Why People My Age Should Be Watching Louie

MTV’s Jersey Shore and FX’s Louie are both currently airing in the 10:00 PM ET hour on Thursday nights, and the strength of their ratings could not be more disparate.  For the new episode two weeks ago, Jersey Shore had almost 7.5 million viewers, making it the highest-rated show of the night on cable, with 3.7 million of those viewers coming in the coveted 18-49 demographic (the other 3.8 most likely came from endangered souls under 18).  Meanwhile, Louie, which aired two new episodes that night,  had only 733,000 viewers, with 400,000 of those coming in the 18-49 demographic (the other 333,000 viewers most likely are enlightened souls over 50, like my dad), but I could not find the ratings of the second episode.  I bring up this comparison for a couple of reasons.  One is to marvel and shudder at the power of Jersey Shore still going strong in its fourth season when the creators and stars are so obviously becoming more increasingly desperate to keep their fame and money train rolling by switching the setting to Italy.  People who know me know how I feel about Jersey Shore as someone who was born in New Jersey and who loved vacationing to the Shore as a child, so I won’t bother to elaborate.  The other more important reason I bring up this comparison of ratings is to both understand why more young people do not watch Louie and to appeal to them to do so, and I will cite the episodes that aired that week to show them what they are missing (mainly because I still have not caught up with the most recently aired episode, and will not be able to until next week’s new episode airs because FX doesn’t put their shows up on demand until then for some strange reason).

Before I go into what makes these particular episodes of Louie so fantastic, I want to establish a base of understanding for those who might be interested in watching the show.  It is a semi-autobiographical portrait of Louis C.K., the highly respected standup comedian who writes, produces, edits, and directs every episode.  The show, like Seinfeld, frames scenes of C.K. doing standup within the stories in the episode.  Some of these episodes have one narrative that encompasses the entire half hour, such as the one featuring Joan Rivers earlier this season, but most of them have two stories that each take up about half of the episode and are almost totally unrelated to one another, such as one involving a flashback to Louie filming a sitcom and in the other story, he appeals to Dane Cook for Lady Gaga tickets for his daughter’s birthday.  Many of the episodes are incredibly funny and crude, but some are also quite dark and remarkably poignant, which brings me to the two episodes I would like to discuss. 

The first episode, titled “Come On, God,” falls squarely in the category of funny and crude.  Louie goes on Fox News to defend masturbation against Ellen, a very attractive woman who is a spokesperson for Christians Against Masturbation.  After a very heated debate in which Louie grows increasingly incredulous at this woman for her beliefs, he reluctantly accepts an invitation from her to go to a meeting for her organization, but not before he goes home that night and tries to masturbate to a woman he’s imagining in an elevator.  After he attends the CAM meeting, he goes out for drinks with Ellen and then goes up to her hotel room, where she gives a very passionate and rational speech about why she is against masturbation.  The episode is peppered with incessant dick and masturbation jokes that appeal to the teenager in all of us while simultaneously shooting at a target that all liberals love to make fun of, evangelical Christians.

While “Come On, God” is an episode of Louie that has a more traditional sitcom plot, the following episode, “Eddie,” operates in much darker and complex territory.  The plot of the episode involves the reunion of Louie and his old friend Eddie, whom he had not seen in twenty years.  The two were up-and-coming comedians together who were really close until Louie achieved a modicum of success while Eddie continued to tour the country doing small-time gigs.  Eddie certainly looks worse for the wear, but Louie decides to hang out with him anyway, and after an episode at a liquor store and a random venture into an open-mic night in Brooklyn where Eddie does a very funny routine under a foul-mouthed alias, the two are standing at Eddie’s car, which he’s now living out of, and Eddie tells Louie something nobody wants to hear.  Eddie is going to kill himself.  He has no money, no family, no security in any aspect of his life, and he just wants to drink himself to death.  Louie finds himself facing the difficult dilemma of whether to let Eddie end his own life or convince him not to.  For a show that is considered to be a comedy, Louie is unafraid to deal with very serious issues in the most uncompromising fashion.  We are not supposed to feel one way or the other about Eddie.  While suicide is universally frowned upon, Eddie actually makes a compelling case for why he should not be alive, and Louie wrestles with his preconceived feelings about suicide with Eddie’s sound reasoning.

