FUNNY PEOPLE OR “FUNNY, PEOPLE WOULD PAY TO WATCH THIS”?

Okay, let me get on record here: Funny People was a terrible movie. It wasn’t funny, well written, well edited, compelling, interesting, or even accurate. It was a face clawing pile of dog shit run through a projector at 24 pieces of shit per second.

Why? Well, let me break this movie down scene-by-scene. The movie starts with a mediocre actor portraying a mediocre comic, he makes a dick joke, followed by an array of blowjob dick jokes. Then Billy Madison shows up and makes some dick jokes but apparently his anal blowjob jokes are worth $300 million. Then Judd Apatow himself shits into the camera and an array of celebrity cameos plops out, ending with Eminem rap battling Ray Romano (Apatow must have eaten a greasy gyro directly before this scene). Then Happy Gilmore doesn’t die but he punches some soccer player in the face and then everyone goes to a Myspace party but not the Waterboy because he would rather text message his frat bro than cry when some girl sang a song.

I’m sorry. I know that barrage of nonsense is juvenile and without substance, but hey, I AM reviewing an Apatow “film”! I really don’t know how to convey my point without sounding like one of these “Apatow bashers” (who, some-fucking-how, comprise the MINORITY). The movie was bad. The jokes were lazy and boring. The stand up, ditto. The “emotional content” of the movie was in fact its biggest joke. The fact that we are to buy into this story and treat it seriously and invest ourselves is insane.

Okay, so he’s an asshole and he gets a death sentence. I’m in. Let’s see what happens. He’s a comedian? Me too, this could be interesting! But to play the card of “lost love” from over a decade ago, have her instantly weep in his arms and begin a taboo affair of rekindling is merely a foreshadowing of the contrivances and the ridiculously clunky plot turns to follow. Did he REALLY get into a fist fight on the lawn with the dude married to the girl he likes? You want to show his darker, obsessive side? How about he doesn’t fuck the girl he’s chasing? Because that’s what fucking happens! She doesn’t cry in your arms and invite you to her house with her (and the director’s) children to play ear licking games with the family dog. She ignores you and tells you you are a mess and you are forced to live with that reality as well as the fact that you agree with her. Even in your most pitiable moment staring death in the face, the girl you supposedly love tells you to fuck off. What happens to George then? Your friends are almost no help because they can not fix what is broken inside you. Where’s that story? Where is this guy’s history? What happened to make him this way? Fame? Nope. He was broken before.

Look, I get it. Stand up comics are not the fun, playful characters they are on stage. For the most part, they are a mess. I have met more depressed alcoholics with bi-polar tendencies, repressed sexual appetites, mother/father issues, guilt, regret, Napoleon complexes, rage, and misplaced frustration in the Chicago comedy scene than I have my entire life prior. We’re a fucking mess of a community, starting from inside each individual. But we are this way ORGANICALLY (a word Apatow has probably only used to refer to his tomatoes). We also don’t have to fight to look “disappointed” or “hurt” (is the Rogen allusion bright enough?).

The movie uses the notion of fame and superstardom to place the movie in a setting that the audience can simply not identify with. We are supposed to take for granted the reality painted by Apatow’s brush. But in doing this, Apatow has failed to give credence to the fundamental humanity that remains in the face of money and fame, even though that seems to be part of his MO.

Amidst the complete inaccuracies of his depiction of LIFE, Apatow fails on his supposed bread and butter: the stand up comedy scene. The “comedy scene” depicted in the movie looks like some weird Robert Zemeckis version of what comedians from the 80s imagined the comedy scene would look like in 2009.

I will give credit: Apatow’s movies tend to have decent arcs and ideas. But the implementation and execution are embarrassing. It’s so far removed from the reality he is supposedly trying to boldly demonstrate, it literally offends me as both a comedian and a human being to watch this movie.

Anyway, this subject tires and bores me. I can’t do this any longer, I have to go -- Chris Rock is texting me. He wants me to write his new hour of material and open 6 shows in Africa.

THE NEW M.O.

Here is the problem: comedy is a reflection of The Mass Opinion.  The Mass Opinion is the blanket against which our ideas or suggestions are contrasted.  In the comedy setting, laughter indicates either approval, recognition, or understanding, and therefore highlights a subjective truth of the collective consciousness.

I am a stand-up comedian.  I have “chosen” this path for many reasons, but mostly because I enjoy it.  I enjoy the process of writing about new ideas and developing them into performable pieces.  I will not (and can not) write about something that does not contain a large kernel of personal importance.  Whether it be a part of my personal history, a habit of mine, a nagging thought, or an important idea, only those things will be discussed in my act.  I am not one to bring Snuggie bits to your ears, or go on about how I heard this one really out of context “stupid” thing said by some obscure stranger which is of no importance to the world.  That’s not my deal.  I will call it like I see it, targeting even myself (gasp!) in the foray of criticism.

