The American Comic Film Tradition: Allen, Brooks, Apatow

"Laughter is evanescent, as fleeting as an orgasm and with equally limited capabilities for permanent fulfillment. And yet, it is a task that grown men and women set themselves to, plunging time and again into the abyss of discomfort, uncertainty, and potential humiliation, in the hopes of emerging, triumphant, with a single good laugh." - Saul Austerlitz

Here is a proposition: the two most important and influential American comic filmmakers are Woody Allen and James L. Brooks. Allen’s impact on the genre comes from his ability to incorporate stand-up into his films, and Brooks is important for incorporating a theater sensibility. These are the two distinguishing features between both filmmakers: stand-up and theater.

These two forms of performance are so intrinsic to these filmmakers' art, as if they were part of these films'  DNA. Allen’s use of stand-up is a model that relies heavily on wisecracks, a shtick, build-up and punch lines. For example, in To Rome With Love, when the young woman Hayley is describing her awkward parents, it’s then funny when the film cuts to a dolly-shot on a plane and there is Allen (back in front of the camera) kvetching to his wife. The build up is that of a joke.

Brooks, on the other hand, doesn’t rely on tricks and formula but instead if there is humor then it comes out through the characters and/or situations that they are in.  As Brooks quotes, it comes from Oscar Wilde's belief that, “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” For example, in Brooks’ most recent film How Do You Know when Lisa (Reese Witherspoon) one night has to decide between going home with her date or not, the framing of shot is set-up in a humorous way. The dramatic force of the story comes from what is this former softball-player Lisa is going through and less so on the laughs. But through using a variety of forms, and in this case the burlesque, Brooks is able to find the humor in the everyday.

For some more background information, which expands on this thesis: Allen started his career, when he was still in high school, by writing jokes for comedians and for talk shows. When Allen became a filmmaker his films had this rough quality as their slapstick and wisecracking vignettes seemed loosely tied together - as in a stand-up comedy act. Ralph Rosenblum, who edited these early films, speaks at length about his collaboration and efforts that went into shaping the films into their final form. Saul Austerlitz, in his great book Another Fine Mess: A History of American Film Comedy, posits that Allen's two major influences were Bob Hope and Ingmar Bergman, and that Allen who had a "natural whiz with wisecracks" was "striving for something deeper, something less instantly gratifying," and that with Annie Hall created, and would popularize, the somber comedy.

Brooks’ background is more in television than it is in cinema: he has worked as a producer on numerous popular series including The Mary Tyler Moore show, The Critic and The Simpsons. Compared to Allen’s filmography (IMDb has 48 listed director credits) Brooks’ directing career is a lot more smaller and includes only six films: Terms of Endearment ('83), Broadcast News ('87), I'll Do Anything ('94), As Good as It Gets ('97), Spanglish ('04) and How Do You Know ('10). It seems like Allen’s response to things is like the joke: you can fake quality but you can’t fake quantity! But, anyways, back on-topic. When How Do You Know had it’s theatrical run there were only two film magazines that gave it its due: Film Comment and Cahiers du Cinéma. The features in Cahiers on Brooks were especially good, which included a glowing review of Comment Savoir (its French title) by Jean-Sébastien Chauvin (N.664) and an interview with Brooks by Chauvin (N.665). Chauvin’s piece James L. Brooks, en toute discretion includes a nice introduction ("The lucidity of Brooks doesn't contradict the tender gaze he has towards people"), and many insightful answers about his life, career and new film. "I come from theater," says Brooks, who also speaks about his thoughts on a variety of subjects like drama, humanism, The Simpsons, and his research process. When Brooks is asked if he was a cinephile before he was a filmmaker: “I had a great passion for the theatre, to the point of just liking it when the curtains goes up, and keeping the torn entrance ticket, etc. I really like the cinema of course, but it is not my first love.”

