Funny People

Have I told you recently that I love great character arcs or that I thinkForgetting Sarah Marshall and Knocked Up are two of the best comedies of the decade because of their characters? You say that I have? That I actually bring it up way too often, usually in a situation where I don’t need to bring it up? Interesting; I hadn’t noticed. Well, since you know how much I love character development, you must know how much I was looking forward toFunny People, the third film directed by Judd Apatow, because he was crossing the line from comedy into dramedy. While the result is an extremely well-made and very good all around movie, it is also hugely flawed.

Let me first say that I this is not a comedy, nor is it a dramedy in my opinion. I think FP crosses both of those lines and is a straight up drama. The reason that there is a lot of humor in the movie is because all of the characters are “funny people”. The movie being a drama is going to disappoint a lot of people, but not me. I loved it as a drama, especially a funny drama. The reason it is a (very) good movie rather than a great movie is the structure of the movie and as a result of that structure, a weak narrative. Ever wonder why there are all those “Extended Edition” DVD’s with tons of deleted scenes? Most of those scenes are really funny, especially when you’re talking Apatow movies. The reason those scenes are cut is because they slow down the movie too much for general audiences to handle. I’d be shocked if there is one deleted scene on the FP DVD. At two and a half hours, it feels as though Apatow used every thing he shot.

Structurally, the big problem is that there is no discernible plot to speak of until at least an hour in. That first hour is almost entirely stand-up. Don’t get me wrong, the stand-up is funny and will gain a lot of laughs, but it neither advances the plot nor the characters. The comedy from the stand-up is also a problem because it is completely forced and not organic at all (I mean, that’s what stand-up is, right?). There are a lot of comedic moments that are natural, but they are mainly in the second half. My funniest moment in the film was one that isn’t even a joke, but rather a character moment, but it was so funny and natural. Maybe that’s just me, because it didn’t get more than a chuckle from anyone else in the theater. By the time the real plot starts to develop, you’ve already taken in so much that you’re mentally full and it is harder to appreciate the second half of the movie.

FP also seems confused about whose movie it wants to be. By that I mean, who is the main focus of the movie: Adam Sandler or Seth Rogen? Before I answer that, let me say that both of them are great. Sandler shows that he has dramatic chops in a movie other than Punch Drunk Love and Rogen turns in his most complete performance to date. Back to the question, the movie is mainly about Sandler and his growth as a character, but there is still enough about Rogen that you’re not sure. Rather than play the roommates in the same light as the Knocked Up roomates, Apatow tries to make them bigger characters. Because it is still Sandler’s movie, you don’t get enough of these characters to make them feel complete, but there is still a lot of them. The roles of Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman could be cut down drastically and the movie would be much better for it.

It probably sounds like I’m being really hard on this movie and that I don’t like it, but that’s not the case. I’m pointing out some major flaws in the movie, because it think this was 30-45 minutes away from being a masterpiece. The movie is extremely personal and self-referential for Apatow and Sandler, so which is the main reason they didn’t want to cut anything from it. This is evidenced by the actual home movie of Sandler making prank calls. They were too close to it to see what might not work for general audiences.

From a technical standpoint, this is clearly Apatow’s most polished movie. With three films now under his belt, he understands the art of movie making much more. The cinematography is great, which is not something you really expect out of a movie like this, and Apatow continues to use great music for his movies.

I already mentioned some of the cast members, but two of the best were Leslie Mann and Eric Bana. Probably the best thing about the Apatow craze is that we get more Mann. She’s been great in the previous two Apatow films, especially KU, but here she is given the opportunity to play the female lead and she thrives. The first scene her and Sandler share on screen together is amazing. Bana, a casting choice I was very skeptical of, is perfect whenever he’s on screen. Like Russell Brand in FSM, Bana has the job of taking a character that the audience shouldn’t like and making him full and likeable (and in Bana’s case, sympathetic at times). The only person who felt totally out of place was Aubrey Plaza as Rogan’s love interest. Through a combination of being underdeveloped and Plaza’s wooden acting, the character feels completely flat and fake.

I also can’t talk about the cast without mentioning the cameos, because the movie is loaded with them. They range from amusing to very funny, but they are always good to have because they create a very real world for the movie to exist in. The two best ones are Eminem and Ray Romano, who supriringly appear in the same scene. The scene starts off dramatic and makes some good points on fame, but develops into one of the movies funnier set pieces. (SIDE NOTE: Eminem is a suprisingly good actor. I know he only places himself, but he’s always believable)

I still feel like I’m coming off negatively, so let me try again. This really is a very good movie, but it is just so much to digest. I prepared a very apt food metaphor, but then I remembered that I’m not an asshole, so I’m not going to use it. When the humor is on, it is really funny. I laughed a great deal and never did the humor feel stupid. The main characters are well-written and feel like real people, which you all know is a real thing of mine. They act as real people would and there aren’t any moments where I felt myself saying “that would never happen”. FP also has some of the best character moments we’ve seen in a movie this funny. If you don’t feel for these characters, there is something wrong with you.

I don’t think I can really speak to how good Apatow’s direction has become. There are times when it feels like absolute genius. I just wish that there had been someone there to check him. That’s a result from having two mega-hits, there wasn’t any regulation on this one. Funny People has a lot of great humor and character moments, but too many structural problems to be a great movie.