Tropic Thunder
Tropic Thunder seemed almost guaranteed to disappoint, because I couldn’t wait to see it and really wanted to love it.It didn’t disappoint, and I did love it, but not for the reasons I’d expected to.
The Robert Downey/blackface thing didn’t gel for me, entirely.Downey himself is fantastic, and the send-up of Method preparation (and Russell Crowe) is brilliant without resorting to meanness, but the scenes devoted to that gag moved stiffly.The script couldn’t commit to the way the other characters would deal with Kirk Lazarus and/or his commandeered ethnicity; at times, they basically ignore it, which could work (it’s a spoof of the industry, so the idea that the other “actors” had dealt with many iterations of self-seriously clueless behavior without really noticing it is not a stretch), but at other times, they seem at pains to point out to him what he’s doing and why it’s offensive.
Peter Rainer puts the point on it in his review:
Kirk’s hip-hop patois makes him seem doubly foolish. Stiller includes an actual black actor in the troupe (Brandon T. Jackson) to deride Kirk, but this reads like a cop-out. The film would have been more daring if we had been allowed to supply our own derision. Downey throws the black stereotypes of pop culture in our face and makes us see them once again for what they are. And yet, there’s great affection in his portrayal. Kirk is, first and last, an actor, and his follies, however misguided, are part of the craft. Downey’s performance isn’t just a slam at his profession, it’s a valentine.
The movie’s need to demonstrate beyond any confusion or doubt that it doesn’t endorse that kind of thing is an understandable impulse, but one which should have been quashed; it defangs the writing, and puts Jackson in the position of delivering variations on Cowboy Woody’s “You. Are. A. TOYEEEEE” throughout the story.You don’t want to offend people needlessly, of course, but look what happened with the “retard” subplot by comparison.The script doesn’t feel an obligation to asterisk what it’s trying to do, and it’s beyond obvious to anyone who isn’t looking for reasons to feel insulted that the idea is to skewer over-the-top portrayals of the mentally challenged, and the Academy’s inevitable reward of same.This is explained in so many words, in fact.
But the writing didn’t step outside of itself and tell the audience to value the culture of the differently abled, so now you’ve got their advocates protesting the film.That send-up is dead-on: sharp, sour, and exact.It’s very funny, it’s very uncomfortable, and it works.
Compare the treatment of Lazarus also to a scene in which Tom Cruise’s Les Grossman is commandeering hip-hop culture.The physical presentation of Cruise is maybe working a little too hard to sell the character — hairy fingers as universal signifier is too blunt an instrument here, in my opinion — but Cruise himself is hilarious, and I guess the joke is cheap in that it’s, you know, Tom Cruise, but he’s bellowing for Diet Cokes and screaming “take a step back, and FUCK!YOUR OWN!FACE!”Cheap or not, the joke lands.But the guy is blasting hip-hop, doing hip bumps, slapping imaginary asses — doing all the things we just saw parodied in the Alpa Chino video at the beginning — because it’s part of his big-shot persona.The scene isn’t “about” that, really, and the movie doesn’t make sure you know what you’re seeing; it’s just what that character does, and Grossman is offensive and rude across the board, so you’d never look at that one thing and think it went too far.Of course it goes too far; that character is about going too far.
It pulled its punches on the Lazarus story, when it didn’t pull a punch anywhere else, and again, I can see why, but if you’ve given the part to Downey, you have to trust him to get it right and put the line in the correct place.And you have to accept that many, many people do not understand the difference between bagging on a group of people, and bagging on people who treat that group of people thoughtlessly — or do not want to understand the difference, because it’s more important to them to feel victimized by the former than it is to see that the latter actually supports their position.The affront misses the point, as affront sometimes does (sometimes deliberately), but you have to go ahead and make the point anyway; the Simple Jack story element is considered and precise, but Lazarus is too safe.
The rest of the movie is firing on all cylinders.Extra love for Danny McBride as the demolitions guy, and especially for Jay Baruchel, who’s not getting nearly enough credit based on the reviews I’ve read.I’ve dug that guy since Undeclared, and seven years later, he’s a couple of cheese steaks away from total foxiness.So cute, crack timing — he’s the engine of a lot of scenes, and his character is smartly written.
Overall, very satisfying.I wish they’d had more faith in Downey (and the audience), and I kind of don’t know what to do with Tom Cruise in my head now — even if he only took the role to try to distract everyone from all the Scientology weirdness, hey, good call there, because he’s awesome — but it’s totally worth the ten bucks.
