Emerson Rips

• email this story
• read comments (32)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

Thanks to Chicago Sun Times blogger Jim Emerson for calling attention to my 3.12.08 "Eclipse of the Hunk" piece, which basically observed that due to the films of Judd Apatow, "marginally unattractive guys -- witty stoners, clever fatties, doughy-bodied dorks, thoughtful-sensitive dweebs and bearish oversize guys in their 20s and 30s -- can be and in fact are the new 'romantic leads' (for lack of a better or more appropriate term) in today's comedies."

Of course, Emerson uses the occasion to ridicule me, and of course his talk-backers follow suit. Emerson says I sounded "like a Dixieland racist spouting off about miscegenation in the 1950s...it's an outrage, a threat to the species!" Exactly. Galumphy Guys becoming the new romantic leads are a threat to the species -- they represent an evolutionary downgrade, the beginning of the death of the Cary Grant gene in U.S. males.

I would like Emerson to tell me precisely how the following three graphs are wrong:

"Ten years ago female moviegoers, I believe, would have totally rejected [galumphy romantic leads]. Twenty or thirty years ago mainstream audiences would have walked out of theatres in confusion (if not disgust) if guys who look like Rogen, Segel, Hill or Mintz-Plasse got the girl. If filmmakers had tried to push this concept in movies of the '40s or '50s the House Un-American Activites Committee would have held Congressional hearings. If films of this slant had been made in the 1920s or '30s people would have seen them as tragedies or grotesque oddities in the vein of Todd Browning's Freaks.

"When you think about it, the last time Hollywood said to the moviegoing public 'hold on...guys who look like this can get the pretty girl and in fact do this in the real world' was 41 years ago, when the short, dweeby-Jewish Dustin Hoffman connected with Katherine Ross and bedded Anne Bancroft in The Graduate ('67).

"Before that landmark Mike Nichols film male romantic leads had all been pretty much cut from the same three cloths -- traditional standard-handsome smoothies a la Cary Grant or Rock Hudson or Clark Gable, good-looking troubled moodies like Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift or Frank Sinatra, or all-American sunny-personality guys like James Stewart or Van Johnson. Hoffman's Benjamin Braddock was something very new -- nice-looking but anxious, neurotic, not tall and of the Hebrew persuasion."

comment #1

corey3rd says ...

remember the Tao of Steve with Donal Logue - that was the first big attempt at doughy guy as the hunk. But at least he had a trick to being attractive.

comment #2

CinemaPhreek says ...

Walter fucking Matthau, Walter fucking Matthau

comment #3

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Corey, while I LOVE The Tao of Steve, it was not a BIG attempt at anything. It was a little indie with a lot of good festival buzz. But back to the point at hand, I honestly believe it's about time someone ripped Jeff in print for being an UglyPhobe. It's really not much different than being a racist or being a homophobe. Jeff cannot tolerate physically ugly people (in movies- an important distinction), whether it's a weight problem, a skin problem, or whatever. His mind cannot wrap its head around two people winding up together who are mismatched in terms of attractiveness. Jeff, go watch Angus. He's fat but lovable.

comment #4

Nick J says ...

Honestly, I wanted to put Angus's head in a toilet.

And I was and am a total nerd.

comment #5

Arran says ...

Yeah, there's no way you could be thought of as a crackpot for saying the rise of Seth Rogen and the like represents an "evolutionary downgrade" and "a threat to the species".

I wish we were all as genetically blessed as Jeff.

comment #6

Dan says ...

What ever happened to being attracted to nice, funny guys? I'd take a nice, smart guy over a hot, dumb, mean guy any day of the week.

I think this development is quite positive. Now if we could only find the value in less-than-perfect women, as well.

comment #7

Aguirre says ...

what jeff doesn't realize is here is that - slacker tendencies aside (jeff is a workaholic, also, so he wont let that slide - the man-boob toting male leads are infinitely more relatable than cary grant ever was because they infuse the characters they play with a legitimate sense of HUMANITY! they're flawed - both inside and out - funny, selfish, snide, well-meaning but egocentric... i find it absolutely astonishing and vaguely despicable that jeff thinks that the flaccid, plastic cary grant seen in films like CHARADE speaks better about our species than the less attractive but infinitely more feeling, dynamic, and vital leads of the apatow oeuvre.

more academically - and i know jeff is a self-admitted cinematic plebeian at heart - the shift from square-jaws to no (discernible) jaws actually speaks to a cinematic evolution, as yet another facet of the medium has collectively recognized that perfection is unattainable and that the archetype the cary grant types aspired to be was as much of a myth as that of total cinema... his was a deeply disingenuous leading man, as he was thought to embody a complete perfection that doesn't in fact exist. the apatow leading men, on the other hand, recognize that artifice (read: wish-fulfillment) and an affinity for audience self-recognition were the means by which the comedy genre would find its way closest to any pure truth... for someone like jeff who worships at the temple of HERZOG and thus should certainly understand both the myth of total cinema and the idea of ECSTATIC TRUTH, these should be the male characters that most appeal to him. unfortunately for all of us, his rather utopian ideas and their resulting fears have completely interfered with his ability to think straight.

comment #8

vp19 says ...

