous at July 6, 2006 10:09 AM

comment #22

Sean Richardson says ...

Jeff's getting old, he's forgotten what it was like to be a virgin.

Those of us a little closer to that magic day can easily remember a time when the promise of sex, that mythical completely not understood beast, would be enough to get us into the car with a girl that drunk.

Saying that that's unrealistic tells me you're out of touch, Jeff. Plain and simple.

Also, "throwing up in the car", that wasn't the actual joke. I agree with you about the chest hair, but to say "all" or even most of the first half of the movie is on that level is false. Those elements are there, but the vast majority of the comedy in the first half comes from the interactions with Seth Rogan, Paul Rudd, and that guy from 'Weeds'. And, to some extent, the Indian guy. But I recognize that you didn't get those jokes, because you were too busy writing down the in-your-face obvious jokes, and then complaining that the movie wasn't subtle.

Gotta say, though, the argument above is the stupidest thing I've ever seen on this site. You have too much time on your hands if you're able to have that lengthy an E-mail debate with another critic. Shouldn't you be watching movies?

Posted by Sean Richardson at July 6, 2006 10:27 AM

comment #23

andrew says ...

I always used to roll my eyes at people who compared writing in CAPS to SHOUTING!, but now I totally get it. Jeff's impression of Koko the gorilla immideiately conjured the image of him jumping up and down in his desk chair and shrieking in an ape voice.

Posted by andrew at July 6, 2006 11:07 AM

comment #24

oddDuck says ...

Sean, they're having a discussion about a movie, and the movie business, what's your problem with that? I've seen far stupider things in the comments sections of this blog.

Posted by oddDuck at July 6, 2006 11:10 AM

comment #25

Nicol D says ...

"So what you're saying Nicol D is that "a big screen version of the Cosby Show" is the kind of indie you're really looking for."

Well...at least it would be original.

Cos is here! Cos is here! We could throw in some Buck Buck to boot!

Posted by Nicol D at July 6, 2006 11:13 AM

comment #26

ArchiveGuy says ...

Jeff's rebuttal to the pro-40YOV contingency would be more credible if he hadn't been such an advocate of "Wedding Crashers". Is it any more credible for these guys to lie & bed so many babes effortlessly? Or getting a handjob under the table? Or any number of other contrivances? Aside from a galvanizing performance from VV, "WC" was unexceptional boilerplate comedy, with nowhere the kind of generosity of spirit or diversity of insight that the Carrell film had (and it wasn't nearly as funny either).

Posted by ArchiveGuy at July 6, 2006 11:33 AM

comment #27

JWSmith says ...

I pretty much totally agree with what Jeffrey is saying, but he is selling '40 Year Old Virgin' a little short.

The first half of the film was pretty low-brow, but there was a real sense of fun when the main guys were together, and their interplay and dialogue was really quite impressive. The second half of the film, particularly Catherine Keener's scenes were really sweet, but also made me chuckle. The film has it's heart in the right place, and while it wasn't laugh-out-loud all the way through, it was pretty solid.

'Little Miss Sunshine' looks great. I'll reserve judgement until I see it, but right now I'm really looking forward to it, and I don't think it'll disappoint me.

Posted by JWSmith at July 6, 2006 11:47 AM

comment #28

Nora B. says ...

I think I'm in love with Wells more than ever now.

Posted by Nora B. at July 6, 2006 11:50 AM

comment #29

delbomber says ...

Lose ten readers, gain one...Wells'll win the pennant with that trade...

(lose as in viewpoint, not traffic)

Posted by delbomber at July 6, 2006 12:07 PM

comment #30

oddDuck says ...

I fucking love it when Wells chomps on the bait and responds to comments, mainly because his responses are well thought out, spirited, definitely agitating but entirely worthy of the space they occupy. At least he engages ON THE MERITS, as opposed to certain people here -- and by certain people I mean Nicol D.

Posted by oddDuck at July 6, 2006 12:40 PM

comment #31

delbomber says ...

oddDuck...not defending NicholD, but the arguments that take place on message boards today are prime examples of just about every logical fallacy one can imagine...whether it's affirming the consequent, appealing to authority (good LORD is that overused here), argumentum ad ignorantium, cum or post hoc ergo propter hoc, et al. Wells is extremely literate and manages to avoid these pitfalls moreso than his "proletariate" reader base, but even he falls prey to these errors, namely proof by assertion and and appeal to riducule here. I'm sure I've missed a few myself here and there as well...

Another egregious offender is Danny Zelter...the KING of non sequiturs, whoa! Aw, that's not nice, the guy hasn't blamed George Bush for the Kennedy assassination for a weeks now...

Posted by delbomber at July 6, 2006 1:32 PM

comment #32

DB says ...

Regarding Steve Carrell. I think the part in LMS is probably the best thing he could have done to his career after Virgin. Not to go straight back to the same schtick, although mind you I thought virgin was really a nice surprise when I caught it last summer. I also donÂ´t think it was that intentional career move though (signed up for LMS probably before Virgin became a hit) but more of a nice "surprise" of having (possibly) two different movies become hits in a row (or three if you count Over the Hedge - which I donÂ´t).

Posted by DB at July 6, 2006 2:22 PM

comment #33