Rock & Rohmer

email this story
read comments (28)
post a comment

Chris Rock's I Think I Love My Wife (Fox Searchlight, 3.16) isn't over-the-moon great, but it isn't half bad. The one-sheet tells you it's a generic marital infidelity comedy and it certainly has the lightness of tone that goes with the form, but it also has some mildly surprising grace notes and side-intrigues that you don't usually get with this sort of thing.

I could write a 1500-word piece, easy, about the indications in Chris Rock's expression and body posture in this shot, which was taken last night outside the Arclight, prior to the premiere screening of Rock's I Think I Love My Wife -- Wednesday, 3.7.07, 7:25 pm

One of the interesting side notes is that the film seems to be saying that wealthy, upscale African-Americans are living lives in their toney suburban homes that are just as bland and conservative and spiritually enervated as the regimented, martini-supplanted lives that suburban white-breads have been accused of living for decades, going back to the days of John Cheever's "Bullet Park" and Sloan Wilson's "The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit."

I Think I Love My Wife is about a well-employed commuter husband (Rock) who's bored and frustrated because his wife (Gina Torres) is never in the mood, so he starts sniffing around (and I mean just that -- sniffing, not tom-catting) and pretty soon into the film a very sexy lady he used to know in his youth (Kerry Washington) is visiting him at the office and showing all kinds of interest, etc. The light is green, the door is open -- all he has to do is walk through.

But Rock (who directed and co-wrote) is not exactly a fire-in-the-loins type, and so nothing really happens in the way of libidinal incrimination. But oh, boy...does it almost!

The "almost" and "nothing really happens" aspects are actually what make Rock's film feel agreeably different. Obviously Rock made it in order to share some personal impressions of married life and his deep-down feelings about catting around, but the moderate, meditative tone (and perhaps the lack of overt crassness -- there's only one dick joke in the entire thing) is probably due to some extent to the surprising fact that it's based on Eric Rohmer's Chloe in the Afternoon (1972).

Yes, that's what I'm saying -- I Think I Love My Wife is essentially Eric Rohmer channelled through Chris Rock. (The Chloe acknowledgment is right there in the opening credits.)

The Rock and Rohmer films are different in numerous ways, of course. Maye dozens of ways. The Rohmer is...well, Rohmer resplendent. Chloe is one of his "Six Moral Tales," and this one , at least, is about much more than watching paint dry. Rock's film, however, is basically about resignation, subjugation, regimentation. Nothing that wild or perverse happens, but the restraint that he shows -- the Rohmer-esque mood and attitude that he tries to re-express -- is at the very least distinctive and intriguingly un-American (i.e., faux-French).

Okay, there's one half-perverse moment when Steve Buscemi, as Rock's co-worker who constantly cheats on his wife, says, "I may not look like Brad Pitt, but I can fuck like him."

Rock's film is actually a hybrd of itself, the Rohmer film and David Swift's Good Neighbor Sam ()1964, a Jack Lemmon comedy about a married advertising guy (Dorothy Provine plays his wife) with dreams of having an affair with a visiting French lady (Romy Schneider). It's funny (or not so funny) how the sexual frustrations of Lemmon's character and the general idyllic/antiseptic vibe of the home and neighborhood in which he and his life live are almost exactly the same as the ones in Rock's film.

If you want a positive slant, Rock's film is about being happy with the good serene stuff you have in your life rather than bitching about the exciting, hot-blooded stuff you're missing.

Winterstern and Siegel<< previous | next >>English obstructions

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 8, 2007 at 10:24 AM

comment #1

The Movie Man says ...

I had written this off as just another Chris Rock movie stuck between the cracks of comedy and drama, but I'm at least curious now. Nice job Jeff.

Posted by The Movie Man at March 8, 2007 3:29 PM

comment #2

Rick22 says ...

I think Jeffrey's head is still spinning from seeing Kerry Washington's panties coming off. This movie is a bore -- plain and simple. Eric Rohmer, in his own way, made emotionally thrilling movies -- even though they were casually paced and lacked the sort of events that you can sell to your friends when you're trying to tell them how good "Claire's Knee" is. Chris Rock has gone on record with how much he worships Woody Allen -- and he even made an "Annie Hall" reference last night introducing the movie. He wants to be Woody Allen, but he's missing the point. When Woody Allen's playing a henpecked, neurotic New Yorker, he's essentially playing himself. Chris Rock is putting on a mask. Chris Rock needs to take Woody's lesson and put himself on the screen. And hire a real screenwriter to work with him in terms of putting together a story arc. This movie is series of unrelated incidents that add up to nothing, with zero at stake. The third act should've been the end of the first act -- and then we're cooking with a movie. With a story. I felt bad for Chris Rock -- because you see him up there on the screen, so tentative, trying so hard to be star, writer and director... and not realizing he's successively failing at each one. There are some golden moments in the movie -- when Chris Rock shines through. And that's what we need. A Chris Rock movie. He's probably the best comedian working today. Unfortunately, that guy didn't show up for this movie.

