tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post6595639429720152904..comments2024-03-05T21:05:36.848-05:00Comments on CommentaramaFilms: Film Friday: Paul (2011)AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-84619315557209655522012-02-19T02:20:07.177-05:002012-02-19T02:20:07.177-05:00Thanks Ben,
I agree. The thing about social comm...Thanks Ben,<br /><br />I agree. The thing about social commentary, whether it's done with humor or as a drama is that it needs to be fair, honest, and expose some hypocrisy or hidden truth. I didn't feel that was the case here at all.<br /><br />First, they picked a very unfair representative for the topic. If you're going to take on "religion" then you need to take on a fair representative of it. Picking the most extreme example doesn't do that.<br /><br />Secondly, they weren't honest about what they did. Even beyond picking a bad representative, they didn't treat her fairly in terms of how she would really react. Indeed, if we found out for certain right now that there is no God, we still wouldn't act the way she did. They also simply took the point as proven that she's wrong without ever proving it. AND they decided wrong = stupid, which is again unfair unless they can show some connection -- which they didn't bother showing.<br /><br />Third, there was nothing insightful here. There are many "holes" in religion because it's based on faith, i.e. it can't be proven. What's worse, many organized religions get themselves lost in the procedures and lose track of the substance. All of those things are ripe for social commentary. But they didn't do that there. Instead, they just assumed religion was wrong and they began name-calling. To be effective social commentary, there needs to be some form of debunking, and that requires more just one jerk saying "you're all idiots."<br /><br />Indeed, that's the thing about <i>Airplane</i>. Take the jive joke. It's funny because it's grounded in truth. Black people had invented their own language, patterned on pimp-speak. And many of them, including professionals, were using it. So when you had these two guy taking like pimps even though they were saying non-pimp things, it made the very accurate point that blacks were making themselves look bad speaking like that. That's a "cutting truth" and can't be counter-attacked as a smear because it is a truth. And that's why it works as social commentary. Ditto on all the other jokes -- they poked fun at things people knew to be true but wouldn't admit publicly.<br /><br />That's not the case in <i>Paul</i>. In <i>Paul</i>, they are just put militant atheist attacks on screen and pretended they had said something insightful.<br /><br />Finally, I agree about Pegg/Frost. This bodes poorly if they head off down this road like Gervaise has. At this point, Gervaise is so nasty and so not-funny that I will actively avoid his films.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-64657336569733919922012-02-19T01:41:33.126-05:002012-02-19T01:41:33.126-05:00Good insight there, Andrew.
Simply for the record...Good insight there, Andrew.<br /><br />Simply for the record (not based on anything you said): as for the sin thing, I meant that dispassionately and not prudishly and I speak from experience as well.<br /><br />They ain't called deadly for nothin,' that's for sure.<br /><br />When film makers insult most of their audience it really hurts the film, I think.<br /><br />I'm not against lambasting any particular beliefs or groups from time to time if it's done with wit and not so nastily.<br />That seems to work best when it's done in an even handed manner. <br /><br />Several people or groups could take offense at Airplane, for example, but very few do because it's never personal (okay, maybe with the Moony flower people it is but that's perfectly understandable). :^)<br /><br />But no one was saying Nun's, Pilots, Flight Attendents, Doctors, ATC workers, etc., are idiots or perverts or whatever (and Jive really is another language so that part is true). <br /><br />But vicious insults are personal and most film watchers can tell the difference.<br /><br />What disappoints me the most is that Pegg and Frost appear to be militant atheists like Dawkins or Gervais.<br /><br />I don't know that they are, but it appears that way and it really hurts their potential to do more good films like Shawn Of The Dead (and to a lesser extent Hot Fuzz).<br /><br />I hope this doesn't become a recurring theme in their films (militant Atheism, which is a cult in it's own right) but time will tell.USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-28361787862493845152012-02-19T01:15:45.927-05:002012-02-19T01:15:45.927-05:00Indi, I also think that's what he does best. ...Indi, I also think that's what he does best. When he tries to branch out into anything other than a "likable stoner-loser," he fails miserably. And even as the stoner-loser, I think he needs a strong director to rein him in. For one thing, I think he really is an arrogant jerk and it comes across in his comedy. For another, he has a real nasty side which comes out in films like <i>Green Hornet</i>. Thus, I think he needs a director to tell him "stop being a jerk and stop treating people like garbage."AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-79317960788757664802012-02-19T01:09:07.624-05:002012-02-19T01:09:07.624-05:00Andrew