However, in doing that, I find myself somewhat isolated on a lot of issues.  Call me a dissident or “contrarian” but that’s merely the reality of the situation.  Now I’m sure you can foresee the issue.  My opinions and beliefs are drastically different than the collective ideal (more on this in later articles).  So when I offer an idea as absurd or criticize a behavior, most of the public does not share my disapproval as they are the ones being criticized.  Now, one could argue that people can laugh at themselves.  True.  However, they can NOT laugh at themselves when a core belief is questioned or criticized.  They can laugh at how we all suck at the self-checkout, or how we have strange bathroom habits, but can not (and will not) laugh at their own ignorance on issues in which they perceive themselves as informed.  The list is endless: politics, religion, sociology, human nature, biology, science, etc.  Most people are pretty set with their ideology, having worked a lifetime at the docks or in a steel mill or in a cubicle, they’re not gung-ho about a 24 year old know it all screaming at their hypocritical faces.  Understandable.

This is nothing novel.  Bill Hicks was marginalized to obscurity in America.  Doug Stanhope barely squeaks by (only due to the advent of Youtube and an internet presence).  Dissidence is not welcome in comedy because the Mass Opinion, by definition opposes the dissenting view.  However, if one were to revolutionize the society and pull everyone to this platform from which I rant, then I would no longer be dissident.  I’d be preaching to the choir about the straw men of the past that comedians love to publicly chastise (gay marriage, anyone?  Religious fundamentalism?).  In short, I’d be a shit head.  A phony.  A late blooming fraud posing in the guise of “cutting edge”.  There is a painful duality involved in such a notion.  By existing beyond the mass (and the Mass Opinion), you are on the revolutionary side of ideology.  However, you will also by default be misunderstood and disconnected from the public you are trying to reach.  They will often, in the face of criticism, retreat into the safety of routine and mass agreement.  I understand this reality, yet I press on; I suppose I wish the public were a little more eager to go along for the ride of progress...

DISPELLING A LABEL

I have, over the years or months or however long I’ve been interacting with a fair degree of honesty, been labeled a cynic.  A pessimist.  And I certainly understand where those accusations are coming from, given the current social framework by which cynicism and radicalism is judged.  For example, I was at an engagement party this past weekend at which my anti-marriage, anti-institutionalization of love and emotion, etc. was bound to come out in one way or another.  As is consistent with my behavior history, it came out in a series of jokes.  Among them, asking the (supposed) groom-to-be, “Do we get all these hours back after the inevitable divorce?” etc.  Cynicism is only cynicism when judged against the reference of socially accepted “optimism”.  In this specific case, the social optimism is that the two will be married and in love for the rest of their lives.  So, in this case, I am the cynic, the pessimist.

In the last few months, my supposed cynicism has been directed more at the foundation of society (as well as its subsequent outcomes including marriage, advertising, etc.).  In this case the social optimism is that life is GOOD.  Our society is free, we are autonomous individuals, free of manipulation and in this capitalist enterprise we are free to do as we please and work to whatever end we deem fit.  And I have, amongst other things, realized this to be radically untrue.  Subsequently, that pervading theme slips out of my face in the form of passive-aggressive humor et al.  The central target of these recent outbursts of meta-sarcasm seems to be directed at the framework by which our society operates today: state-capitalism.  Now, some (“hard-core capitalists”) believe that eliminating the state involvement, leading to “laissez faire” capitalism is the answer, but I’ve found that the very belief capitalism at its core gives insight to a very interesting fundamental belief.

I was discussing these ideas with two close friends of mine, both of whom belong to two important groups: capitalists (and/or objectivists), and those who consider me cynical.  Through our dissection of economy, sociology, and human nature, we came to a fundamental disagreement that gave some incredibly counterintuitive insight.  We realized the primary driving force behind their belief in such ideology was a fundamental human SELFISHNESS that would perpetually pervert any ideal of communal benefit.  That is the capitalist ideal.  We are inherently selfish and therefore we will always want more (greed) and are entitled to it if we work for it.  Now, I agree with them on the basis, however vehemently disagree with the subsequent leap.  I do find that humans are “selfish” at the fundamental level.  We will always do what is best for us, no matter what.  However, that does not necessarily imply that we will be GREEDY.  We will only be greedy if our ideological prism is set up as such.  That is, greed will only be our goal if we believe that greed is the best goal.  However, alter the ideological prism through which the world is experienced, and we can see that it is possible to alter the behavior.  If we were to BELIEVE that communal benefit was more important than individual wealth, then by pursuing our “selfish” goals, we will strive for communal benefit so as to be selfishly selfless.  That is, one who believes the best way for a human to act is to benefit society, then he/she will benefit society so as to feel that he/she is acting as justly as possible.  Yet, the “hard-core capitalists” (my friends), at their belief core, claim that human nature is such that this is impossible; people will always put themselves above others at whatever cost (global disparity in wealth, poverty, violence, etc.).  However, given countless examples to the contrary (vegetarians, for example) I truly believe that humans not only have the capability to, but indeed WANT to strive for a more connected, communal experience.  We have the capacity for sharing, for societal benefit and it simply takes a change in belief structure from dog-eat-dog to we are part of something more important than the individual and by working together we can achieve more individual freedom.  My friends (as well as their intellectual allies) do not think this is possible, which led to an incredibly revealing truth: my perceived cynicism is in fact deep rooted optimism in the face off mass cynicism.  This counterintuitive fundamental realization is instrumental in progressing the discussion.  Is it not progress these discussions are meant to catalyze?