You know why "galumphy guys" are replacing the Cary Grants, Clark Gables and William Powells of yore? Because the bulk of the moviegoing audience today are males in their teens and twenties who relate far more to the Apatow types. If the filmgoing audience of 2008 was identical to that of 1938 (which was more or less everybody), the "galumphy guys" wouldn't make that much of an impact.

comment #9

Richardson says ...

“Ten years ago female moviegoers, I believe, would have totally rejected [galumphy romantic leads].”

Ten years ago when Ben Stiller’s “There’s Something About Mary” was a huge hit?

“Twenty or thirty years ago mainstream audiences would have walked out of theatres in confusion (if not disgust) if guys who look like Rogen, Segel, Hill or Mintz-Plasse got the girl.”

Twenty years ago – Danny Devito and Bob Hoskins both carried romantic subplots in their comedies, top-five grossing movies of the year.

“If filmmakers had tried to push this concept in movies of the '40s or '50s the House Un-American Activites Committee would have held Congressional hearings.”

Um, Jeff, we’re supposed to be *against* the HUAAC.

"When you think about it, the last time Hollywood said to the moviegoing public 'hold on...guys who look like this can get the pretty girl and in fact do this in the real world' was 41 years ago, when the short, dweeby-Jewish Dustin Hoffman connected with Katherine Ross and bedded Anne Bancroft in The Graduate ('67).”

Zeppo Marx (and Groucho, in a way) got women in the ‘30’s, Jerry Lewis got women in the ‘60’s, and Ben Stiller got women in the ‘90’s. And Woody Allen has been getting women since the '60's.

comment #10

Mr. Muckle says ...

Look at it the other way around. Who's arguably king stud? Maybe Brad Pitt. And he snatched Angelina. Frankly, I don't think I'd want a headache that big.

Or cinematically, say, Clooney and Zellweger. Sure, she can be cute, but realistically? -- A PILL I'm sure.

Nicole Kidman? Julia Roberts? Now look, superficial beauty is not the real thing. Fleeting, evanescent. And the character problems underneath most of these genetic freaks are almost insurmountable.

I saw Emerson today. He's in Boulder for an annual weeklong community/academic gabfest where he's doing what Roger Ebert did for 38 years, dissecting a single film frame at a time with audience participation, two hours a day for a week. Big fun. Ebert used to kill at these things, he was so bright and funny. This week, "No Country for Old Men."

comment #11

corey3rd says ...

What Danny DeVito film had him as a major romantic character? The Ratings Game? And Hoskins once had f'n juice and pissed it away being a lame ass goofball.

Ben Stiller isn't doughy. That guy has always had a ripped chest.

You know how much the Tao of Steve cost in Lira? Big money.

William Powell and Bogart weren't pretty boys. But they knew how to work the charm. The stars of these Apatow flicks are dumb man-children who in the real world are at home, playing PS3 and masturbating like caged chimps.

comment #12

BurmaShave says ...

Wells, however could we be offended by your repeated suggestion that the new rise of Jews as romantic leads represents an 'evolutionary downgrade.'

comment #13

Jay T. says ...

While I think perhaps Wells takes this argument a bit too far, there's definitely some truth in that the Apatow relationship dynamic is a bit off. I know guys who aren't much to look at with hot girlfriends, but the key is they are very successful at what they do and the girl's do find that attractive (and I don't mean that in a shallow money way so much as I do in terms of achieving personal success).

comment #14

mutinyco says ...

Cary Grant was British...

comment #15

Gaydos says ...

I'm having trouble following your artery-hardening logic, Jeff. You crankily push your zimmer frame over the fact that the traditional "leading man" look changed in the 60s, with Hoffman, Richard Benjamin, George Segal, et al. But it did. And it hasn't been the same since. So why the sturm und Ovaltine?

There's been a mix of hunks as well as DeNiro's and Pacino's, slightly nerdy guys like Hanks, boy heroes like Cruise, odd "hunks" like Bronson and cyber-hunks like Arnold, while more tradtional Eastwood, McQueen, Redford, Newman types were in abundance as well. And let's not even get into the uber-popularity of the urban neurotic Woodman. "Let a thousand male flowers of all varieties bloom on screen," I believe it was Chairman Mao, or was it Princess Pauline, who thus decreed Way Back Then.

In other words, you're getting agitated at something that changed about 4 decades ago.

That, I believe, qualifies you for my first annual Walter Brennan Before Your Time Award.

You're too young to being thinking/feeling/talking like an Old Coot! I'm aging terribly as I write this! And it hurts!

comment #16

Terry McCarty says ...

corey3rd wrote:
What Danny DeVito film had him as a major romantic character?

You could count TWINS, where he was paired with Chloe Webb.

comment #17

thasos says ...