So who are the new generation of mainstream Hollywood filmmakers that have been influenced, inspired or had the patronage of Allen and Brooks? In the Allen camp there is: Judd Apatow, for his comedic structure; Todd Solondz, for heightening the perverse; Whitt Stillman, for exploring the inner-lives of the upper class; and Wes Anderson, for his idiosyncrasies. In the Brooks tradition there is: Cameron Crowe, whose first film Say Anything… was produced by Brooks; Alexander Payne, for some shared preoccupations; and Noah Baumbach, for taking the material into darker places.

And so who then are the other major comedy directors and where do they fit into a comedy filmmaker lineage? The Robert Altman tradition of black comedy is kept up in the films of the Coen brothers (Burn After Reading), Richard Linklater (Bernie) and the Paul Thomas Anderson of Punch-Drunk Love and The Master. The screwball comedy influence can be seen in something like Peter Bogdanovich’s What’s Up, Doc?. The Frank Tashlin-Jerry Lewis anarchic comedy spirit can be seen in the films of Adam McKay (Talladega Nights), the Farrelly brothers (Hall Pass, Movie 43) and Glenn Ficarra and John Requa (I Love You Philip Morris). And the Jim Jarmusch brand of dead-pan comedy (Stranger Than Paradise) is most on view in smaller scale independent films like Alex Ross Perry’s The Color Wheel.

*****

But these macro observations do not really speak too much about individual personalities and temperaments, and I want to talk more about Judd Apatow.

There have been many people who have made connections between the films of Allen and those of Apatow. Adam Kotsko, in his great cultural theory book Awkwardness, writes, “If Woody Allen was the king awkwardness in 1970s American film, then Judd Apatow arguably fills that role now.” And Austerlitz writes, "Before taking leave of comedy and entrusting it into the hands of the future, we must acknowledge the ever-growing influence of Apatow, whose films have come to define the 2000s like Woody Allen's did the 1970s." And regarding Funny People, Austerlitz writes , “It would be more accurate to describe the film as a stand-up drama, whose haunting emotional core is leavened by a steady stream of jokes and asides.” So let it be clear that there are many similarities between both the A-named directors (Allen, Apatow) and the prominent ones are that of awkwardness and stand-up.

Austerlitz describes the theme of friendship within these bromances as, "The becoming of one flesh is predicated on the abandonment of those who had once loved and cared for you. In the time of Adam, this meant one's parents. For Judd Apatow's man-boys, it means saying a painful farewell to the guys." And on his style Austerlitz describes it as, “Apatow's blend of no-holds-barred raunch, discreetly rendered emotion, and bromance brilliantly tweaked the formula established by Old School and its minions."

Apatow’s newest film This is 40 is about a struggling music producer (Paul Rudd) going about his life (the film also has interesting nods to the films of Steven Spielberg and Jonathan Franzen's book The Corrections). So far the best review of the film that I’ve read is from the great film-blogger Jake Wilson, who writes: 

“It's a far more believable and complex heterosexual relationship than anything Apatow has shown us in the past, which is one reason This is 40 marks an advance on his previous work. To be sure, for the moment he can't hold a candle to Cassavetes or Edwards or James L. Brooks (another obvious role model) or, for that matter, Albert Brooks or Lena Dunham. But so what?  This is 40 is all about doing the best with what you have – and like Pete and Debbie, he largely succeeds in muddling through."

Apatow writes more about his creative approach in the shooting script of This is 40,”I started out as someone who just wanted to write comedy. I never thought about comedy being an intimate, vulnerable act. Lately I have accepted that writing is a form of self-exploration. I am trying to sort through how I feel about this life while attempting to make it amusing on some level.” And one could look at the book of fiction that he edited I Found This Funny as where Apatow could have found other sources of inspiration.

But the best resource on Judd Apatow is a French book, Judd Apatow: Comédie, Mode d’Emploi – Entretien avec Emmanuel Burdeau (Capricci) where there is a thoughtful introduction and then for around 100 pages Apatow speaks about his life and career and so much more.

