Naysaying
Sharon Waxman‘s things-are-looking-pretty-scary-at-Universal piece on The Wrap reported that Uni execs “unsuccesfully lobbied” Funny People director Judd Apatow “to cut the film by a half-hour.” This is surprising or startling? Aren’t suits always pressuring directors to cut their films? My point is that sometimes urging this isn’t wise for the film’s sake, and that this was one of those times.
Update: It’s understood by everyone except for Asian and Eastern European cave-dwellers that Adam Sandler plays a self-centered comedian in the film — i.e., a guy with a personality/attitude problem. Any idiot knows that 98% of movies that deal with this sort of thing always resort to some kind of “third-act wake-up” element. It’s great when you come across the occasional exception (such as Martin Ritt‘s Hud) but everyone knows about the 98% rule…hello? Nonetheless, some have complained about the following graph so here’s a spoiler warning…okay? The same whiners might also want to slam Roger Ebert for calling his Judd Apatow interview piece “Apatow on How To Learn Nothing From a Near-Death Experience.”
I realize I’m in the minority, but I had hardly any problems with Funny People ‘s final third. For me it satisfies because it delivers the Big Payoff. By this I mean the two big revelations about Adam Sandler‘s character — that (a) even a brush with death hasn’t modified his selfish-prick tendencies and yet (b) he has the capacity at the very end to at least recognize this shortcoming and to try to make amends with someone he’s hurt and pushed away.
For me it’s almost a Vincente Minelli/The Bad and the Beautiful -type ending. You obviously have to know this film and the ending to get what I’m saying.
I’m writing this because I really hate what that Waxman paragraph is implying, which is that Funny People is a problem movie facing an uphill box-office struggle. Not that she’s necessarily wrong but I hate the act of spreading poison pollen about a film that really doesn’t deserve it. A tough time with the lowbrows may be in store, but Funny People is an ascerbic, funny and relentlessly honest film that is quite personal and revelatory on Apatow and Sandler’s part.
And while I realize that Waxman wasn’t gunning for Funny People per se, the import of that paragraph in her story is emblematic of what creates an iffy/downbeat buzz in advance and helps to bring about a negative result.
I know — I sound like an Apatow publicist or propagandist.
Let’s say that perhaps Universal suits did want him to cut 30 minutes from the film’s final section. The point, as I understand it, is that Funny People was a creative gimme for Apatow. It was basically one of those “okay, I’ve made everyone a lot of money and now it’s time for me to make a growth-arc movie which may not kick box-office ass but will do reasonably well” type deals. Name-brand filmmakers have to make growth-arc films from time to time or they’ll go stale and flat.
It’s just unfortunate that Apatow’s growth-arc flick is being released in the midst of one of Universal’s most disappointing box-office streaks in a long while.
It’s doubly gloomy that NBC-Uni honcho Jeff Zucker admonished top Uni execs with these words: “Easy-to-digest concepts and wish fulfillment is in vogue. That’s not our slate. And the choices have been too costly. You’ve got to fix both those things.” In other words, put on your shallow hats and lower your standards.
Waxman reports that tracking indicates it may earn $20 million this weekend.
Waxman is the intrepid reporter who also insisted that, after its mixed reception at the Cannes Film Festival, Quentin Tarantino was being forced to cut 40 minutes out of Inglourious Basterds by Harvey Weinstein As I recall, Harvey went to GQ and swore that such a thing never happened and, indeed, Tarantino ADDED another minute to his Cannes cut.
And isn’t Waxman’s Wrap the website that ran a fanboy-made trailer of James Cameron’s Avatar for two days running and said that it came from Cameron himself ? Making matters worse, after she was nailed on the mistake during a Cannes panel discussion, she said the bogus trailer had only been up on her website for an hour and laughed it off. In other words, she covered up an error with a lie.
Gawker examined Waxman’s errors during her tenure at the New York Times and found that — according to Nexis searches — her stories had a correction rate of 11.6%. In other words, out of 385 bylines, 45 stories needed to be corrections — approximately one story per month.
In other words, Waxman is a lousy journalist and her work is not to be trusted.
The simple fact is that cut equals an extra screening a day. The box office of those 3 extra screenings could mean the difference between a Christmas bonus and a labor day pink slip
David Edelstein’s review is up, and he does not pull any punches. It’s kind of a fascinating read. Maybe my favorite review of his in a while.
http://nymag.com/movies/reviews/58083/
“Easy-to-digest concepts and wish fulfillment are in vogue”…
Exactly why I’m not forking over my money to these greedy cocksuckers.
i think this movie deserves all the ‘downbeat buzz’ it gets…while it isn’t an epic fail, it really is a fail…. i live with someone who does stand-up and have spent way too many hours in clubs and almost nothing rang true….i really expected more from apatow…..
There is no reason this movie needed to be 2.5 hours long. No reason at all. It would have been a much better, tighter film at 2 hours and it still could have delivered the exact same payoff. Actually, the payoff would have had more impact in a leaner film.
I mean come on, 2.5 hours? It’s not like this was some multi-generational saga or that Apatow required some vast, epic canvas to tell this story.
Saw it tonight. I never had a problem with the length of the film; mainly because so much of it is thoroughly wonderful and an excellent insight into certain aspects of human nature as well as into the lives of those on the other side of the curtain.
