Film Clips: Should Comedies Get a Free Pass from Critics?
Filed under: Comedy, Festival Reports, Columns, Film Clips, Cinematical Indie
I hit a late night screening of Heckler here at AFI Dallas last night. The film is a documentary by Michael Addis (Poor White Trash) about comedian and actor Jamie Kennedy (Son of the Mask, Malibu's Most Wanted). The film starts out talking about people who heckle comedians at live comedy shows, before diverging into an exploration of various critics who have slammed Kennedy's films. Kennedy talks to a few critics about their reviews, reading their eviscerations of his work out loud to them and gauging their reactions both to hearing their own words and seeing the effect their writing has on him as a person.
I'll have a full review of the film up shortly (it was actually very funny and insightful, for the most part), but I want to talk a bit about the film here. One of the points raised in both the film and in the post-show Q&A, ran jointly by Addis and Film Threat's Mark Bell (pictured, above), who got into a bit of a heated kerfuffle with Addis at the Q&A for the film's AFI Los Angeles screening, was whether critics should hold comedies to the same standard as more highbrow films. Kennedy, dialed into the Q&A over Addis's cell phone, noted that Bell had called Malibu's Most Wanted an "easy target," and wondered why Bell and other critics hold comedies to a different standard than a film like, say, There Will be Blood.
A young (and apparently fairly drunk) guy in the Q&A crowd heckled Bell, demanding to know who the hell Bell is to tell anyone whether a film is good or not, and accusing him of essentially saying that people who like Malibu's Most Wanted are stupid. I got into a discussion with Addis after the Q&A about why critics tend to review comedies like Kennedy's poorly. My own issue with comedies is not with the genre, per se -- it's the point that, as was noted a couple of times in the film, there's this perception that comedies, because they're "just supposed to make people laugh," should therefore be immune to criticism.
Personally, I have the same issue with a lot of popcorn comedies that I do with much of what's on television: they play to the lowest common denominator, and I think it's the filmmakers who make them -- not the critics who critique them -- who think that audiences (particular in the 13-25 age range) are vastly stupid. Film as a cultural medium has the power to influence our culture and society overall, just as television and music does, and I don't think a film should get a free pass for lacking decent writing, character development, cinematography, acting, editing and direction, because it's "just a comedy." Why should it? To me, that's a far greater insult to the audiences than anything any critic could write about a film like Malibu's Most Wanted.
I've had discusssions with other critics on this issue, whether the advent of sites like YouTube, and the popularity of reality television shows and inane sitcoms, is creating a culture where people are willing to accept less as more, to accept crude humor in the place of any kind of standard of filmmaking. I'm not arguing that every movie made has to aspire to be intellectual or high art, but have we really reached a place in society where fart, dick and boob jokes, or groovy CGI, have come to be accepted as the most that the younger generation expects for their $10 movie ticket?
I don't hate comedies; I just don't like comedies that assume a target market with the attention span of a hyperactive 12-year-old boy as the bar to aim for. Comedy can be an art form in and of itself, and in general, I think it's much harder to make a good comedy that makes people laugh than a film that tugs on the heartstrings. But comedic films can also embody the spirit of solid filmmaking -- I loved Thank You for Smoking and Juno (say what you will about the dialog, it was funny without being crass), I still enjoy watching Ghostbusters and Beverly Hills Cop, and Judd Apatow and even Will Ferrell have been hitting their target market by making very funny films that also tell good stories with interesting characters.
What I do take issue with is filmmakers and actors who churn out spectactulary crappy films and then act shocked that critics pan them. If you're going to make movies that aim for the low water mark, don't be surprised that the people who review films for a living call you on their flaws. That's not to say that I think reviewing a bad film gives a critic a free pass to get personal and slam the filmmaker or actor as a person, though, and to be perfectly fair to Kennedy, some of the reviews of his films that he read did cross that line. No matter how terrible a movie is, I don't believe it's fair play to attack someone on a personal level.
David Grumbine of Giant magazine, interviewed for the film, took a sickening sort of glee in having an outlet where he can say horrible things about Kennedy as a person, and practically gloated in Kennedy's pain at the things he'd said. That level of vehement loathing, of being negative just for the sake of being hurtful, turns my stomach; Grumbine is akin to a playground bully, relishing the pain he causes, and seeming to derive great pleasure in drawing emotional blood from his victim. Frankly, that senseless, insensitive, attacking kind of writing, whether in internet or print, is just as indicative of a cultural decline as the worst film coming out of any studio in Hollywood. While I don't think comedies should get a free pass just because they're comedies, I don't sanction that kind of nonsense, any more than I sanction the gossip sites like Perez Hilton and TMZ who make personal attacks on celebrities and then have the gall to call it "reporting," as Perez does in the film.
