As I was watching Year One, I thought about why the Michael Cera/Jack Black teaming does not work very well. They are both very funny guys, and they have that yin/yang element that propels most comedy teams, with one expansive and impulsive and the other more cerebral and hesitant. But there is not a lot of chemistry between them. That led me to thoughts of some of my favorite comedy teams.
Bob Hope and Bing Crosby This team was unique because it included two mega-stars who were at the top of their fields as solo performers, and yet they made a series of films as a team that rank with any of the best comedy duos of all time. My favorite: Road to Bali, but this number from “Road to Rio” is one of their all-time highlights.
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy These adorable goofs were holy fools, with a wonderful innocence and grace. My favorites: “Two Tars” and “Big Business” But this charming dance from Way Out West is another treasure.
Bud Abbott and Lou Costello A classic comedy paring includes a straight man who is a bit slick opposite a comedian who is a bit child-like. My favorite of their movies is “The Time of Their Lives,” but I also love “Buck Privates” and of course their classic “Who’s on first” routine:
The Smothers Brothers Tom and Dick Smothers were also a classic straight man/fool team, but they added in superb music and some barbed political commentary. Their best work was on their television series and I love their CDs, like this one: Sibling Revelry: The Best of the Smothers Brothers
Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis This team began as unknowns and became the most successful performers in America, working in clubs, in the early days of television, in recordings, movies, and even in comic books. Then they split, and each achieved stardom as solo artists. Lewis referred to their act as “a handsome man and a monkey.” They had a wonderful fearlessness and obvious affection for each other and an extraordinary chemistry. I prefer their television work to their movies.
Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara Ben Stiller’s parents were a very successful comedy team before they went their separate ways as actors on television (Stiller played George Costanza’s father on “Seinfeld” and Kevin James’ father-in-law on “King of Queens” and Meara appeared on “Archie Bunker’s Place,” in “Sex and the City,” and in movies like “The Daytrippers”). Their comedy played off their real-life differences, especially their Catholic-Jewish intermarriage.
There are many more worth mentioning, including Mike Nichols and Elaine May (who both had successful careers as movie directors), Tim Reed and Tom Dreeson (the first inter-racial comedy duo, whose book about the experience is called Tim and Tom: An American Comedy in Black and White, Dan Rowan and Dick Martin, whose act was very traditional but whose television show, Laugh-In was innovative and hugely influential, and George Burns and Gracie Allen, whose careers included vaudeville, movies, and a groundbreaking television series.
The big announcement by Jon and Kate Gosselin that they are divorcing comes as no surprise. While they used the word “separate,” the program acknowledged that it has gone farther than that and that they have filed for dissolution of the marriage. I am terribly sad for the children. I thought of the Loretta Lynn song that has the parents spelling their words in a conversation about the end of the marriage so that their children would not understand what was going on.
Their children knew. And so do the eight Gosselin children.
I do not pretend that we can truly understand anything about anyone’s marriage, even one that has been so thoroughly documented. For example, Kate’s frequent on-camera criticism of Jon — she once famously barked at him for breathing — could be superficial, just a heightened form of teasing, or it could be the outward manifestation of something much more fundamentally corrosive. “Reality” television creates the illusion of truth, but every edit shapes the story. Every camera changes what is filmed. And what was true yesterday can change very quickly due to the influence of public attention.
But I think it is fair to say that the stress of eight small children and constant media scrutiny played added to the pressure on Jon and Kate and on their relationship. And I also think it is fair to say that it is a shame our society does not provide more support for couples who need some guidance to strengthen their connection and communication.
I still believe what I said earlier:
Jon and Kate will have to work out what is best for them and for their family. But we, too, should give some thought to the part we have played as their audience — whether for the show or for the salacious gossip. Were we too ready to believe the best about them? Are we too ready to believe the worst?
Families with children who are fans of the show should be prepared to talk about what is going on and to provide reassurance that the eight children will still see both parents and that sometimes grown-ups do not get along but they never stop loving their children.
Two movies are opening this week, both rated PG-13, but they are at opposite ends of that very broad spectrum that reaches from the suitable-for-grade-school PGs to the 17-and-up R rating. I will go into more detail in the reviews, but “The Proposal” is a romantic comedy with a few bad words, some sexual references, and nudity that does not reveal anything that would be covered by a (small) bathing suit. But “Year One” is a gross-out comedy with jokes about incest, castration, circumcision, orgies, and lots of bathroom jokes.
Parents should always be very cautious about PG-13 films, especially comedies, because it is impossible to predict, based on one film with that rating, what any other PG-13 will include.