These two episodes are perfectly representative of why more people my age should be watching this show instead of that soul-sucking cyst of entertainment better known as Jersey Shore.  Even though a lot of the comedy in the show is about Louis C.K. dealing with being middle aged and a divorced father of two, it does not mean that he is not a relatable character for young people to grow attached to.  What makes Louis C.K. such a fascinating subject for television is his ability to tackle all issues that he faces in an honest way, even though the situation itself might be absurd, a common occurrence on the show. 

Another key reason that Louie appeals to my generation is the show’s incredible ability to be self-aware.  A great example of this postmodern trait of self-awareness is his meeting with Dane Cook in an episode I briefly referred to previously.  Cook, one of the most popular and simultaneously reviled comedians of all time, has been accused in the past of stealing jokes from Louis C.K., and these accusations have hurt what was once a career destined to launch him into the stratosphere of movie-star comedians.  In the scene where the two speak, Cook finally gets the chance to defend himself, not just against Louie, but against all of the people who accused of stealing jokes.  The scene was most likely scripted by C.K., but both actors appear honest enough in their convictions that the audience actually believes that this conversation these two guys are having is not just a scene in a television show, but a real honest-to-goodness heart-to-heart where two men are trying to resolve a long-standing conflict between them.  It is one of the more remarkable things I have ever seen on television because both men are just self-aware, but painfully so to the point where I find myself sympathizing with Dane Cook, which makes Louie an even more remarkable achievement as a piece of entertainment: a show that can make audiences view taboo things such as masturbation and Dane Cook in a whole new light.  I know that asking young people to use their brains while watching television is a potentially fruitless request, but I want to make it anyway in support of this show, because people might be surprised by what they find.

They Got It Wrong: Step Brothers

Welcome to They Got It Wrong, where I look at a film there was either universally praised or dismissed by critics and argue that the critical consensus for said film is wrong.  This week, I look at the 2008 Will Ferrell comedy vehicle Step Brothers.

In this week’s segment of They Got It Wrong, I wanted to finally do a film that was unfairly criticized after using my first two segments to criticize films that were overly praised, and I scoured the recesses of my brain to find films that I loved that were critically panned.  I found that unfortunately, the list of movies that I could come up with was rather short (read: nonexistent).  I find it much easier to find films that are overly praised because usually when a film is bad, most people agree with the fact that it’s bad.  Green Lantern had a 26% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and while I did not outright hate the film, I had no problem with critics who did, because for the most part, their criticisms were correct.  So I was struggling to find an under praised film to write about when suddenly, fate reached out and extended its porcelain-skinned hand.  I was flipping through channels the other day and wound up watching the beginning of Gangs of New York, and I remembered that John C. Reilly had a small role in the film.  As I saw him on screen, in my head, I started thinking about Step Brothers, one of the funniest films of all time, thanks largely to Reilly’s transcendent performance.  For some heretofore unknown reason (my Internet surfing pattern is very bizarre), I decided to look up Step Brothers on Rotten Tomatoes, thinking how it must have at least a 70-75% approval rating like most funny comedies do.  However, when I pulled up the page, I was mortified to discover that the film’s approval rating was a measly 54%, and from there, this column had written itself nearly a full week before it had actually been written.  I did not want to talk about this film, seeing as I had already discussed one of its direct predecessors, Anchorman, but this offense was too great to ignore.  I have to set the record straight for my own peace of mind.

            I have said this to my friends many times before, and I’ll say it again in written form: Step Brothers takes stupidity and elevates to an art form on par with Picasso’s blue period.  This film is relentless in its stupidity and has no great ambition or desire to make a grand statement about life (I’m looking at you, Annie Hall).  If I were to measure comedy by the number of laughs in a film’s running time and the ferocity of said laughs, Step Brothers would easily be one of my top three favorite comedies of all time.  Watching Step Brothers requires an oxygen mask on standby because of the constant threat of losing my breath from laughing too hard.  To look at the film’s surface elements like plot and character development is to view the film in the wrong way.  While those elements are incredibly important in comedy, the most important question to ask for any comedy is does it make you laugh?  While the aforementioned Annie Hall does have a plot that flows well, has two great, fully-developed characters, and makes me laugh quite a lot, Step Brothers makes Annie Hall look like a Merchant-Ivory production by comparison.