I have to hand it to Apatow though, because he really took some chances in this film and with his career to do and say what he thought was necessary and important. Whether it entirely works or not, I love that about him, about this film, which I hope does very well. Unfortunately, at least 10-12 Big Mac deprived twentysomethings left before it was over, and there was an aura of collective fatigue in the audience well before it was over. I loved it, and I hope many others did as well but there was certainly a fair amount of audience reaction that may signal trouble is ahead at the boxoffice.
Oh yeah, Sandler and Leslie Mann are absolutely excellent. Oi?
Re the Edelstein review–certainly well-written.
As for the “white bread family values” comment, I’ll add that sometimes Apatow’s making-nice-with-the-Miiddle-America audience reminds me of Robin Williams’ Mork-calling-Orson monologues at the end of each episode of MORK AND MINDY.
buster: I believe the QT story after Grindhouse. The Avatar thing might have been bullshit, but it probably renewed dwindling interest in the project.
Thanks for telling me the “Big Payoff”/”two big revelations”. Appreciate it.
“…but I hate the act of spreading poison pollen about a film that really doesn’t deserve it.”
Irony.
It’s really not too long at all. I don’t know why people have this idea that audiences can’t sit though 2hr+ movies anymore. Most of the top-grossing films of the last decade have been well over this length. Granted, they were special effects extravaganzas, but still. Surely sitting through a comedy-drama is less of a draining experience than 2.5hrs of relentless explosions?
Funny People flows a lot better than 40-Year Old Virgin, which had a couple of scenes that – while funny – certainly could have been trimmed to keep the pace ticking over. I’m thinking specifically of Jane Lynch’s story/song about her Latin lover, etc.
I’m sick of reading these industry types like Waxman and Finke obsessed with the business side of it rather than the actual movie. You get the distinct impression that they don’t actually like films, and that they’re actively hoping things “bomb” so they can spend the next three weeks speculating about the future of the executives in charge, or gleefully reporting that the director won’t ever be given that large of a budget again.
Pffft.
Funny People is an excellent film. It deserves all the praise it gets and even if it tanks at the box office it’ll still be a good film.
I really thought we’d finally schooled Jeff on the whole SPOILER issue, but I guess not.
I managed to skim down as soon as my eye caught it and confirmed that, yes, he is giving away the two things that make the ending worthwhile without any warning whatsoever.
A classy move by any professional filmgoer.
As mentioned above,wanting to cut the length had nothing to do with quality, but with the inability to get in extra screenings a day.
Money, Money, Money (special thanx to ABBA).
So, I only read the first couple lines, but did Wells just pull another of his patented “Spoil the ending, and fuck you if you don’t like it” posts?
I found “the two big revelations” to be spoiler warning enough, and stopped reading there.
I do not live in a cave. Caves are empty, cold and moldridden. Not unlike your head.
Unless that was the theater of being a writer that you talked about earlier this month? If so, bravo. Two thumbs up. I laughed, I cried.
“It’s understood by everyone except for Asian and Eastern European cave-dwellers that Adam Sandler plays a self-centered comedian in the film — i.e., a guy with a personality/attitude problem.”
From the caves of Los Angeles: every trailer I have seen for this thing portrays Sandler as a lonely, sad yet filthy-rich comedian who is dying, not a “selfish prick.” Maybe focusing on some of his more aberrant/arrogant (and hopefully funny) behavior would have sold this better. Right now, the Hallmark quality of the drama combined with the not-very-amusing stand-up bits are doing little to persuade me that this is anything but the equivalent of a Sunday Homily that goes on for way too long.
Yeah, yeah, it’s all fine and good to complain that studios want to cut length so they can make money, but are you really happy to live in a world where Transformers 2 is two and a half freaking hours long?
Why was it necessary for Edelstein to refer to Jonah Hill as tubby? Has he been bitten by the HE anti-fat vampire?
Wells to WonkeyDonkey: Well said.
What’s that, Jeff?
Sorry for ruining the ending?
No?
Nevermind, then.
In addition to bmcintire’s post:
From the posters/print ads, you’d think FUNNY PEOPLE looks like an updated remake of SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY.
“I believe the QT story after Grindhouse”
Why am I not surprised that DZ can believe something negative about Tarantino despite it having been proven untrue?
“Any idiot knows that 98% of movies that deal with this sort of thing always resort to some kind of “third-act wake-up” element.”
Yes, which is why you telling people that this movie completely subverts that rubs some people as a “spoiler”.
Good in education thanks for sharing with us. Saya ucapkan salam kenal untuk semua member disini salam sayang Astaga.com lifestyle on the net dan nowGoogle.com adalah Multiple Search Engine Popular blog for businis Iect Bisnis and Real Estate Home Improvement dan Lerry ini Lifestyle lalu Berindri dan Lindatan serta Cyber Keren
sikismek isteyen kizlar istanbulda nerde bulunur bilinmez porno izlemek icin porno izle tikla sende gel turkce porno izle guzel sikis icin lolita porno
travesti genclik kolları başkanı sayın travesti carpici aciklamalarda bulundu nolcak bu vip travestiler in hali bilmiyorum. travesti
Hello friends,this is a nice site and I wanted to post a note to let you know, good job! Thanks))
Best regards, Natali, CEO of frostwire