Tags: Ben Stiller Brandon T. Jackson Danny McBride Jay Baruchel movies Robert Downey Jr. Russell Crowe Scott Rudin Tom Cruise Toy Story
Yay! I was hoping it was good. I can’t believe you mentioned Jay Baruchel! He is great! He had a small recurring part in NUMB3RS that I just loved but I hadn’t seen him lately.
“The affront misses the point, as affront sometimes does…”
I had a really hard time listening to a lot of the protest leaders and their willful misunderstanding of the film. That kind of victimization b.s. does more harm than good to the legitimate causes.
You know, I keep waiting for everyone–ANYONE, for that matter, be they evangelical Christians or CAIR or advocates for the mentally disadvantaged–to twig to the fact that jumping up and down and protesting a film simply provides free publicity for said film, and no doubt boosts to some degree or other the number of tickets sold. There are several movies I’ve seen BECAUSE of someone’s pissy little vigil. I guess ignoring stuff that bugs us just isn’t the American way. The protests are probably all meant to draw attention and sympathy for the protesting group or its cause, but they wind up looking so Milhousey, it can’t possibly be worth the damage to their blood vessels.
I wasn’t particularly offended by the Simple Jack stuff, but I didn’t think it was very funny, either.
In fact, I thought the entire movie, with the exception of Downey, who I think was excellent, was a big letdown. Among other things, the sight of Ben Stiller acting smug and eye-rolly about how stupid movies are was just a little bit too off-putting for me, given his long record of making stupid, cheap, idiotic movies. Downey, yes: he’s an extraordinary actor. Ben Stiller is not, and is in no position to be making fun of anyone, as near as I can tell.
I’ve just reached the point where Ben Stiller mostly annoys the crap out of me, and I didn’t find this movie nearly funny enough, given how stupid it was. Jack Black didn’t need to be in it at all, and neither did Nick Nolte. Everything dumb about it, I would have forgiven if it had reliably made me laugh, but it really didn’t. Only very sporadically, for which I sat through a hell of a lot of bad jokes.
You know, Baruchel was my favorite part of the movie, RDJ not withstanding. Don’t get me wrong, Kirk Lazarus was hysterical, but I had the biggest crush on Baruchel, particularly when he’s trying to talk Stiller off the crazy ledge, and when it’s clear he’s not coming back, Kevin says, “Fuck it, we’ll deal with it later.” It was every awesome thing in the world. Love him in Undeclared, love him in Almost Famous (all three minutes of him) and love him in Knocked Up. That kid steals scenes.
I thought the movie was hysterical, but I wasn’t expecting much. I was just confused by any film that made me like Tom Cruise and Matthew McConaughay at the same time. Speaking of funny, Mattie may have been playing himself, but that was some funny shit, particularly with Jerry Maguire telling people to fuck their own faces.
@Jaybird – to continue the Simpson’s references “Just don’t look! Just don’t look!”
I think a lot of insanity could be avoided if we took that advice. :)
This is a really spot on review, Sars. You’ve said most of the things that I would like to say, although I will add that I enjoyed both Brandon T. Jackson and Jay Baruchel very much.
I pretty much agree, Sars – I just wish you had addressed other parts of the film, too! I thought it was pretty funny, but not hilarious except for a couple scenes, particularly Ben Stiller slinging a baby into a river. That needs to happen in movies more often.
Like Linda, I found the Simple Jack story neither offensive nor entertaining. It’s good that someone is willing to call out actors for going “retard” to win Oscars, but the way TT handled it was just… boring.
What is it with Tom Cruise, anyway? The man is 1100 kinds of crazy in real life, and totally skeeves me out, yet he still has this bizarre ability to be likable in movies, even when he’s playing a horrible character! I don’t get it.
McConaughey made more fish-faces in TT than I have ever seen before, and that is a lot.
I’m starting to respect Matthew McConaughey acting ability because he can play characters that are smarter than he is (or seems to be) in real life. It’s like the opposite of going retard. Not that he’s challenged really, but his on-screen characters seem to be much more witty and put-together than real life MMcC.
Jay Baruchel is pretty dreamy, all of a sudden.
I wish Tom Cruise would stop jerking me around like this. I’d given up all hope of loving him again like I loved him in Top Gun.