I actually don't dislike Seth Rogan. ...Andrew<br /><br />I actually don't dislike Seth Rogan. I think there have been roles that he wwas good in. Nut the problem is that these were few and really limited to what I guess is the Stoner Comedy genre ala Cheech and Chong.<br /><br />Rogan tends to play roles that are supposed to be the likeable loser cool guy. He can do this well, but it is probably becuase he does not have to act.<br /><br />But as you state most of his movies go too far and end up being swearing for swearing sakes.Individualisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005025873042230314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-14842048265066259612012-02-19T00:14:26.520-05:002012-02-19T00:14:26.520-05:00Thanks Ben! You raise many interesting points as ...Thanks Ben! You raise many interesting points as always. And I agree this film had much potential.<br /><br />1. I also knew a sucker punch was coming as I’d heard that was the case in this film. And I’m not even generally susceptible to the whole sucker punch thing, i.e. it takes a lot before a sucker punch can harm a film for me. Thus, you know it’s bad when I’m complaining about a sucker punch. And in this film, it was bad because it was much more underhanded and nasty than I expected and it ran the course of the film.<br /><br />This wasn’t just one character saying “gee, aren’t those conservatives nuts.” This punch became the theme of the film and it kept popping up over and over.<br /><br />2. Totally agree about the lack of depth of their atheism. Paul says “there is no God.” (<i>although at another point he also says his existence “proves all religions”</i>) But he NEVER states a case for it. He and the nerds just take it as true and assume the religious people are idiots. That’s why I find the statement that they wanted to “explore atheism” to be such a crock because they never touched upon it. They just ridiculed religious believers.<br /><br />3. I think you’re right that this was an attack on religion in general and not just fundamentalists. I think what they did was take the worst possible representative of religion, i.e. the most close-minded, nasty idiot they could create (and admittedly there are such people), and then wrongly pretended this person represents all religious believers. It would be like judging all Americans on Jerry Falwell.<br /><br />4. Finally, you made this point: <i>That being said, there are plenty of agnostics and atheists who believe that sins can generally be a bad thing.</i><br /><br />This is very true. Morality doesn’t just come from religion, it has many sources including simple common sense. So there’s no reason for the Wiig character to go insane as she does and become a sexual, alcoholic, drug-abusing, swearing glutton...... unless they are making a nastier point. And I think they are. I think the point they are making is that religions retards you and causes you to be unprepared for the world. Thus, once “let out of the cult” (so to speak) you will have no sense of self-control because you’ve relied on fear of God to guide you. Translation: religious people are drones.<br /><br />That to me, is what was really insulting.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-90676670651132704922012-02-18T23:41:14.473-05:002012-02-18T23:41:14.473-05:00Outstanding review, Andrew!
I'm not a fundame...Outstanding review, Andrew!<br /><br />I'm not a fundamentalist although I used to play one for a short time.<br /><br />Interestingly, most main stream fundamentalists aren't 100% fundamentalists.<br /><br />For instance, except for Catholic fundies (very small sect), no fundie believes in the actual body and blood of Christ as written in the New Testament as Catholics do.<br /><br />Thus most still believe in at least some symbology, young earth creationism aside.<br /><br />I got the sense that the film makers were attacking all of Christianity, since their point was that there is no God (and they didn't even attempt to say why Paul was so certain of this).<br /><br />If they were just attacking fundies in general then they wouldn't have gone that extra step and would've kept their sights on the most prevalent fundie beliefs (the young earth idea being the easiest to counter).<br /><br />That being said, there are plenty of agnostics and atheists who believe that sins can generally be a bad thing.<br />Particularly the ones that cause a lot of destruction to others but also to the ones that commit them.<br /><br />Morality doesn't have to have a religious context and neither does the well known and proven negative effects of sins (some obviously worse than others).<br /><br />At any rate it was cringeworthy, unfunny and took me out of the film several times.<br /><br />They kept beating that dead horse then they killed some more to beat with the other handful of jokes they had, just in case we didn't get it the first several times I guess.<br /><br />Too bad because Paul did have a lot of potential.<br /><br />BTW, I knew the sucker punch was coming, having read a few reviews at BH, but I had no idea they would use it in such an underhanded way and keep on going backing to that well several timesUSS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-73583416049760139662012-02-18T12:24:22.057-05:002012-02-18T12:24:22.057-05:00You're welcome Eric. And yeah, that's a g...You're welcome Eric. And yeah, that's a good way to put it -- the referential jokes are more like <i>Spaced</i> than <i>Shawn</i>. A couple are clever, but almost none of them arise organically, i.e. they mostly feel forced.<br /><br />In terms of seeing it, I often feel like I'm glad I saw something even if I didn't like it. This is doesn't feel that way. This one was ultimately forgettable, despite the great topic, and I'm pretty indifferent to having seen it.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-8682252562210648632012-02-18T12:21:59.037-05:002012-02-18T12:21:59.037-05:00Outlaw, I generally find Michael Cera unwatchable ...Outlaw, I generally find Michael Cera unwatchable as well. In fact, seeing his name is enough to turn me off a film. I did not personally enjoy <i>Scott Pilgrim</i>, but I could see it's appeal to a certain audience. It was quirky and had it's moments, but it just didn't appeal to my tastes.