Comedy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but it's the job of a critic to tell you what he or she thinks about the film and why, and thereby give the people who care to read that review a barometer of whether they might also like the film (or not). Nobody forces anyone to read Mark Bell's reviews, or reviews we have here on Cinematical; they're here for those readers who do want them, and if you don't care to read them, well, don't. Or read them, and then chime in with your own opinions on why you think a review is on the mark or not.
Do you think that comedies should be held to a different standard than other films, that critics are generally out of touch with what audiences expect from a comedy, and that they shouldn't even be critiqued at all? Or should Hollywood stop assuming audiences want comedies that spoon-feed laughs without regard for the art of filmmaking, and make better movies that both critics and audiences will like? Discuss away -- this isn't just our space to tell you what we think, it's yours to give us your thoughts as well.
*My Cinematical colleague Scott Weinberg's review of Stricken is among those Kennedy reads aloud in the film. See this piece over on my colleague Scott's personal blog, Adventures in Moviewatching, for his response.
Related Headlines
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. i'm personally disgusted with the overall quality of comedies today. there was that post a while back about the 100 dumb comedies and i'm happy to say i'd only seen one - man of the year (and it wasn't even really a comedy).
it takes no skill to produce these things. i could do it if i had a budget. if they're going to continually put this garbage in the public, they should at least be ready for the backlash.
attacking actors' or directors' characters, though, is a wholly other issue, and one i dislike. there's no need for that. just because i think epic movie might be the dumbest film in history doesn't mean that i dislike the director, producers, or actors. anyone who crosses the line here should check themselves as they're delving into something they shouldn't be.
Posted at 9:44PM on Apr 5th 2008 by soulpopped
3. I hold every film to the same level. I don't care if it's the latest flick by the coens or another Harold and Kumar: it must entertain and engage me. That's the big trick and it's actually quite hard to accomplish. Most movies simply aren't entertaining or they seem rather lazy. I have seen well over 5k films in my life and it's reached the point where I'm just hoping a film will make me care about what happens.
In Bruges is a simple flick but the filmmakers through funny writing, solid direction and good acting made me care about what happens to the characters. Flipside, we sat through the Darjeeling Limited the other night and I simply didn't give a damn what might happen.
FWIW, people should never tell a critic to go make a better film. That's illogical. Most of us cannot make a car but we know when we drive a bad car. I'm horrible at baking but dammit, I can tell when a cake sucks. I may not be able to paint but I have the authority to determine if something will hang in my home. Criticism isn't about rating your own ability v. another person; it's about how you as a consumer perceive the value of the product the artist/mechanic/cook is attempting to sell to you.
Posted at 10:09PM on Apr 5th 2008 by YouFaceTheTick
4. Gotta say genre is irrelevant. Whether it's a western or horror movie or a comedy, I hold EVERY film to the same standard. Genre does not equal free pass. Quality writing, acting, directing, etc have a place in a well made movie.
Posted at 10:10PM on Apr 5th 2008 by YouFaceTheTick
5. If the filmmakers who turn out films like these refuse to take their audience seriously, then they should not be surprised when they get flack for it.
Instead of grinding out lowest-common-denominator shit, why not take care to make the best dumb comedy they can? They don't have to make There Will Be Blood, but they CAN make something high-quality. (Examples of this that come to mind include A Christmas Story, Real Genius, and Better Off Dead. None of these would win an Oscar, but they're all very well-made popcorn comedies. Sad that I have to think back over twenty years to come up with these titles, isn't it?)
Posted at 10:22PM on Apr 5th 2008 by Chelsea
6. the simple fact of the matter is that jamie kennedy can be a great guy, but he makes absolutely terrible films, any way you slice it. even if comedies were held to a lower standard, which they shouldn't be, his films would still be absolute crap. if he made films that looked like they took even a modicum of effort or thought, then maybe he'd get better reviews- it's real simple.
though i agree that personal attacks are never warranted. the worst filmmaker on the planet can still be a nice guy (although, he is uwe boll, and from what i've seen, he is not nice...but you get what i'm saying). really, since we pay so much money to see their films, we have every right to hold them to high standards. if a film fails to entertain or provoke, then it fails, and all of jamie kennedy's films have failed to do either. (though i have yet to see son of mask, maybe i'm missing some sort of avant-garde masterpiece, i will never know).
Posted at 10:38PM on Apr 5th 2008 by Jordan
7. If it's good, odds are it's going to get good reviews. If it's not it won't. It's ridiculous to take on that "Well, critics are snobs and just don't understand!" mentality when your movie sucks. I should also point out that if a comedy is good it WILL get decent reviews. Just look at the rotten tomato rankings for these recent comedies
Harold And Kumar - 72%
Borat - 91%
Hot Fuzz - 89%
Walk Hard - 74%
Talladega Nights - 72%
Elf - 83%
Knocked Up - 90%
Shaun of the Dead - 90&
Superbad - 87%
The 40 Year Old Virgin - 80%
Little Miss Sunshine - 91%
Juno - 93%
Remember, also that those last two were NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE!