@Linda: “Jack Black didn’t need to be in it at all” goes for about every movie Jack Black has ever been in. He just fails to bring the funny, as far as I’m concerned. He mugs, and he prances, and…we’ve already got a Mike Myers. And an Eddie Murphy, and a Jim Carrey. Adding short and chunky to the mix doesn’t give it more flavor.
I think Jack Black is funny sometimes; I just don’t think he’s funny here.
I also wanted to mention, re: “Simple Jack,” that I think part of the reason that really didn’t land for me is that it’s an awfully creaky old joke at this point. “Hollywood actors like to grab for Oscars by playing the mentally challenged” was more timely back around the time of, like, Forrest Gump. But that’s really been quite a while. The satire really didn’t seem timely to me. Like, other than Dustin Hoffman and Tom Hanks, who exactly are we talking about who’s done this lately? The fact that those are the two examples given by Downey in the movie kind of made me stop and think, “Are those the only two examples? And isn’t the more recent of those movies almost fifteen years ago?”
I suppose Cuba Gooding, Jr. in Radio is a possibility, but that’s still five years ago and he didn’t get an Oscar.
My question, I guess, is whether you can really say that’s something that happens in Hollywood, that everybody tries to play the mentally disabled in order to get Oscars, or whether that’s sort of something people SAY about Hollywood, which makes it a less interesting target.
@Linda: There was also ‘I Am Sam’, but even that is 2001 according to google.
I really don’t have much opinion on the film at all. I will say I’ve heard a lot more about the outrage over the film than the film itself. So I’m sure those involved are apologizing all the way to the bank.
And “Phenomenon”, featuring John Travolta with psionic powers.
Ooh, “I Am Sam.” Good one. Forgot that one.
There was also Leonardo DiCaprio in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?” which was quite a number of years ago, but it’s still a well-known role for him. And Rosie O’Donnell in “Riding the Bus With My Sister.”
@Linda and Claudia: I was just going to list “I Am Sam” and “The Other Sister”, but in both cases, if there was Oscar-begging going on, eh, no. And I would be hard-pressed to imagine why any self-respecting mentally disabled person would NOT be outraged to be associated with either Sean Penn or Juliette Lewis. (In Lewis’ case, it’s not like standard-issue mental capacity is even within her range, from what I’ve seen, but never mind.)
Right, good reminders, all. There are more examples than I was remembering (to me, “Riding The Bus With My Sister,” being a TV-movie that few people watched, doesn’t really count), but I’d still argue that (1) that joke’s been done to death (at least in the circles I operate in); and (2) it’s a few years past its prime. That’s all I’m saying — the sendup of Russell Crowe’s self-seriousness, to me, was better, because it seems to have more of a connection to what’s going on in Hollywood right now. The mental-disability thing really seems to have petered out starting about ten years ago, and therefore, it strikes me as an odd choice of target.
Jill (tx): “What is it with Tom Cruise, anyway? The man is 1100 kinds of crazy in real life, and totally skeeves me out, yet he still has this bizarre ability to be likable in movies, even when he’s playing a horrible character! I don’t get it.”
I suspect that it’s related to why real Hollywood couples have no on-screen chemistry, while actors whom no one would even consider pairing up until they show up on-screen together can practically set the projector on fire: it’s hard to do pretendy-time anything if that’s what’s already going on in your real life. (There are exceptions to this, of course; there always are.)
Tom Cruise is, generally, cast as normal people.
Well – more normal than *he* is, anyways. And that’s the complete opposite of what he is IRL…so it’s not too hard for him to fake it for the camera. (I’d assume, anyways.)
It’s just a pity that that acting ability doesn’t seem able to carry over into real life – he might have a better rep, and more credibility, if it did.
Speaking of Russell Crow and mental disability and Oscar-bait: what about “A Beautiful Mind” (2001)? That’s not “going retard”, obviously, but it was still about a mental-disability performance, and didn’t the Academy slobber all over that movie?
(I think that the Cuba Gooding “Radio” movie also counts because — it doesn’t have to *win* an Oscar, it just has to be done so self-seriously that you can tell the people making it are *thinking* Oscar.)
“Nell” also springs to mind (though she was less mentally challenged and more…socially? Challenged? Something like that.) and it got nominated for (and won) a pile of awards, but that was back in ’94, so once again, hardly recent.