            Perhaps what I love the most about Step Brothers is the same thing I loved about my favorite Will Ferrell film, Elf: the completely overwhelming and endearing innocence of its lead characters, Dale (Reilly) and Brennan (Ferrell).  It is truly liberating to watch two men in their forties throw all the confines of adulthood aside and wholeheartedly embrace their inner child.  They think before they act, they primitively insult each other; they fight over things as small as a drum set, and they are completely clueless about the intricacies of adulthood.  To them, being an adult is no fun when karate in the garage and looking at dirty magazines in a tree house are activities easily available to them. But when their inevitable transition into a form of adulthood finally arrives, it is portrayed as a form of imprisonment, so when Dale and Brennan perform on stage at the fucking Catalina Wine Mixer, it is a glorious return to their childlike enthusiasm and it brings out the same enthusiasm in everybody else present.

            I truly believe that the reason this film was not highly praised within the film criticism community is because the majority of them reviewed this film like they would any other.  They saw this film with their checklist in hand of the things they feel all competent movies must have: high production value, compelling plot, good performance, etc.  But Step Brothers deliberately laughs in the face of the rules of good storytelling and instead aims merely to cram as many gut-bustingly hilarious jokes into its 98-minute runtime as possible.  For critics to frown upon that ambition is unfair and, most importantly, unconstitutional.  In these depressing times, entertainment like Step Brothers should be valued like the paintings of Van Gogh and used to bring joy to the millions of people who so desperately need it.

Why Can't I See Attack the Block?

For months, I have been hearing buzz about a film called Attack the Block that involves a group of working-class teenagers in south London taking up arms against alien invaders.  The film has been a massive hit on the festival circuit, winning audience awards at the South by Southwest and LA Film festivals.  Critical consensus has been overwhelmingly positive (as of right now, the film has an 89%  approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes) and the film is produced by Edgar Wright, the director of the cult hits Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, and he has turned over the directorial reins to his friend, first-time writer-director Joe Cornish.  The film also stars one of the breakout actors from those two films, Nick Frost, and features a cast of up-and coming young actors as the teenagers.  Yet the film has only been released in 7 theaters in 6 cities nationwide (in Austin, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle) and in nearly two weeks, it will open in Philadelphia after fans decided on Facebook where the film should premiere next.  For a film with this strong of a premise and this strong of a word of mouth, the studio should be trying to squeeze a profit out of this film.  It only cost $15 million to make, so even if they make a mild marketing push and release it in about 1,500-2,000 theaters, with the great word of mouth that it’s getting, Attack the Block could easily turn a profit for them. 

The film that signals the possible success for Attack the Block is J.J. Abrams’ nostalgia-fest, Super 8.  It’s about a group of kids (portrayed by unknown young actors) trying to survive an alien attack, and possesses strong action and comedic elements.  It was made for a relatively modest sum for a major studio production (around $50 million) and due to strong word of mouth from critics and audiences, the film went on to gross well over 100 million dollars and become one of the most beloved films of the summer.  Attack the Block shares so many positive attributes with Super 8 on the surface that it seems criminal that the film cannot be seen by more people like me nationwide.  I have a couple of ideas why Attack the Block might be having trouble reaching a wider audience and reasons why those arguments do not hold water.

It’s British

It is incredibly rare for a film that was not financed stateside to make money here (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and The King’s Speech proved to be the overwhelming exceptions), so even though the film is in English, the fact that it was not backed by any American studio from the beginning makes it difficult to see Attack the Block making a profit in this country.  For some reason heretofore unknown to me, the mass American movie-going audience seems averse to foreign-made films.  Subtitles are a distraction from the film itself and cultural differences can get lost in translation.  Even when characters with foreign accents are speaking in English, many Americans (even ones that I know) complain that they cannot understand what the actors are saying so they decide to ignore the film and go watch the next Michael Bay movie instead.  To those people, I say, what a load of poppycock.  As several of last year’s Best Picture nominees can attest, a strong and engaging premise can make up for lack of major studio clout and lead to financial success if enough people can get behind it.  From what I have heard, many critics are wholly behind this film, and the strong per-screen averages on the theaters it has been released in so far signals that Attack the Block can succeed if the right people are willing to put it out there for more people to see.  Just because the characters talk in funny accents does not mean that the film does not have commercial potential.  Again, it will not take much for this small-budget film to make money.  Just put it out in more of the major metropolitan areas and watch the money roll in.  Trust me.

Another Alien Invasion Movie?