So no, sorry dude, but if your movie sucks it's because it SUCKS, not because the critics some how don't "get it."
Posted at 3:15AM on Apr 6th 2008 by odiin
8. To me, the lion's share of a comedy's quality is going to derive from the laughs. I don't expect every comedy to have the layered characters or engaging plots of Shaun of the Dead or Juno, though that's a bonus which makes those films far better than their peers; but if a movie can make me laugh my ass off, I am willing to forgive certain flaws and rough edges. Harold and Kumar is questionable as an actual piece of filmmaking, but as a comedy, it undeniably brings the funny. Even though it's gross-out at times, it doesn't assume that the viewer is a braindead illiterate. And that's enough for me to forgive the fact that it's technical aspects aren't exactly on the level of a Scorsese flick.
I want to laugh, and I don't want to be treated like an idiot. So I'd say that you hit the nail exactly on the head, Kim.
Posted at 10:34AM on Apr 6th 2008 by AJ Wiley
9. As a comedy writer, I can tell you that if you try to infuse intelligent themes into your story, development executives will stop you in your tracks. "Why isn't there a joke a minute? Why are you wasting our time with satirical elements? Why hasn't your main character saved a cat and farted by page 25?"
You could never make any of Mel Brooks' old movies today. Or Monty Python. Studios wouldn't stand for it. Those movies don't fit the mathematical formulas executives use to decide whether or not to greenlight a project.
Judd Apatow can get away with more than most writers because of his longevity in the business. If a new writer had written "Knocked Up," it never would have been made. It doesn't fit the formulas. So we should at least be happy that Apatow's doing his own thing rather than letting the suits dictate how to produce a comedy. But Judd had to fight hard to get to that point.
Edgar Wright could probably get a film made in Hollywood now, but he never would have gotten "Hot Fuzz" past the executives here. Particularly "Hot Fuzz." Thankfully he's British and made the film back home.
Posted at 11:24AM on Apr 6th 2008 by Comedy Writer
10. I formed a film club at school a few years back. The first issue we had to address was what kind of films we would allow. We couldn't just say "good" ones. We used the definition "arguably artistic".
The first film we should was Clerks.
As soon as it was announced, one "member" (who never came to a single showing but complained about our choice of movies) said she didn't understand why I told everyone we couldn't watch movies like American Pie and yet we were watch Clerks.
I told her, first, come to the movie where we will be discussing exactly why its arguably artistic and if you still don't agree then feel free to make your point. But the debate between what is "art" and what is "porn" has been going on for centuries. Where is that line between an expression of creativity and obscene, lowest common denominator trash?
Sometimes its a gray, but sometimes you just know its porn.
Posted at 11:45AM on Apr 6th 2008 by Tom
11. I'm with Scott, who seems to me the real injured party here. Kennedy has proven himself to be a very funny guy on TV and in Malibu's Most Wanted, but he's letting his fans down by appearing in substandard material and certainly he must know it. (I hope he doesn't presume that a true fan will put up with anything.) I mean, take Bobcat Goldwaith; he took the paychecks for a series of films he later used to call the "Police Lobotomy" movies during stage appearances. No one hates Goldwaith for taking the money, but he's the public face of those films, unlike the producers of those rotten films, who deserved the real scorn.
People get wrathful at a bad comedy, as my friend Mike puts it, because you can laugh at a bad drama, but what can you do when you're stuck in a bad comedy?
I didn't get into this racket because I'm a failed filmmaker or because I'm a bully who enjoys hurting people's feelings. I wanted to be an essayist, and I thought that cinema was the perfect realm in which to discuss popular culture and politics.
I do find myself getting personal sometimes when confronting comedians who have the personas of bullies--Adam Sandler in particular, since he gets a particular pleasure out of going after people he considers weaklings and weirdos: women, homosexuals, foreigners. even Red Sox fans.
As for this documentary, I want to see it. From the outline it reminds me of Woody Allen's complaint that "comedy sits at the children's table." (To which Pauline Kael replied, "No, it's actually whiners who sit at the children's table.")
Posted at 1:06PM on Apr 6th 2008 by Richard von Busack
12. AJ wrote "I don't expect every comedy to have the layered characters or engaging plots of Shaun of the Dead or Juno..."
Why not? I expect that of EVERY movie. Movies that don't deliver on that get graded lower. Every movie should be well written, directed by a sure hand and feature solid acting. If a movie lacks any of these things then it naturally follows the rating of said film should fall. Hot Rod - which we saw last night - wasn't outright awful but on a scale of ten it gets about a 4 or maybe 5 if I'm feeling generous. Flip side, we also watched Trust the Man and I was surprised by how much I loved the performances of Duchovny, Crudup and Gyllenhaal. It's not that the themes were any better than Hot Rod - both were formulaic - but the Trust the Man did have sharp writing and quite solid acting. Still, I'd give it at most a 7.
