REVIEW

Movie Review: Amy Sedaris in Strangers With Candy - The Imp of the Imperfectible

Written by Alan Dale
Published January 05, 2007
page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

The character is inconsistent — eager for success yet incapable of applying herself; arriving at lessons though unable to grasp a concept or stick to it; vulnerable to insult and exclusion yet lacking in tact, generosity, and compassion; aggressive with street confidence yet mostly the loser in confrontations. She's inconsistent but not incoherent. For instance, in the movie some cool girls make fun of Jerri as she approaches the school for the first time all over again. Jerri, trying to pass along the pain, immediately makes fun of a boy in the same way; when he walks up to her angry and hurt, however, she asks him hopefully if he wants to carry her books for her. In other words, the writing team has replicated in a raunchy cartoon how the chaos of our experience correlates more than we may care to admit to the chaos of our personalities.

What underlies Jerri's mad grab-bag of traits is a fundamental and unmitigated self-absorption. When a teacher chides, "Does everything have to be about you, Jerri?" she replies, "Well, I may not be much, but I'm all I think about." Jerri's not alone: there isn't a teacher or administrator with a vocation for his work (or even a basic competence in his subject). In the movie, as soon as Jerri enters the office of school grief counselor Peggy Callas (Sarah Jessica Parker, fitting her virtuosic sense of gesture and timing to the material), the woman blurts out, "Oh, God, it never ends." At the end of the abbreviated session, she blandly accepts Jerri's lunch money as a mandatory "tip." The parents are no better; there isn't one who could be trusted to put his child's needs ahead of his own desires — always excepting Jerri's father, who's in a coma.

Taken together, the series and movie put folly, self-indulgence, and corruption on display as panoramically as Pieter Brueghel the Elder's Fight Between Carnival and Lent, except that there's not even a corner of the vision dedicated to a meaningful spiritual authority. Strangers With Candy reposes so little faith in our aspirations that life becomes one extended example of comic bathos. The makers see our species as worse than it is and laugh nevertheless, infectiously; not laughing in response would, if anything, make you more like the characters rather then less.

Of course, this kind of irony doesn't present the whole truth. Rather, it's intended as a counterweight to the countless romances that glamorize or gloss over unpleasant facts and intractable problems, and that spin fantasies of accomplishment for us to project ourselves into. Even given its extreme bias, irony like Strangers With Candy can be more honest than such romances, and more recognizable. At the same time, insofar as Strangers With Candy is comic irony, it favors impact over plausibility, shocking us by assuming our identification with the loser-protagonist as she fails in ways that are depicted with no quarter for taboos or sensitivities.

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
Alan Dale earned a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from Princeton University and a J.D. from Yale Law School. He currently works as a corporate tax attorney in Portland, Oregon. He is the author of What We Do Best: American Movie Comedies of the 1990s and Comedy Is a Man in Trouble: Slapstick in American Movies.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Movie Review: Amy Sedaris in Strangers With Candy - The Imp of the Imperfectible
Published: January 05, 2007
Type: Review
Section: Video
Filed Under: Video: Cult, Video: Comedy, Video: Art House
Writer: Alan Dale
Alan Dale's BC Writer page
Alan Dale's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Alan Dale
Video: Cult
Video: Comedy
Video: Art House
All Video Articles
Alan Dale's personal weblog
All Review articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — January 5, 2007 @ 21:15PM — Alan Dale [URL]

you have not said it in ways i thought you never could, bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! your B.F.

#2 — January 6, 2007 @ 01:55AM — Al Barger [URL]

Hey, that's some outstanding writing, Mr Dale. I watched just one or two episodes of the series, but this definitely has me interested in seeing the feature film.

#3 — January 6, 2007 @ 10:05AM — Alan Dale [URL]

Lee Siegel alert: that top e-mail is, in truth, from the B.F. He's not a computer wiz and so he used my log-on without realizing that it would make it look as if I had attempted to comment on my own writing under a pseudonym. Sorry for any confusion.

#4 — January 6, 2007 @ 10:09AM — Alan Dale [URL]

Thank you, Mr. Barger for your comment. I'm thrilled that it has made you want to check the movie out. (Remember, though, I was quoting from the series as well as the movie.) SWC has turned me into a combination of St. Paul and Typhoid Mary--I want everyone to succumb, for their own good.

#5 — January 6, 2007 @ 18:13PM — Hobokamp

Now that was the most thoroughly in-depth review of SWC that I have ever seen! Bravo, well done. You really "get" what they were putting out there. What seems simple and sometimes bizarre on the surface unfolds nicely into a strangely insightful comment on society once you scratch the surface, right? Thanks for the great read-hope Amy, Paul and Stephen all get a chance to see it.

#6 — January 6, 2007 @ 18:42PM — Alan Dale [URL]

Thanks for the comment, Hobokamp. (Or is that spelled V-I-C-T-O-R-Y?) I totally agree that the show seems simple and bizarre on the surface, but reveals a totally coherent vision underneath. The only thing I would alter is that SWC strikes me as going deeper than social commentary. It dramatizes the lowest estimate of what we humans are, in ourselves. If you know how to send the review to the SWC, please do. Thanks again.

#7 — January 8, 2007 @ 08:15AM — Michael J. West [URL]

So if I found the TV show stale, clumsy, and unfunny--which I did--will the movie change my mind?

#8 — January 8, 2007 @ 12:38PM — Erin

What a pleasure to read this in-depth analysis of my favorite show. To those who find it stale & unfunny - you haven't watched it enough. Amy Sedaris does deserve a nomination for Best Actress.
Mr. Dale, I would love to see your review of my favorite audiobook, "Wigfield."

#9 — January 8, 2007 @ 21:13PM — Alan Dale [URL]

Dear Michael, I doubt the movie will change your mind. No accounting for taste! Thanks for writing.

#10 — January 8, 2007 @ 21:16PM — Alan Dale [URL]

Hey Erin, Thanks for the comment. It's hard for those of us on the other side of the SWC mirror to realize that some people might not like what they see. I have the disease and I don't want the cure! I doubt that further viewing will contaminate someone as resistant as Michael seems to be, however. I'll have to check Wigfield out.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/57801)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments