I haven't seen every movie of 2005 and need to catch up before I compile my own year-end top-ten list. But I know, no matter how many more movies I see, none of them will be as bad as the one that takes the cake as worst of the year: The Aristocrats.
For those of you not familiar, The Aristocrats is a documentary made by Penn Jillete (the one who actually talks in the comedy act Penn & Teller) and Paul Provenza. They interview more than 100 comedians to put their spin on one of the oldest, dirtiest jokes. The basic set-up for the joke is this: A family walks into a talent agent's office and claim they have a great show. The talent agent says he doesn't book family acts, but tells them to show him what they can do anyway.
This is where the comedian telling the joke gets to improvise. They can make the family's act whatever they want, and it usually involves sex, feces, incest, violence, all sorts of bodily fluids and basically whatever is the grossest thing the comedian can think of.
When the family is done, the talent agent sits in stunned silence, then says, "That's a hell of an act. What do you call yourselves?" The father replies, "The Aristocrats!"
So the actual punchline isn't really the punchline at all. It's the build-up to the punchline that's the funny part.
I was so excited to see this movie. There wasn't a single bad review from anyone. Not one single critic had a major problem with the movie. Some admitted that not every comic nailed it, but most reviews were basically licking the movie's ass, some even claiming it was the funniest movie they'd ever seen. So maybe the film got a little too hyped up and thus, my standards may have been too high.
So I saw the film with a friend and we sat there in a silent movie theater, chuckling maybe twice (which is two times more than everyone else in the audience). When the lights came up, we looked at each other had the same expression on our faces: "Um, is that it?"
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - ClubhouseCancer
This review is a really nice piece of work. I thought the movie was funnier than the reviewer did, but I am a sucker for this kind of stuff. His points are exceedingly well-made and true to the tone of the film and made me think about the movie from a different POV. The observation about the comics' unwillingness to actually tell the joke, for fear of not measuring up to some imagined standard, was particularly cogent and well-expressed.
I hope this persuasive piece doesn't deter anyone from seeing the movie, becasue I thought it was quite funny. But it might.
FWIW, the Manhattan theater where I saw the movie (second week of release) was full and rollicking. Most of the crowd laughed as much or more than I did.
2 - Shark
The Bob Saget segment is the WORST FEW MINUTES in the history of film -- bar none.
It's horrible, it's almost unbearable -- it's so embarrassing; the guy is trying to ad lib and it's obvious he's about as creative as a pile of poodle poop.
You'd think that Saget would have walked off the set -- maybe watched a playback of his own performance -- and then blown his fuckin' tiny brains out -- which would have immediately improved the human gene pool.
The painful few minutes Saget is on film are a hefty psychological price to pay for a handful of pretty cheap friggin' laughs.
PS: Best film of 2005: A History of Violence
3 - John Owen
I gotta say, with all due respect I can't disagree more. I also loved the movie (though acknowledge it was spotty), and I thought that Bob Saget's segment was one of the high points. Not just for the content, but for the mental pirouette he performed at the end.
--- SPOILERS (AS IF YOU CARE) ----
Saget's telling the joke backstage while waiting to go on at a club. Halfway through, just as his delivery is spilling over from 'regular disgusting' to 'revolting and hilarious' the applause rises out in the house. In an instant, Saget's whole demeanor changes from a dishevilled little man spewing vile filth to Danny Tanner from Full House, and he drops 'The Aristocrats' mid-line to walk off-camera and step on stage as Mr. Happy.
But where the movie got interesting for me was in my reaction to each telling. The first time you hear a joke about some guy crapping on his kid, it's discomfiting but funny (if that's your kind of humor). But it's amazing how quickly you become deadened to the shock of that. The fifth time a comic has a guy crap on his kid, you're like "yeah, yeah, what else you got?" Which is where the true genius of some of the comedians featured come through. Sarah Silverman's meta-joke was definitely the most creative telling, and I have to give Drew Carey and Gilbert Gottfried the nod for the best 'straight-ahead' telling. (The guy at the end telling the joke to his baby son was pretty awesome too.)
IMHO Bob Saget was the only comic to approach the full potential of the joke as a vehicle for the darkest impulses of the comedian. Am I to believe that every single standup comic Penn & Provenza could find all think that body fluids and acrobatic sex are the ne plus ultra of outrage? Where's the really transgressive stuff - racial and ethnic 'humor,' AIDS jokes, a kid in a Saddam mask feeding the family dog through a woodchipper, unnecessary surgery, random violence?
If the point of the joke is to take the listeners on a ride from, "hmm, that's kinda gross, but I guess it's funny" to "I NEED A SHOWER AND WHY AM I STILL LAUGHING?," if the point of the joke is that it's a joke on the listeners, making them suckers for being complicit in this sick not-a-joke without a punchline, than The Aristocrats showed us that for all the legendary inner turmoil of comedians, they are all messed up in pretty much the same tame way. In a way Andy Kaufmann's entire career was a long telling of "The Aristocrats," funny only because he did what he did in the context of a joke and people therefore expected to laugh. But when he read "The Great Gatsby" on stage or went wrestling, he completely transcended humor and made the audience the only punchline.