<br /><br /><i>Paul</i> is one of those where you aren't missing much if you skip it.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-63910560476469160882012-02-18T12:19:32.729-05:002012-02-18T12:19:32.729-05:00Bummer the referential jokes play less like the mo...Bummer the referential jokes play less like the more subtle Shawn... than Pegg's Spaced series, where they constantly beat you over the head to show the viewer how "smart" the writers were. Sigh.<br /><br />Thanks for the final nail in the coffin to even paying rental or streaming attention, Andrew -- much appreciated!Eric Phttp://www.threedonia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-54926188908197397862012-02-18T10:49:11.492-05:002012-02-18T10:49:11.492-05:00Never seen this one, and othing I've read here...Never seen this one, and othing I've read here gives me the urge to change that.<br /><br />Scott Pilgrim on the other hand, based on the previews I was looking forward to it. The actual film however starred Michael Cera, whom I find generally not that watchable...so it was a bit of a chore. The ladies in the film however did a great job, so it was kind of a C+ for me.Outlaw13https://www.blogger.com/profile/17232117096525959967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-12162507495891132692012-02-17T20:44:52.779-05:002012-02-17T20:44:52.779-05:00Indi, I find it very hard to like Rogen as well. ...Indi, I find it very hard to like Rogen as well. Like you, I think he's one-dimensional and he lacks comedic instincts. Plus, his version of comedy is generally childish and vindictive, which is rarely funny.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-92156206873625078712012-02-17T20:37:41.296-05:002012-02-17T20:37:41.296-05:00I remember seeing this film and thinking to myself...I remember seeing this film and thinking to myself that Seth Rogan is such a one dimensional actor that he cannot even make a <br />CGI space alien appear to be a different character than the others.<br /><br />It is funny when Paul swears because he is an alien the first times. Maybe, but not for me. Why because close your eyes and it is Seth Rogan. Same guy, same character he always plays.<br /><br />Not that this is bad. I thought he was good in funny people but then again he played a more serious side to himself. Still, he played himself. This I think was one of the problems.Individualisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005025873042230314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-49684275127903802662012-02-17T20:31:15.557-05:002012-02-17T20:31:15.557-05:00tryanmax, Excellent answer! I agree 100% and actu...tryanmax, Excellent answer! I agree 100% and actually have nothing to add.<br /><br />And I think you're right about the way this fails in <i>Paul</i>: to be funny, something must be unexpected. That's why it's funny that an alien swears -- because we don't expect it. That's also why it should be funny that the fundamentalist starts swearing. BUT once it becomes expected, it's not funny anymore. So when they start swearing in every scene, it becomes expected and it becomes dull.<br /><br />Similarly, we aren't shocked by her doing drugs because she's already going through the sins one at a time in scene after scene, so seeing her doing drugs isn't unexpected.<br /><br />In fact, the only part of that scene which is funny is when Paul says "this is the stuff that killed Dylan" and they protest that Dylan isn't dead. That's funny because it was truly unexpected. But them acting stoned isn't funny because that's what's expected.<br /><br />There is a probably a HUGE lesson here for any budding comedy writers... if a joke is expected, don't do it, do something else.<br /><br />This actually dove-tails with something I ran into in my first book. Every time I came to something "expected," I did something else and that really helped keep the plot moving. It seems that being predictable is a real trap as far as entertainment goes.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-20995088945111937992012-02-17T20:15:24.305-05:002012-02-17T20:15:24.305-05:00Ask a question, eh?Ask a question, eh?tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-41717164543817387532012-02-17T20:15:09.112-05:002012-02-17T20:15:09.112-05:00I think without narrative there can be no punchlin...I think without narrative there can be no punchline. For something to be funny it needs to have a context because, as is often said, comedy is just tragedy reversed. Narrative provides context far more than setting, which could be argued to be the mere product of another larger narrative. Even when we are confronted with a joke at the outset of a narrative, we look to the setting, not because it is particularly meaningful in itself, but because it tells us something about what led up to the joke.<br /><br />Sometimes we provide our own context where there isn't sufficient context already. That is why Paul's swearing is funny at first, because space aliens aren't "supposed" to swear. But the humor quickly fades because we soon understand that Paul, despite being a space alien, typically swears.