Posted at 1:57PM on Apr 6th 2008 by YouFaceTheTick
13. I always go back to what my hometown paper movie critic said when he reviewed the original Major League- "Is there anything here that we haven't seen before? No. Is there anything amazing about the acting, directing, script, etc? No. Did it make me laugh? Yes." He gave it 3 out of 4 stars. There are very few comedies (even Horror films) that I think are well made, but, I do grade them on a slightly different scale- If it makes me laugh, even if I feel guilty in the morning, then it did its job.
Posted at 5:45PM on Apr 6th 2008 by jonmills6
14. I guess i got to disagree with most of you here, if they made a , "my little pony" movie based on the girls toy, how would they rate it if they used the same scale as they do for gone with the wind?
my point is most people know what they are going to get out of a movie. you know when you go see 'superhero movie' its going to be a terrible parody, but guess what some people like them and it is right up thier alley.
yes , I know there are comedies that can both play to a crude level and still be funny (like dumb and dumber) and kids movie that adults can also enjoy (anything by pixar) but for the most part people know what they are getting into when they see a movie. if you are going to see american pie part three don't act surprised if its like part two and one!!!! don't lay down critical judgement for a movie that never strives to be anything more than idiot entertainment for idiots that enjoy that stuff.
if you hate greek food than don't review the new greek restaraunt, because your not going to like it.
Posted at 1:33AM on Apr 7th 2008 by rawkersparadise
15. Chan I think did a good job on Rush hawer 1 2 and 3 and I have all 3 of them
Posted at 9:44AM on Apr 7th 2008 by shayla Wiggins
16. In short, no, there should not be a different standard for comedies. Is there a different standard for films with subtitles? A different standard for Action films, filled with CGI? You are simply commenting on the content of the film (drama for Drama, comedy for Comedy). It's like comparing Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds. It's not supposed to be so easy. The funny thing is I think we naturally hold things to different standards. How many times have you looked at the weekend newspaper and told a friend "oh it's just another one of those chick flicks"? It's inherent to judge, because I need to decide where I want to spend my money.
One more comment... Long Live Uwe Boll (just kidding)
Posted at 11:20AM on Apr 7th 2008 by ahkaufman
17. The question about how *any* genre of movie should be reviewed is self-evident - has to be on merit. Does the flick achieve its goal in a fresh or satisfying way? Did it engage me or delight me in some way? Even if it was badly flawed, does it at least get a C for effort?
Hard to dispute that, huh?
However, the more important question here is one which many are trying to avoid. Namely, is the quality of (online) film criticism any better than the failed movies they attack?
I'd say, in nearly all cases, the answer is sadly no. In fact, the level of intellect and depth to be found on the myriad film blogs on the net is rank. To be successful or worthy of interest, a reviewer has to offer much more than a general liking for cinema and an outlet for their (often immature and spitefully structured) reviews.
(For example, badly conceived, derivative or toilet humor comedies have been with us for many decades - they arent a phenomenon of this century. Its just that most bloggers dont have the knowledge, experience or willingness to do research before they spew ill-formed opinions onto the web.
Root cause of the decline in the quality of critique?
Probably the daunting overabundance of self-promoting bloggers with delusions of being the next Ebert, Queenan or Kael dilutes the overall quality. Most of 'em dont have an original thing to say and just want to impress each other in an incestuous cluster of snarky high school humor. And the ensuing chatter is deafening at times.
Main influencing factors? Yeah, there *is* a general downward spiral in popular culture just now, but its more evident in the actions of the online community than in the movies themselves. (Bad flicks have always been made by unimaginative, scared producers....and will continue to be in future). But online reviewers need to raise the level of their game - if you dont have something fresh and positive to contribute, think twice before publishing.
And in the name of all that's holy, please move away from the gossipy, back-stabbing snark that colours so many blogs.
Posted at 12:34PM on Apr 7th 2008 by HollywoodJack
1. "What I do take issue with is filmmakers and actors who churn out spectactulary crappy films and then act shocked that critics pan them."
EXACTLY!
Over at Screen Rant I try to review movies within the context of their genre, but if a movie just plain sucks, it's not my fault. I didn't make the damn thing.
Having said that, for the most part I try to not attack those involved, especially the actors. But often the director is the guy where the buck stops, and he needs to take it.
For example, although I think Hayden Christensen is a one-note actor, (Star Wars, Jumper) I didn't criticize him personally in my recent review - just his performance.
Vic
Posted at 9:23PM on Apr 5th 2008 by Screen Rant