Haha, you used the word "grotesque". Did you think long and hard beforehand?

comment #18

JT-Oz says ...

Seriously Jeff - you gotta get off this train buddy, it's getting embarrassing. This shit isn't new though - how many of us remember your original view of '28 Days Later' where you criticised Cillian Murphy's manhood as though it were a central plot point, or your initial distaste for the Lord of the Rings trilogy for the fear that it would pander to "geeks".

'Fess up Jeff... you beat up the unpopular fat kids at high school didn't you.

comment #19

Rich S. says ...

The posters on this site have been ragging on Jeffrey for his prejudices against certain body types for years. Now it's finally leaked out beyond our little circle of friends. The internet can be a cruel, cold place.

comment #20

Rob says ...

I'd like to offer the contrary opinion that Jason Segel is actually really handsome, and that there's something kind of awesome about a guy who could be really hot if he wanted to carrying 15 extra pounds just for the hell of it.

comment #21

JackeyAces says ...

Poor little Jeffie couldn't get a woodie for Jason Segel so he couldn't enjoy the movie. Boo Hoo

comment #22

nemo says ...

"... good-looking troubled moodies like Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift or Frank Sinatra ..."

Sinatra didn't think much of his own looks. He once compared himself with some leading man he was co-starring with, remarking that the leading man had a noble-looking head, while he, Sinatra, had a head that looked like a walnut.

And isn't the Cary Grant gene British, not American?

comment #23

corey3rd says ...

Walter Matthau had game. The man had the pimp hand. Apatow's Doughyboys are like Ron Jeremy if he only had a five inch dick.

comment #24

christian says ...

I recall Jeff accusing some folk here of being equivalent to kids that either beat up the small kids or did nothing. I'm finding it hard to believe Jeff was one of their defenders. Either he was picked on and grew up with a sharp sense of self-loathing, or he was on on the sidelines basking in the fat kids punishment and the self-loathing grew unabated. Or Jeff just wants hits.

Either way, Woody Allen long ago blew your Aryan theory apart through the 70's. Aquirre called it by the way. Imagine Herzog defending square-jawed romantic leads as a sign of evolutionary superiority.

comment #25

jesse says ...

I think the point Jeff misses here -- the one that would make his argument a lot more palatable and worth considering, and less the product of personal hang-ups -- is that the women in Apatow's films are only getting more superficially hot: from the warm and intelligent attractiveness of Catherine Keener to the considerably more starletty Katherine Heigl, Mila Kunis, Kristen Bell, etc. (Not a slight on any of their acting; Bell was terrific as Veronica Mars and I hope to see her in many more films.) That is, the same "less conventionally attractive but funny and offbeat" standards aren't often applied to the women in his movies, which is a shame.

I've enjoyed most of the Apatow movies a great deal; Superbad was on my top ten list last year, and Knocked Up was in my next ten. But as much as I admire the performances of Leslie Mann and Catherine Keener (and the "girl next door" cuteness of the female leads in Superbad, who didn't look overly glammed-up to me), these movies have yet to utilize female characters as fully developed as those on Freaks & Geeks (which Apatow developed but didn't create).

So if you want to argue that Apatow overplays the schlub-with-hot-girl trope, maybe emphasize the female beauty standards, rather than the idea that anyone with less than matinee-idol looks doesn't have a place in a Hollywood movie (or the idea that the funny, less handsome guy getting the girl is a new one!).

comment #26

Joel says ...

When will the doughy girl get the hunky guy?

comment #27

Aguirre says ...

the question remains if jeff is simply too proud to renege on his comments or even to simply reconsider / elaborate upon them to engage in a greater dialogue with his readers.

comment #28

Jay T. says ...

"When will the doughy girl get the hunky guy?"

When Hollywood producers decide they don't want to make any money... ;-)

For anyone who's seen Forgetting Sarah Marshall, a quick question: is Segal's character at least moderately successful or is he a loser?

comment #29

Aguirre says ...

JAY T. - he is successful - increasingly so as the film progresses, but certainly in an unconventional way that champions personal triumph over corporate ascendence.

comment #30

Jay T. says ...

Okay, then in that case I don't really have much of a problem with Jason Segel being matched up with Kristen Bell and I think Wells is reaching a little by comparing it to Knocked Up. And while Segel may be a bit overweight and awkward, he's not exactly the worst looking guy (of course, I'm not a woman so what do I know).

In Knocked Up it was the fact that Seth Rogen's character was also a complete loser that made his pairing with Katherine Heigl so difficult to believe.

comment #31

JChasse says ...

"When will the doughy girl get the hunky guy?"

In "Hairspray", for one, and... uh... in "Hairspray".
The exception that proves the rule.

comment #32

insidah says ...

I wonder if, in response to this takeover by schlubby males, some classically handsome guy is going to rise up and become the next movie superstar. I was counting on Channing Tatum, but he seems to be being mismanaged. Where's the next Tom Cruise?

Post a Comment