Posted by Rick22 at March 8, 2007 3:52 PM

comment #3

berg says ...

I like the scene in the upscale restaurant where Rock goes up to the maitre d' and complains about his waitress being too busty

Posted by berg at March 8, 2007 4:02 PM

comment #4

Rick22 says ...

There are a lot of funny bits and one-liners -- that add up to absolutely nothing. They don't progress the story. It's observational humor with a structure. I did like, "If this is a Hooters, then you owe me some buffalo wings."

Posted by Rick22 at March 8, 2007 4:04 PM

comment #5

Devin Conroy says ...

I personally trust Wells over Rick22, and I've always suspected that Rock is much more talented than his works have led the public to believe (i.e. beyond raw comedy).

Posted by Devin Conroy at March 8, 2007 4:09 PM

comment #6

Rick22 says ...

Then please see it and spend your ten dollars. If you like it, then I'm happy for you. Truly. And it has its moments, but Jeffrey's off the mark, and his review is an apologia for his "jerking off" comment about Rock a week or so ago -- not to mention, he's protecting himself against the readers of this site who accuse him of being racist after his campaign against Eddie Murphy and his preemptive bashing of Rock before he'd even seen this movie.

Posted by Rick22 at March 8, 2007 4:16 PM

comment #7

alynch says ...

Come on Rick22, I think Wells is as much of a blowhard as the next guy, but do you honestly think that he'll write a positive review of a movie that he doesn't actually like simply to stave off criticism. I think he's pretty well proven at this point that he doesn't give even a tiny shit what others think.

Posted by alynch at March 8, 2007 5:25 PM

comment #8

rocco says ...

So what you're saying, Jeff, is that you're now able to visualize Rock jerking off??

Posted by rocco at March 8, 2007 5:27 PM

comment #9

Rick22 says ...

Fair enough, Alynch... I remember being kinda stunned when listening to Jeffrey's conversation with Alfonso Cuaron and hearing him tell Cuaron he wasn't a fan of his buddy Guillermo's "Pan's Labyrinth." I can't say I would've been that honest, in the same situation. Though it'd have to be a different context, because I loved that movie.

Posted by Rick22 at March 8, 2007 6:11 PM

comment #10

Sean says ...

"he's protecting himself against the readers of this site who accuse him of being racist"

The fact that he had racistly written the movie off and is now saying it's pretty decent is what makes me suspect it might actually be really really good. Jeff doesn't change his mind often.

Posted by Sean at March 8, 2007 6:40 PM

comment #11

Dixon Steele says ...

Jeff, if you're going to compare Rohmer's work to "watching paint dry", at least give credit where it's due.

You "lifted" your description of ER (no, not the Tv show) from Gene Hackman in NIGHT MOVES. Word for word, methinks.

Busted.

Posted by Dixon Steele at March 8, 2007 9:42 PM

comment #12

Terry McCarty says ...

Since Rock also worships Bill Cosby, doesn't this look like an attempt on Rock's part to "graduate" to a Cosbyesque persona?

Posted by Terry McCarty at March 8, 2007 11:35 PM

comment #13

Movie fan09 says ...

He wants to be Woody Allen, but he's missing the point. When Woody Allen's playing a henpecked, neurotic New Yorker, he's essentially playing himself. Chris Rock is putting on a mask. Chris Rock needs to take Woody's lesson and put himself on the screen.

that could never happen.
and here's why.
he would lose his entire audience.
I remember him saying once something to the effect of he is really a shy scared person and while his tv show "everybody hates chris" unmasks him to be that person, no one wants to see the adult rock as insecure,etc.

I think his white audience will only accept him as a typical stereotype:
a black men with his eyes bug out,screaming alot and making obvious and taboo comments about everyday life.

Posted by Movie fan09 at March 9, 2007 9:29 AM

comment #14

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Dixon Steele: Uhhmm....everyone knows the Gene Hackman line about Rohmer films & paint-drying in "Night Moves"? Hello? That's precisely why I used it. Because it's one of the best-known ascerbic comments about Rohmer ever made. God in heaven, the cluelessness...

Posted by gruver1 at March 9, 2007 10:13 AM

comment #15

Clark Perry says ...

So this Chris Rock comedy sucks less than other Chris Rock comedies? Wow!

I love Rock's stand-up stuff. But acting-wise, he hits one note, maybe two tops. That can make for a good sidekick, but it's strong enough to carry the whole show.

Wanna see a great film that delivers? Do yourselves a favor and see THE HOST. It's easily the best, most satisfying movie opening this weekend.

Posted by Clark Perry at March 9, 2007 10:14 AM

comment #16

Clark Perry says ...

Er ... that should read "NOT strong enough to carry the whole show."

Posted by Clark Perry at March 9, 2007 10:16 AM

comment #17

Devin Conroy says ...