In the past year alone, the following movies about alien invasions have been had wide theatrical releases in the United States: Skyline, Battle: Los Angeles, Paul, Super 8, Transformers 3, and most recently Cowboys and Aliens.  That doesn’t even include two other upcoming alien invasion films: The Darkest Hour in December, and Battleship (yes, it’s based on the freaking board game) next summer.  Trying to add another similarly themed film into the mix when the genre seems to be wearing thin with moviegoers does not seem to be the best idea for someone looking to make a profit.  However, to reemphasize what I have already said, if critical consensus on a film is positive and word of mouth from advance screenings is strong, then a film can reach a large audience successfully.  Even though Attack the Block is another entry in a genre that is starting to get beaten to death, it stands out because of its super-low budget, uniquely British sensibilities and, like Super 8, the film apparently pays homage to some of its sci-fi predecessors in an affectionate manner.

In the end, I’m mainly bitter that this film is not coming to the Twin Cities anytime soon, and I just decided to vent my frustrations about that by contemplating why I can’t see this awesome-looking film, especially in the wake of my great disappointment with Cowboys and Aliens.  In the meantime, I’ll just have to live off Netflix until Drive comes out on September 16^th.

They Got It Wrong: Brokeback Mountain

Welcome to They Got it Wrong, where I look at films that were either universally praised or dismissed by critics and argue that the critical consensus for said was wrong.  This week, I look at a film many people felt should have won Best Picture in 2006, Brokeback Mountain.

            I have to admit that I actively tried to avoid watching Brokeback Mountain for a long time, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter.  When I saw trailers for the film, they did not resonate with me on an emotional level and the film looked downright dull to me.  So I was shocked when I found out that nearly every critic out there was completely over the moon about it.  The film looked like classic Oscar bait to me: an acclaimed director (Ang Lee), big stars taking on meaty roles (Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal), a period setting, and a buzzworthy and controversial love story, and critics and audiences responded in kind.  The film grossed over 80 million dollars from a 14 million dollar budget and received eight Oscar nominations and winning three, including Best Director for Mr. Lee.  I finally watched the film a few months ago for a film course I was taking, and I was disappointed to see that my initial suspicions about the film were correct.

            That is not to say that there are not some fantastic things about the film.  My favorite aspect of the film was the cinematography of Rodrigo Prieto, who was nominated for an Oscar for his work.  There some absolutely gorgeous shots of the vast Wyoming landscape that give the film the epic scope it tries to embody in the narrative, but when the focus shifts from the natural world to the lives of the characters, the magic goes away almost completely.  Yes, Heath Ledger has some great moments in the film, particularly the heartbreaking final scene, but too often, he is hamstrung by his grumbling speech patterns and while most people saw his character as someone who spoke that way because he had a grown up finding it difficult to express himself, I just found his voice gimmicky.  It made Heath Ledger seem like he was “acting” instead of completely losing himself in a character as he did in The Dark Knight.  Jake Gyllenhaal was even guiltier of this than Ledger.  It felt as though he was playing a type instead of a character.  He plays the obsessive, whiny wife to Ledger’s gruff, stone-faced husband, and playing these types removes any chance that the two can have real chemistry with one another like all great screen couples do.  None of the other characters in the film, even those played by talented actresses like Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway, can rise above the restrictions of the type they have to play and infuse their characters with any life at all.

            While the actors all underachieve, they are not done any favors by the story given to them.  On the surface, the concept of forbidden love between two men who cross paths over the years at the possible expense of their normal lives is an intriguing one.  However, the Academy-Award winning screenplay actually does the love story a disservice by making it completely unrealistic.  I know that in some films characters can fall in love very quickly, but in this film, Ledger’s and Gyllenhaal’s characters, Ennis and Jack, start their intimate relationship very abruptly with minimal development.  We do not really see the mutual attraction between these two people until they have already started getting busy in the tent, so when they inevitably drift apart at the end of the film, it feels unfortunate but not tragic. 

The homosexuality was a complete non-issue for me because love is universal across all genders and orientations, so when a homosexual relationship is portrayed poorly on screen, it deserves to be pointed out the same way that a poorly conceived heterosexual relationship would be.  While most critics probably legitimately enjoyed the film, I cannot help but think that some might have been afraid of a slap on the wrist from the PC police and went easy on the film because it was about a gay couple instead of a straight couple.  Would Brokeback Mountain have gotten the same reception if the two lovers were a male and a female?  We will never know, but I cannot help but feel that people would rate the film properly instead of praising it much more than it deserves.