Tête-à-tête: Judd Apatow, Part 1

R.G.: McGraw and I recently saw Judd Apatow's latest film Funny People and rather writing two separate reviews, we thought it might be interesting to just have a discussion about Apatow's work and particularly his new film.

Judd Apatow has always been a contentious issue between you and I. So, I thought we might start by briefly talking about his prior movies, those he has directed and/or produced. Maybe this will provide a little background to this Apatow "feud." I know you are a fan of Freaks and Geeks, which I never watched. So maybe you would like to talk about your first impressions of the Apatow universe.


McGraw: I wish you had watched Freaks and Geeks because it represents the best of Judd Apatow's work. As the executive producer, writer, and director of many of the episodes in the short-lived television series, Apatow was in his element by highlighting the conflicting and sometimes turbulent emotions of high school life in the 1980s. I think one of the major contentions between fans and critics Apatow is whether his characters are realistic. I have never thought that his characters are "realistic." Steve Carrell's character in The 40 Year Old Virgin is comical not because of his resemblance to people we know, but rather because of his patent absurdity; who doesn't know the textural difference between sandbags and breasts? Freaks and Geeks was great because of its ability to shed light on genuine emotions through unfamiliar characters and story lines. You didn't have to be a stoner or a member of the AV club to appreciate the characters' struggles to fit in, feel loved, or simply to avoid public humiliation. The beauty of shows like Freaks and Undeclared (another favorite of mine) was the mixed emotional responses I had to Apatow's awkward characters. Seth Rogen is still amazingly awkward on film today; imagine him as an adolescent actor. Apatow best skill as a director has always been his ability to use actors' inherent physical and emotional shortcomings to create laughs and deeper emotional attachments.

I am not suggesting that Apatow is one of Hollywood's greatest directors. Nor am I suggesting that Apatow speaks for my generation. Apatow wouldn't make this claim either. I do think that many of his works are successful because of the complex emotional responses they produce. What is it about Apatow that you dislike so much?


R.G.: Well, to start I would differentiate between Apatow the producer and Apatow the director. Let's start with his role as a producer and/or co-writer. It might not be fair to focus on these film credits, but I think unlike any other current filmmaker, Apatow has expanded his creative control into so many films, whether as a producer or co-writer. As I look down this list of films, to me they represent the worst of film comedies. They are so generic and uninteresting. All of the characters are essentially the same from film to film, the dramatic situations are trite, and the movies survive solely on vulgarity. This latter point is why I detest these films. They represent the lowest, easiest type of humor.

I remember watching an interview with Larry David and Ricky Gervais where Gervais was talking about visiting a comedy club the night before. Every comic he saw essentially did the same routine; each comic’s catch phrase was “What the fuck?” and they all talked about their ethnic parents. I think the same is true for all of these films that have been produced by Apatow—they are formulaic. I think Roger Ebert was right to speak of these films as being assembled from some sort of “Apatow Surplus Store.”

McGraw: It's difficult for me to defend against all these charges because Apatow has worked on many projects, some better than others. I will focus on his film career now since you haven't seen his television work. This is unfortunate because I think his television credits have been the best work of his career, thus giving me a more positive overall view of his talents.

I reject the notion that Apatow is unique in the extent to which he has creative control of his films. I think it's fair to say that we can judge his ideas based on his movies because of his influence. However, this is not an abnormal situation in Hollywood. As I said previously, it is difficult to defend against charges that his movies are "trite," "vulgar," "generic," and "uninteresting" because he has worked on many different projects. It would be like saying the Boston Red Sox are a bunch of losers; that description may represent many years of baseball history, but ignores a great deal of what the team has accomplished. It is interesting that you have such a distaste for Apatow's vulgarity while approving of other directors that use similar, if not more egregious tactics. Are Apatow's films more crass than most of Kevin Smith's resume? Yes, there are racial stereotypes used in Apatow films. Gerry Bednob was used unfortunately in The 40 Year Old Virgin, just as he was in Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Even The Hangover which you reference as an alternative to Apatow is loaded with vulgarity and stock characters. No one in an Apatow movie has been seen receiving oral sex. Ken Jeong's acting in Knocked Up is less demeaning to his ethnic background than his role in The Hangover. All of this is to suggest that Apatow's film career has been imperfect. Some movies he has been associated with have failed (see Year One, Drillbit Taylor, Talladega Nights). There are a few too many penis jokes and references to weed. I just reject the notion that his production and directing choices are as egregious as you believe them to be.