"I think his white audience will only accept him as a typical stereotype: a black men with his eyes bug out,screaming alot and making obvious and taboo comments about everyday life."

Thanks for the insight Alfred. You've criticized people for stereotyping Rock while you blatantly stereotype white people. I am white, and surprisingly, I have realized that white is only the color of my skin's pigment. Therefore, I can make my own decisions even when people like you try and mask an entire people under a stereotype. You are the kind of person who fuels the fire of prejudice and bigotry. Keep your ignorance to yourself next time. Thanks.

Posted by Devin Conroy at March 9, 2007 10:20 AM

comment #18

Joshua Mooney says ...

Rock's another comedian who has made me laugh to the point of tears with his brilliant stand-up, but whose films just do nothing for me. They're so fucking mainstream and predictable. Christ, remember his re-make of "Heaven Can Wait/Here Comes Mr. Jordan"? (I did enjoy him in Smith's "Dogma.") Why is Chris Rock directing himself? Woody Allen he most certainly isn't. Dude should find a filmmaker who can bring out the best in him. I keep hoping.

Posted by Joshua Mooney at March 9, 2007 11:38 AM

comment #19

Joshua Mooney says ...

Oh yeah, I forgot to add: Jeff, I'll read your 1500-word take on Rock's expression/posture in that photo. I've seen Rock look like that more than once, as he was about to confront the press to talk about his latest work. This is not a happy man, or a comfortable man. Why should he be? He knows his movies don't come close to what is great about him.

P.S.: I don't understand why Jeff's jeremiads against Eddie Murphy were ever seen in racial terms. Clearly, they had nothing to do with that.

Posted by Joshua Mooney at March 9, 2007 11:56 AM

comment #20

Dixon Steele says ...

Right Jeff, EVERYONE knows the dialogue to NIGHT MOVES. Sure they do. They walk around endlessly quoting it, I'm sure.

Just give credit next time and don't be a plagarizer.

Posted by Dixon Steele at March 9, 2007 12:19 PM

comment #21

Jeremy Smith says ...

The movie is funny, but it flat-out doesn't work thanks to Rock and C.K. being unable to write the wife as more than a cuckolding shrew. Another problem, as mentioned above, is Rock as a leading man; he's just too jittery and physically insubstantial to register. Most smart people can't act because they think through their process rather than give themselves over to the moment, and this certainly seems true of Rock. Had Rock cast Taye Diggs as the husband, this might've been a significant film (it might've even surpassed LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON, which is far from top-shelf Rohmer). Unfortunately, he probably needed to be the star to get something this unconventional (as a commercial African-American film) to get made.

But kudos to Rock for challenging himself. Sooner or later, he's going to find his voice as a director, and I guarantee it'll be with the brilliant Louis C.K. at his side as a co-writer.

Posted by Jeremy Smith at March 9, 2007 12:31 PM

comment #22

Jeremy Smith says ...

"Right Jeff, EVERYONE knows the dialogue to NIGHT MOVES. Sure they do. They walk around endlessly quoting it, I'm sure."

Don't flatter yourself. Everyone was citing that bit of dialogue when the Criterion box came out.

Posted by Jeremy Smith at March 9, 2007 12:34 PM

comment #23

Cadavra says ...

Jeff AND Dixon, next time you're sitting in some outdoor cafe having a $6 cuppa joe, ask ten people around you if they've ever heard of either NIGHT MOVES or Eric Rohmer. Granted, most of us here are film geeks and know the line's origin, but we live in a world where the kid tearing tickets at the Grove has never heard of Michelle Pfeiffer!

Posted by Cadavra at March 9, 2007 1:37 PM

comment #24

Joshua Mooney says ...

..Or Gene Hackman, for that matter.

Good point, Cadavra.

Posted by Joshua Mooney at March 9, 2007 1:44 PM

comment #25

Joshua Mooney says ...

Alfred-- That's not this white man's take on Rock. The guy is incendiary and scathing as a stand-up, whether his subject is race or something else. Like the best comics-- Bill Hicks, Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce. Maybe Rock is seen the way you describe him in the black community. If so, well, I'm just another clueless white guy, I guess.

"I think his white audience will only accept him as a typical stereotype:
a black men with his eyes bug out,screaming alot and making obvious and taboo comments about everyday life.

Posted by: alfred at March 9, 2007 09:29 AM"

Posted by Joshua Mooney at March 9, 2007 2:25 PM

comment #26

christian says ...

rock is a great comic but has never been a strong actor. he doesn't have it in him. he better go the woody route but he's not a hardcore guy so why would he play one?K

but this is better than:

HOPKINS ROCK

Posted by christian at March 9, 2007 10:19 PM

comment #27

christian says ...

rock is a great comic but has never been a strong actor. he doesn't have it in him. he better go the woody route but he's not a hardcore guy so why would he play one?

but this is better than:

HOPKINS ROCK

Posted by christian at March 9, 2007 10:19 PM

comment #28