Tête-à-tête: Judd Apatow, Part 2: Funny People

McGraw: Despite your distaste for all things Apatow, it sounds as though you enjoyed Funny People (perhaps even more than I did). Explain yourself.

R.G.: (SPOILER ALERT) As I was walking into the theater, I remember telling my sister that I would probably enjoy the movie as long as Adam Sandler and Leslie Mann characters don't end up together. From the trailer, I got the sense that it would be another happy-go-lucky Apatow film. So, I was pleasantly surprised to walk out of the theater having experienced an authentic story. Not that it didn't have its flaws, but it seemed like a truly personal film that wasn't always trying to please the audience. In our previous discussion, we slightly touched on the financial motivations of films. If you make a film with a sadder ending, more often than not, the film wont play well. I remember hearing a producer talk about how if Woody Allen had had Alvy and Annie end up together, Annie Hall would have sold twice the amount of tickets. That's not to say that movie cannot have happy ending or that those that do should be viewed with scorn. It just seems to me that in Apatow's previous films, he was too concerned with giving the audience the typical Hollywood ending. He did not give in to that desire in Funny People.

McGraw: The film was very intellectually interesting for those who know anything about Apatow. It almost seemed like the film was an opportunity to visualize his deepest, darkest insecurities about his personal and professional life. The film all the important people of Apatow's life: his wife (Leslie Mann), his former roommate (Adam Sandler), his protege (Seth Rogen), his actual children, and the comedy legends that have influenced his career. Apparently Sandler's obsession with seeing Rogen's manhood is also borrowed from his past. The film seems to play out the darker fantasy of "what could have been." I was of two minds about this stylistic choice. Because Apatow is a happily married family man (supposedly), seeing Sandler (representing Apatow) wallow in his own misery seemed a little insincere at first. However, after thinking about the film after the viewing, I think that Apatow's voice does not singularly come from Sandler's character. Instead, the film explores the connections of his life from a number of lenses, creating a fascinating mosaic of his comedic and personal life.

Despite finding the film intellectually engaging, I did not think the film was especially humorous. I found myself sitting silent for long periods of time during my viewing. That is not to say that there were not laughs; Eric Bana's character in particular had some classic lines. Still, despite the title, I did not think the movie was as funny as some of his previous efforts.


R.G.: Bret Easton Ellis once mentioned that the instant his first novel Less than Zero was published, he became a different person. Not that he meant to or that he even made any conscious decisions to change his personality, but that fame inexorably changed his life. When he walked down the street, he was no longer Bret Ellis, a kid from Los Angeles; instead, he was Bret Easton Ellis, literary wunderkind. Watching George Simmons at the beginning of Funny People, I get a similar feeling. Starting the film with a home video he shot of Sandler back when they were roommates, Apatow is able to present two versions of George: the young stand up comic who seems so full of life in these videos and the ubiquitous superstar. As a dying movie star, George lacks any of the felicity we previously observed. Why did he lose that joie de vivre, and can he get it back?

I agree that the film does linger on what could have been, but that’s why I loved it. A previous Sandler film was devoted to speeding up life, but Funny People is concerned with slowing life down and trying to reclaim the past. This latter version is certainly more apropos, considering Apatow and Sandler are now in their forties. I also think the picture examines a lot of complex issues. How might someone act when they are facing death, and when death doesn’t come, do they learn anything or revert to his or her old ways?

As far as the humor, it isn’t the funniest film I have ever seen, but that doesn’t bother me. I went in expecting a fairly prepackaged comedy sprinkled with emotional clichés, and I exited the theater having experienced a real film that deals with real issues. Certainly it is a very marginalized experience, but I think the way Apatow handled this movie made it accessible, unlike his previous two films.

McGraw: Perhaps you misinterpreted my view of the film. I was not criticizing Apatow's exploration of what "could have been." This thought experiment is precisely what makes the film interesting. My biggest "critique" was that the film was not especially funny compared to some of his other work. Even with Apatow's usual affinity for low-brow humor, there were few jokes that moved beyond the genital region. Additionally, many of the cameo appearances were random and detracted from the script. As much as I love Norm MacDonald, I cannot justify his two lines in the film. There were still some laughs to be had, but not as many as I was expecting.

One aspect of the film I particularly enjoyed was the portrayal of how comedians function outside the media spotlight. Apatow shows comedians struggling to remain relevant and in touch with their audiences. In an interview with Mo Rocca, Apatow described that he shot thousands of feet of film for fear that the audience would not find his script funny. In this way, Funny People becomes a microcosm of Apatow's writing and directing experience. Most people never take the time to explore the mechanics of a jokes as Sandler and Rogen do throughout the film. I left the theater thinking about my own sense of humor, questioning why I preferred some characters' humor over others. I think Funny People is Apatow's attempt to deconstruct his own sense of humor. Mark Twain once wrote, "Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: you understand it better, but the frog dies in the process." Even if Funny People is not his funniest work, I applaud Apatow for his exploration of the humorous depths of our collective subconscious.

R.G.: It seems that we are in agreement about Funny People, so I will end by quoting A.O. Scott from a recent piece he had in the times:

"And it is also clear that the film’s writer and director, Judd Apatow, is lampooning some aspects of his own work, which has shamelessly exploited (though it has also earnestly explored) the juvenile, even infantile impulses that seem to define the soul of the modern male American.

But “Funny People” is decidedly not a further indulgence of such urges, in spite of anxious and obnoxious jokes about genitals and excrement. It’s a movie about growing up, feeling sad, facing death — a long, serious film whose subject is the challenge of maturity. Which may be why, in the face of a softish opening weekend, various interpreters of box office data were quick to declare “Funny People” a flop. The summer is no time for grown-ups."

R.G.: * * * ½

McGraw: * * * ½