Some highlights: Apatow speaks about being a first generation Saturday Night Live viewer when it started in 1975, “this marked a golden age of comedy, […] and it took part in a tradition that is situated somewhere between the vaudeville and a talk-show.” On some of his favorite comedians, “as a Jewish kid from Long Island I already knew all of the films of Woody Allen,” and he also adored Steve Martin (there is a good photo-spread of the two in the Vanity Fair comedy issue). Apatow speaks about being a comedy nerd, his work on The Cable Guy (“I was devastated by its negative reception”), as a teenager he interviewed many famous comedians for a non-existent radio show, his work on the The Ben Stiller Show (“We were very much inspired by Albert Brooks…”), his work with James L. Brooks, and contributing punch-ups to screenplays to make them funnier and have more depth. On his new pre-production approach, Apatow writes, “I’ve learnt to adopt the strategy of a Cameron Crowe or of a James L. Brooks: to take my time, to dedicate several long years to refine one perfect screenplay that I would then be able to direct myself.” Apatow speaks about his work on the television series Freaks & Geeks and Undeclared and his frustration that they both only lasted one season (the new series Girls that Apatow produces is not encountering this). Apatow speaks about other filmmakers that he admires: Hal Ashby, John Cassavetes and Robert Altman. And what makes a good film? “If it connects people with people.” 

Favorites of 2012: Misc.

Favorite Non-Film Magazines:

• I picked up the Totally Twilight issue of People (left) as a gift for the girlfriend because I thought that she would like it. She's been taking me for years to see the new Twilight films and I've always been joining her begrudgingly. "These films are for teenage girls," I've always thought. But then I started watching the films and started to "get them," you know? I mean they are actually quite interesting and Bill Condon especially has been doing a great job with the two Breaking Dawn films (I especially like the references to Coppola's Dracula in the former). Since the beginning of the series the movies have been about how it feels for teenage girls to fall in love: the ups and the downs. So if New Moon and Eclipse are the low point of the franchise, it is not to discredit them, as much as the angst and irrationality of that eternal vamp Bella (Kristen Stewart) make for burdening material. So I browsed through the Twilight issue and I concluded: the pictures in it are pretty cool. Well worth the near-twenty dollars price tag. I'll miss Bella and Edward, and the whole Cullens family, now that the series is over but it warms my heart to know that they are happy and I hope that they live happily ever after with their new daughter. 
• The comedy issue of Vanity Fair (right) edited by Judd Apatow is a survey of American comedy in its many incarnations from stand-up, television, podcasts, movies and so on. Apatow, who is promoting his new and great post-Spielbergian film This is 40, is able to get an impressive roster of comedians to take part and contribute to the issue which also includes a hilarious photo spread. Some people that are highlighted include Steve Martin, The Lonely Island, Conan O'Brien, Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner, Jim Carrey, the Masters (Lear, Brooks, Barr, Milch, Reubens, Shandling), Will Ferrell, the Blues Brothers, David Kamp, Albert Brooks, Mike Nichols and Elaine May, and the old gang from Freaks and Geeks. The filmmaker Cameron Crowe, who has always been incorporating rock and roll music in his films, has a good piece Rocking the Role on the subject of the many musicians that have been drawn to film. There is a good e-mail interview with Chris Rock, where in answering the questions of whether he thinks comedians are better now? "Hell fuckin' no. Show me one guy or woman as funny as Rodney Dangerfield or as good as George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby or Joan Rivers." Apatow, who this year also produced Lena Dunham's wonderful television series Girls, is a major force in contemporary American film comedy and is shaping it as it is evolving with the 21st century. This special guest-edited issue of Vanity Fair, the third honor in the magazine's history, contextualizes Apatow's work within the industry (though Woody Allen is conspicuously absent), and gives him the space to share who and what is able to make him laugh, which can be one of the most important of things sometimes.