“Overall, very satisfying. I wish they’d had more faith in Downey (and the audience),”
I agree in theory with everything you said about Downey’s performance, but I think that the whole Simple Jack debacle proves that any faith in the audience would’ve been misplaced. Absolutely no doubt in my mind that Al Sharpton and his minions would’ve been out in full force if there were no “real” black people in this movie. The only reason that Simple Jack got through without actual disabled person lecturing Stiller’s character about exploitation was that no one anticipated anyone would take offense. Or “offense”. Poor Stiller was out-PC’ed.
As far as the movie, goes, I definitely am in the minority. Yes, of course, Downey was great (the highlight of the whole movie being the gay monk movie trailer), but most of the rest of the stuff fell pretty flat, I thought. The scene with Bill Hader and Tom Cruise dancing around trying to win over McConaughey went on WAY too long, and would’ve no doubt been left on the editing room floor had Cruise not been in it. And I maintain that a guy in a fat suit screaming “fuck” is exactly as funny and original as a guy in a fat suit farting.
k, so, i haven’t seen it yet, but i’m tempted too… movies, as you know, are ridiculously priced and i NEVER like Ben Stiller – but like someone mentioned up-thread – the simple fact that it has raised so much ire makes me want to see it! is it REALLY that bad? but – the Ben Stiller thing is throwing me off… think i’m waiting until DVD release…
I thought it was very funny. Not perfect, but very entertaining. I admit I’m a sucker for Hollywood satires AND over the top action movies, so I’m an easy mark for the movie.
Agree with the Jay Baruchel love. I hope he gets a lot more work from this.
I usually like Jack Black, but I don’t think he really had really great material in this one so he was just kind of there. The best part with him was the trailer for “The Fatties, Fart 2” — which I could believe was a real movie. That trailer was just perfect, right down to the use of “U Can’t Touch This.” I’ve sat through way too many real trailers just like it, and you just lose the will to live after awhile.
I would see “Satan’s Alley” in a heartbeat.
Robert Downey Jr. cracks me up… he’s got a real knack for not taking himself too seriously
Ooh, “I Am Sam.” Good one. Forgot that one.
Well, that just shows good sense. I’d avoided this one, since since Stiller and Jack Black give me gas, but maybe I’ll rent it for the RDJ and Baruchel. Maybe.
Strange, I saw this last night here in London – Jay did rock, I agree – and I Am Sam was one of the performances specifically referenced by RDJ.
I believe he said something along the lines of Rainman and Forrest Gump being partially retarded characters which were both rewarded with Oscars while Sean Penn went all the way and went home empty handed. Maybe that was edited out of the US version?
Just finally got around to watching this tonight. It’s getting a 2/5-star rating from me on Netflix, although not for the reasons that were listed here last summer. I agree that the addition of another black character to criticize Lazarus for his excessive Method approach was a little extraneous; the scene when they’re rescuing Stiller and Downey loses the wig, etc. was probably enough to point the absurdity of it all. However, the character as a whole is pretty funny, as are Baruchel, Nolte, and McBride (to say nothing of the fake trailers at the beginning. Snerk).
What didn’t work for me was the Stiller character. He got more mileage out of making fun of a Hollywood image in 25 minutes during the first series of Extras than he did in two hours of this movie. Even more than that, though, is that, for whatever reason, the extreme violence in the context of a comedy movie was not funny to me. It’s the same reason I didn’t like a big chunk (read: the ending) of Pineapple Express. I can’t quite explain it–I sat through Rob Zombie’s remake of Halloween without batting an eyelash at the grossness–but for me it doesn’t work.
The “full retard” thing–whatever. I didn’t find it particularly funny, although now that I think on it, it did seem to be an accurate assessment of the way the Academy has voted on actors nominated in roles like that (coincidence? I don’t know), but there was certainly no cause for the extent of the protests that the movie received. Obviously, I hadn’t seen the movie at the time the big fooferaw was going on, but I got the gist of what the movie was trying to do without the benefit of watching it, and now that I’ve seen it, I can plainly state that the protesters had either no sense of humor or were just looking for a 15-minute stage to stand on.
The Cruise character made me chuckle, and as much as I deplore the guy off-screen, he’s usually pretty dependable when it comes to playing a role in a movie. I did think the Golden Glob nod was a bit much, because it really was kind of a one-note (albeit funny) character, but if that’s all it takes, then, hell, I can put on a fat suit and skull cap and scream fuck into a cell phone. I’ve already got the latter down pat pretty well.