R.G.: First, I was focusing solely on his work as a producer/co-writer. I consider his directorial efforts to be much better, and I wanted to address them separately. Second, I did not say or I at least I did not mean to suggest that Apatow’s position regarding the creative control of his own films is unique. A lot of directors have this degree of control. But, I do think his position within the film industry is unique. He does have a lot of clout, mostly due to the financial success of his films, those produced and directed, and he has used this influence to produce some really bad movies. I think you were being more than generous when you listed his association with movies that have failed. How you define failure is another issue, but let’s take a closer look at this list:

Anchorman (2004)

Fun with Dick and Jane (2005) - writer

Talladega Nights (2006)

Superbad (2007)

Walk Hard (2007) - writer

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)

Drillbit Taylor (2008)

You Don’t Mess with the Zohan (2008) - writer

Step Brothers (2008)

Pineapple Express (2008) - writer

Year One (2009)

This seems more like a rap sheet. To use your baseball metaphor, I think he’s batting around .090 (I liked Superbad). Now, I know you will say he did not direct these films, but he was a co-writer on over a third of these movies. Also, how many of these films do you think would have been made without his involvement? You seem to suggest that he is merely a producer in name only, just enough to have his name mentioned in the trailer. I don’t think this is the case. Whether or not he is exerting creative control over these projects isn’t that important to me. Like I said, I think the films he has directed are much better and more accurately reflect his potential, but he has created an environment in which the films I just mentioned and this type of comedy flourish. I think he bears some responsibility for this.

Finally, vulgarity is not the issue. The Coen Brothers are quite frequently vulgar as was Robert Altman. My point was that these films rely on vulgarity; it is their crutch. Like the comedians that Gervais was talking about, these films are similarly constructed and grounded in these vulgar jokes. If you were to remove the same jokes from a Coen Brothers film or an Altman film, you would still have a great movie and a lot of laughs left over. This is not the case with these films.

As far as your examples, I would say that Kevin Smith is definitely this type of filmmaker and that is why I don’t find his films appealing either. I did enjoy them when I was in high school, and I would still defend Dogma, Clerks, and to a lesser extent Chasing Amy. As far as The Hangover is concerned, it certainly contains many elements I dislike, but as a complete movie, I think it is filled with a variety of jokes that compensate. I would go into more details, but I think we should keep this more about Apatow.

McGraw: I define failure as movies I don't like. Since you presumptiously anticipated my next argument, I will indulge you. Yes, he helped write many of the films on the list you provide. And yes, many of those films are not very good/terrible. But I think it would be unfair to place most of the blame on these films on Judd. Am I really to place the blame on Apatow for Talladega Nights as opposed to Adam McKay and Will Ferrell? He exercised very little influence over Drillbit Taylor as well. I think the more logical explanation is that he was asked to consult on many of these movies because of his box office clout and his closeness with the writers and actors (namely Seth Rogen and Adam Sandler). Again, I can't defend everything that Apatow has participated in (dude has a family to feed!) Still, it is probably better to look at the work he directed or helped create from the beginning to gauge his true artistic abilities. My list includes:

The Ben Stiller Show (1993)- Great

The Larry Sanders Show (1998)- One of the classic comedic television shows of all-time

Freaks and Geeks (1999)- Great

Undeclared (2001)- Great

The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005)- Very funny

Fun with Dick and Jane (2005)- Did anyone actually see this movie?

Knocked Up (2007)- Very enjoyable

Walk Hard (2007)- Mediocre

Pineapple Express (2008)- Not very good

Superbad (2008)- Funny

Forgetting Sarah Marshall- Decent, not great

Funny People (2009)- More on this to come.

This list should also probably include "Life on Parole" and "Zero Effect", but having never seen either show, I cannot comment on them. Neither of these shows were picked up by networks for full production. Now you can debate my ratings of these films or the extent to which Apatow impacted any of the films/shows we have discussed, but my list represents the films that he has exerted the most control over. This depicts a decidedly better resume. Thus, I will concede that everything he touches is not comedic gold. Many of his writing/producing credits are attached to unfortunate titles. Still, a great deal of his work (particularly on television and as a film director) is very solid.