Favorite French Film Critics:

• Nicolas Azalbert at Cahiers du Cinéma
• It's been a great year at the French film-magazine Cahiers du Cinéma. The films they highlight and their reviews continue to be some of the most insightful writing about cinema and the features are always interesting; this year they included ones on Eastwood, Spielberg, Coppola, Sukorov's Faust, Serge Daney, eroticism, Holy Motors, women filmmakers, Hong Sang-Soo and so on. The chief editor Stéphane Delorme's best and most personal piece is his comments on Philippe Garrel's l'enfant secret in 11 stations, pour une histoire poétique du cinema français ("This film, I could make it, I could have made it, it watches me. This isn't a pretense, it's a certainty."), and the adjoined editor Jean-Philippe Tessé's had great reviews of Cronenberg's Cosmopolis and Coppola's Twixt (N.677-78). But the one writer that sticks out amongst everyone else is Nicolas Azalbert. It's hard to really characterizes Azalbert's writing because there is nothing really similar to it. If you see his name on a page there is a shock of recognition and a preparation as the words on the paper will hit you like a grenade exploding as he devastates established though by arguing for a more unconventional, enlightened perspective. It's a writing that is characterized by its singularity, thoughtfulness and use of polemic. Azalbert's lengthy reviews included Hugo, Tahrir, place de la libération, L'Inconsolable,  Like Someone in Love, 4:44 Last Day on Earth and there were many smaller capsules in the Notes sur d'autre films. 
• Fabien Gaffez and Pierre Berthomieu at Positif.
• The ten films that Positif put on their cover this year include: Beasts of the Southern Wild, Beyond the Hills, Amour, A perdre la raison, The Deep Blue Sea, Vous n'avez encore rien vu, 2 Days in New York, Les Adieux à la reine, The Descendants, and Take Shelter. As I've been arguing in the lively comments forum of one of the great French film blogs, Nightswimming, Positif is championing an artistic cinema: that of a post-Malick generation of filmmakers (Nichols, Zeitlin), that of British cinema and expanding the discourse of world cinema (Romania), and a French cinema that can be either prestigious or relaxed. Where Cahiers is singling out films that are falling prey to a trend in international art cinema of aesthetic-asphyxiation (where style consumes substance) and using their reviews of them as sites of contestation, Positif seems to be putting forth a more comprehensive, authoritative and insightful overview of the year's cinematic output (the Cahiers guys would argue, "what is the point of efficient films if they are without life or affect?"). So Positif continues to impress with the quality of it's reviews - still inspired by the Surrealistic impulse to write about films with jouissance - and the quantity of writing it publishes in each new issue in its Présences du Cinéma (Voix Off, Bloc-Notes etc.) and Dossiers sections. Of courses, there is Michel Ciment's regular editorial that opens the magazine and provides it with its tone, and to name a couple of good writers I have been getting more interested in recently there is Fabien Baumann and Adrien Gombeaud, but for me right now the two most interesting writers are Fabien Gaffez and Pierre Berthomieu. The author of Hollywood moderne - le temps des voyants Berthomieu is more interesting when he's not writing in Positif (his 5 films de Steven Spielberg video for the Cinémathèque française alone puts him in the pantheon) but when he has the opportunity - he shines. Gaffez, who this year was in Toronto to introduce a couple of Jean Eustache films and participated in a lively panel about the state of film criticism, has an identifiable writing style and the film-review of his that comes to mind is for Guillaume Brac's under-appreciated Un Monde Sans Femmes (which still needs to play in Toronto) and his longer pieces in the war dossier Full Reagan Jacket: Du bon usage des sauvages en temps de guerre (N.620) and in the painting dossier, Le rouge et le vert: D'Edward Hopper a Robby Muller (621). What makes the writing of Berthomieu and Gaffez so valuable is that in magazine where the Cimentian line is strictly enforced their writing takes Ciment's ideas and pushes them to the limit and into places that they would not necessarily go - yes, if Kubrick is the greatest, then when he died that title was passed onward to Spielberg - and their writing flirts with these bizarre and the mysterious ideas. It can be troubling. In Full Reagan Jacket Gaffez looks at the lessons of the Kubrick film, Full Metal Jacket (a Positif favorite), and discusses it along with Apocalypse Now, Rambo, Casualties of War and other films, so by the time he reaches the conclusion the traditional parameters of the war genre film has slowly disintegrated and when Gaffez concludes, "Predator has still not finished to enlighten us on matters surrounding war, the reconstitution of the self, and the difficulty and beauty of being of man." You can't help but not be in total agreement.