<br /><br />There are lots of theories about what makes funny funny. The one that I subscribe to is that laughter is a response to the unexpected. Even the "telegraphed" punchline is this way; laughter becomes a sympathetic (unsympathetic) response to someone else encountering the unexpected. The running gag works because, even though we come to expect it, we don't <i>when</i> to expect it. Going back to Paul, we come to expect him to swear every time he speaks, so it doesn't work. In any case, context is what makes funny funny. <br /><br />As to why humans are drawn to narrative, it is tied to our drive to make sense of our surroundings. Narrative is an extremely useful tool for this. Actually, it might be the only tool. Even a simple science experiment has a beginning, middle and end. Smarter people than I have wrestled with the nature of time and why it exists. Maybe the answer is simply, because we need it.tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-41456604900994385292012-02-17T19:21:41.498-05:002012-02-17T19:21:41.498-05:00tryanmax, I agree. I'm not entirely sure why ...tryanmax, I agree. I'm not entirely sure why it is, but it seems that humans are big on narrative. We want more than just a punchline. We want a whole story filled with actual people. Maybe it's because the narrative helps us relate to ourselves?AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-47266471523922755242012-02-17T19:18:58.874-05:002012-02-17T19:18:58.874-05:00I guess I only had film in mind when I offered tha...I guess I only had film in mind when I offered that rule, but you do make a point that the best stand-up usually involves a story of some kind. Even comedy that is a stream of one-liners is usually just a string of very short stories. <br /><br />Narrative is essential to convey ideas. When we wax philosophical on the Commentarama sites, it is seldom outside of the context of some narrative, be it a news brief, a campaign event, or an episode of <i>Star Trek</i>. Heck, even the best songs seem to all be ballads.tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-43404199105509121132012-02-17T19:02:44.720-05:002012-02-17T19:02:44.720-05:00Doc, I've always thought that too, that the be...Doc, I've always thought that too, that the best stand up routines involve storytelling rather than joke telling. In fact, what I remember from all the greats are the stories they told, not the specific jokes.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-88577480752155159152012-02-17T18:49:37.075-05:002012-02-17T18:49:37.075-05:00tryanmax, That's probably a great rule for any...tryanmax, That's probably a great rule for any comedy unless you're doing a standup routine, and then your second rule is the most important. But even the best standup routines involve great story telling.Doc Whoahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16283308866886912377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-25490644885125265792012-02-17T17:31:02.799-05:002012-02-17T17:31:02.799-05:00T-Rav, I'm a Pegg fan. He had even had an int...T-Rav, I'm a Pegg fan. He had even had an interesting villain role in one of the <i>Doctor Who</i> episodes. It's unfortunate that this film was so flat because the very idea has a ton of potential... they just didn't exploit it very well.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-80476520250613080202012-02-17T17:30:00.121-05:002012-02-17T17:30:00.121-05:00tryanmax, Excellent first rule. If the film itsel...tryanmax, Excellent first rule. If the film itself is good, then people will forgive a lot in terms of the joke quality. But of course, if the film is good, then the jokes will probably work better anyway. I think the basic plot in <i>Paul</i> is just too simplistic a vehicle for what they wanted:<br /><br /><i>Two nerds meet an alien and take it from point A to point B while being chased.</i><br /><br />That's just not enough to hang the rest of the film upon. They needed something big which would have given them more to work with.<br /><br />Plus, when it came time to each scene, they just didn't do what they needed. I watch <i>Midnight Run</i> again last night and I just marvel at how perfectly that movie is written. Each scene adds some complexity, some new challenge, and it's always believable and always adds to the depth of the story. That truly is the best chase movie I've ever seen. And when I compare <i>Paul</i> to it, I really see all the flaws in their way-too-simple story.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-69060601089432617252012-02-17T17:26:50.114-05:002012-02-17T17:26:50.114-05:00I just watched Star Trek (2009) earlier this week,...I just watched <i>Star Trek</i> (2009) earlier this week, and I thought Pegg was pretty good in that. I also really liked <i>Shaun of the Dead</i>, which everyone else seemed to as well. Too bad he seems to have essentially wasted his own talent in this work.T-Ravhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10861218035729479354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-87017593988156896662012-02-17T17:24:37.385-05:002012-02-17T17:24:37.385-05:00Lawhawk, Rogen actually does a good job here... su...Lawhawk, Rogen actually does a good job here... surprisingly. I don't think you're missing anything by skipping this one, which is too bad.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-67941970818345632612012-02-17T17:22:58.944-05:002012-02-17T17:22:58.944-05:00Andrew, Doc, I think the first rule of comedy shou...Andrew, Doc, I think the first rule of comedy should be that you can take out all the jokes and still have a good film. The other first rule should be to make sure the jokes are funny.tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-56999655332382107342012-02-17T17:21:41.735-05:002012-02-17T17:21:41.735-05:00Sounds like another film I'll be happy to igno...Sounds like another film I'll be happy to ignore. I hesitate to watch any film with Seth Rogen anyway, and this just clinches it. He has made my skin crawl since he got his start in <i>Freaks and Geeks.</i> He gives slob/stoner humor a bad name.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.com