R.G.: Okay, I’ll try this again. I am not saying that each of the films I listed was totally controlled by Apatow and that he should receive the blame for their shortcomings. However, I think you cannot completely dismiss the influence he has had over the film industry for the past half a decade. Whether as “consult” or as a guy throwing his friends a bone, he has had an influence that might not be wholly related to creative control, but there is an Apatow atmosphere or environment in which these writers and actors swim.

But let’s move on. You have praised his television work (which I haven’t seen) and his films (let’s stick to 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Funny People) and have spoken about his impact on these projects. I think we would both agree that Apatow is an auteur. He certainly has a unique style and personal vision, even if he lacks technical skills. So my question is what is that style or vision, and what makes it “solid” as you said?

McGraw: I don't know that I can pinpoint Apatow's exact vision of film. There are a few common themes that he seems to focus on. Perhaps the most prevalent element is an exploration of how men interact with other men. I think his willingness to explore male interactions separates him from many other directors in Hollywood today. In a homophobic society, Apatow has managed to create story lines that focus almost exclusively on the workings of the male mind. Sometimes this manifests itself as an unimpressive "You know how I know you're gay?" marathon. However, there are many examples of hilarious dialogues that come from male characters exposing their inner-most thoughts to their friends (think Jonah Hill and Michael Cera discussing their "courting" techniques outside the liquor store in Superbad). In using male conversations and situations, Apatow is able to peel away the layers of ego and superego to focus exclusively on the male id. This produces most of Apatow's most memorable and awkward comedic scenes.


R.G.: Okay, he focuses on male interactions and the id, but that seems very superficial. Kevin Smith does this, as well as Adam McKay and Will Ferrell, or The Hangover. So what makes Apatow’s films different? I think his films stand out because they try to combine pathos with comedy. Each of the previous films we’ve mentioned uses emotions as a plot device, but Apatow builds his narrative around emotional scenes. Admittedly, I am less likely to enjoy a comedy if it also tries to strum the heartstrings, mostly because this is usually poorly done. However, Charlie Chaplin was a master at interweaving emotions with humor. Roberto Benigni is another comedian who is able to balance emotions and comedy with great talent, even though he has received some backlash over the past few years (and I’m not just talking about Life is Beautiful). So it can be done, I just don’t think Apatow has achieved this until Funny People. I guess my main issue is that Apatow is trying to examine genuine emotions through unrealistic characters. That, for me, is a problem.

McGraw: Often when writers and directors try to make characters act "realistic," they fail miserably. Part of my distaste for a movie like Garden State is that he promoted the film as a true to life depiction of the human condition. I think that many of Apatow's characters are funny precisely because they act differently than we would act. If Steve Carrell were not awkward around women, The 40 Year Old Virgin would be a pretty bland endeavor. Again, some of his characters are over the top, but I think that many humorous situations arise from quirky characters.

My central point is that Apatow can create humor simply by having a group of guys talk about their emotions. I think it is a unfair to compare him to Charlie Chaplin or Benigni. As I said earlier, my argument is not that Apatow is the comedic genius that the movie trailers make him out to be. Having seen the development of his career, he does not strike me as the pretentious type who has a glorified view of his abilities. As you know, the film industry is at heart a business. Films sell more if people believe that Apatow has played a role in its production, however small. He does not compare to the giants of the industry. Still, I do not think it is fair to discount him completely as a hack, even if his best years are behind him.

R.G.: I think there is a disconnect between how we are judging him. Yes, I understand the film industry is, regrettably, a business. But cinema interests me as an art form, not as a business. I do think there is a place for entertainment but that is not how I judge success.

Funny things do happen because some of his characters act in a way that is outside of the normal human experience. This can be entertaining, funny, and successful. And I think this is a staple of comedy. My issue is that he tries to inject real emotions into these situations. He presents these unrealistic characters and then asks the audience to identify with them emotionally, which I think is impossible. They inhabit this state of limbo between functioning as metaphors and being totally realistic.

I’m not asking for reality or even the illusion of reality but perhaps the reality within the illusion, which I don’t get from Apatow’s first two films. That being said, I think Funny People is step forward and we will address that in the next post.