Which is Dirtier — ‘Land of the Lost’ or ‘Hangover?’ (Spoiler Alert)
Posted on June 8, 2009 at 3:58 pm
The Hangover and Land of the Lost opened on the same day. Other than that, they have little in common. The Hangover is a raunchy comedy about the aftermath of a Las Vegas bachelor party that would have been unforgettable if any of the attendees could remember any of it. The movie has male and female nudity, substance abuse, and many different kinds of very bad behavior. The movie is rated R, just barely (no pun intended). The still photos over the closing credits merit an NC-17. Land of the Lost is based on a classic — if cheesy — 1970’s children’s television show. It has dinosaurs and time travel but it is “rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content, and for language including a drug reference.”
Both movies are silly comedies with no aspiration to be anything else, but I would argue that it is the superficially raunchier film, “The Hangover,” that is more moral and a more entertaining film as a result. “Land of the Lost” treats its female character (played by the talented and beautiful Anna Friel) as a prop. She is there to provide exposition, to be literally pawed by an ape-boy, and to gaze adoringly at Will Ferrell. Although she is the only intelligent and capable person in the film, she is treated as an afterthought. The other characters behave badly and treat her badly and there are no consequences of any kind.
“The Hangover,” on the other hand, is a movie entirely about consequences. The bachelor party guests spend the whole film piecing together the bad choices they made the night before and paying for them financially, emotionally, and even spiritually. They all learn something important and we leave confident that they will be unlikely to repeat their mistakes (except that they have already agreed to a sequel). Furthermore, legally and morally they are not completely responsible for the worst of their behavior because they were drugged, two of them inadvertently.
No one is arguing that either of these films is any kind of morality tale. They are both helium-weight comedies. But I think “The Hangover” is a better film because it fits the innate audience desire for justice and lessons learned. The vicarious thrill of the transgressive behavior is not nearly as satisfying as seeing the characters learn some painful lessons and pay for their mistakes.
For a little more insight into the MPAA’s approach to ratings, take a look at what they have to say.
Why is the show about these two people and their twins and sextuplets so popular? And why are their marital problems getting so much attention?
I feel terribly sad for the entire family. Jon and Kate were a young couple with twins who wanted another child and so had fertility treatments which resulted in sextuplets. They now support their 10-person family by allowing television cameras to follow them everywhere and they have become celebrities, with Kate spending a lot of time on the road promoting her book and giving talks. The younger children, who just celebrated their fifth birthday, have grown up on camera. Their show is popular because people enjoy seeing how they cope with the unimaginable challenge of feeding, bathing, transporting, and listening to eight children under the age of seven. The children are cute and Kate’s unfazed normalcy seemed to be grounded in her Christian values, though many people commented on her harsh on-camera treatment of her husband. She once memorably told him he was breathing too loud.
Before the new season of the show began, there were supermarket tabloid headlines that Jon and Kate were becoming estranged and possibly having affairs. The couple addressed these questions on the season’s first episode, but what was most important was what they did not say. They did not deny the rumors but they did not say that they were committed to staying together.
Here is a clip from happier days, but even there, you can see some stress between them. Look at the body language as Kate leans away from Jon and compare it to the light-hearted home movie footage of their engagement, wedding, and honeymoon. It is impossible not to be touched by the tenderness of their vows and not to hope that they find their way back to one another.
Jon and Kate have experienced enough stress to drive a dozen couples apart. They got married very young, they very quickly produced eight children, and then, and this may be the most stressful of all, they opened up their lives 24-7 to the viewing public. Any parent of very young children knows what it feels like to see your romantic partnership turn into an endless series of logistical demands. It can be very difficult not to feel frustrated and impatient, and parents often feel they are losing a sense of themselves as separate, functioning, and appealing adults. Jon and Kate may find it difficult to resist whatever reminds them that they merit adult approval. That could be a flirtation with another person or with the audience as a whole — Kate appears to enjoy her glamorous makeover and the attention from audiences.
Jon and Kate will have to work out what is best for them and for their family. But we, too, should give some thought to the part we have played as their audience — whether for the show or for the salacious gossip. Were we too ready to believe the best about them? Are we too ready to believe the worst? Think of poor Susan Boyle, that gentle, unassuming soul who just wanted to sing and who has been almost crushed by overwhleming adulation and scrutiny since her appearance on “Britain’s Got Talent.”
We need to understand that it is absurd to think that “reality” shows give us any real sense of what truly goes on It is a fantasy to think that Jon and Kate could handle all of these children as the show made it appear. And it is an even bigger fantasy to think that the show itself does not fundamentally change the dynamic and relationships it depicts. We need to understand that just as Heisenberg proved that sub-atomic particles behave differently when they are observed, so the very fact of our watching people changes their lives, often for the worse. Look at the Jon and Kate who are so tender in reciting their wedding vows. If they knew what they would have to give up in exchange for the money and product placement and notoriety, would this be what they would have wanted for themselves? For Aaden, Joel, Alexis, Hannah, Leah, Collin, Cara, and Madelyn?