So even though I dug the film, I thought that the real potential of the joke went unexplored. Which is probably okay.
4 - Don Baiocchi
Wow, Shark, and I thought I was hard on Saget.
5 - Tiffany Leigh
As a documentary it's not fantastic - it's structure and pacing is flat - you're not going to confuse this flick with the work of Errol Morris or the Mayles Brothers.
BUT. I believe this movie has merit. I thought it was hilarious, and I think it polarizes audiences, but I also don't think that how funny I thought it was, or the "number of laughs in the theater I was in" is a good litmus test for whether or not it does have merit, whether or not it was two laughs or two hundred.
There's a scene in Point Break - Keanu Reeves' mindless but totally awesome surfer/bank robber flick - when Keanu's in an airplane with Patrick Swayze, the Zen villain. The camera holds tight on Swayze's face as he then jumps out of the plane. It's a thrilling shot - but the biggest reason it thrills, I think, is because the audience can SEE that it's not a stuntman - but that holy Zeus, Patrick Swayze, the guy from Dirty Dancing & Roadhouse, just jumped out of an actual airplane.
I think that's why The Aristocrats worked for me a lot more effectively: these comedians were essentially "performing" their own stunt - the stunt being this filthy, crude, shaggy-dog of a joke. I got a kick out of seeing all these known commodities "riffing" on a joke I knew nothing about, like an all-star cast in a feature film.
Only this is NOT a feature film - it's a documentary, not a one-hour HBO stand-up special. I was fascinated seeing the comedians talk amongst themselves without a rehearsed monologue or polished gags. I liked how some of them likened the joke to a jazz piece, and how the better storytellers could still imbue the raunch-fest with their own personal style. And I loved how some of the joketellers went "up" or "down" in standing based on their appearance in the movie. Bob Saget, for example, has been the butt of every lazy half-assed Leno monologue writer since his Full House days. To see him subvert the public's perception of him as a comic - and to hear other comics state that his rendition of "The Aristocrats" is one of the filthiest most of them have ever heard - shows that he has chops. Or at least shows that we don't know squat about how Saget is as a private figure. Seeing these performers "offstage" was a revelation.
Carlin nails it when he gives us a history lesson of the joke then tells it, then deconstructs it. Carlin's interested in the joke, as are most of the movie's subjects, but then launches into his theories on the nature of comedy, its context in history and the present, the art of storytelling, the argument for and against free speech, the culture wars, and morality.
And I think that the extended segment on Gilbert Gottfried's appearance at the Comedy Central Roast just two weeks after 9/11 perfectly encapsulates Carlin's musings, and the "mission statement" for the entire movie.
The Aristocrats joke isn't a "joke" per se: it's a pissing contest (akin to "the dozens"), it's a secret handshake in an exclusive community, it's a window into bigger, 50-cent word discussions, it's a manifesto. And I don't think you have to embrace the "meta"-ness of the subject matter, but you have to at least acknowledge it. It ain't Comic Relief, it's a documentary, and the issues it delves into, even by accident, give it more than a passing reason to exist as such.
6 - Rodney Welch
And here I thought Derrida was dead.
7 - Tiffany Leigh
Who the hell's Derrida? =)
8 - ClubhouseCancer
"Slappy Jack" Derrida (1917-1979) â€" Now forgotten former Vaudeville "Deconstructionist Comic." His famous "The Very Text is On First" routine slayed 'em ion the 40s, and his 60's albums "My Brother Russell" (which paid tribute to Bertrand Russell, "The Buttoned-Down Mind of ...'" and "Occupation: Post-Structuraliste" were counterculture hits.
9 - Don Baiocchi
John and Tiffany, I disagree with your comments (as very well articulated as they were), especially concerning Bob Saget subverting the public's perception of him as a comic. That's what he was ALMOST doing, except he had to interrupt himself every other minute to comment on the fact that he was subverting the public's perception of him as a comic ("I can't believe I'm doing this...What am I doing?..."). He was buying into his own image which completely killed any momentum he had going for himself.
And some comics DID explore other dark issues besides sex...Lisa Lampanelli gave a pretty amusing rendition that was a totally politically incorrect statement on race...and South Park included 9/11 for no other reason than to include a reference to 9/11.
If this HAD been on HBO, then maybe it would have been only an hour long, which is all the time you need to hear the few funny renditions and hear the history. In two hours, I heard way too many people explain the history of the joke (I get it already) and not enough people actually attempt to tell it with any success. There's no reason this should have been a two hour movie I paid $10 for.
10 - Jacques Derrida
And here I thought Rodney Welch was dead.
11 - Tiffany Leigh
This is a fantastic discussion.
Opinions are always Immutable Lawâ„¢ and Indefensibleâ„¢ at the same time. We all think certain movies kick ass and others are a black hole o' suckage - we just can't agree on which are which.
Saying something with conviction without shuffling or mincing always makes for a stronger argument. It's a better headline to say that something is the Worst Thing Ever or Best Thing Ever or The Citizen Kane of Alcoholic Clown Movies (as Jay Carr did with Shakes the Clown writing for the Boston Globe).
Many people want the bottom line - best, worst, thumbs up, thumbs down. Which is trickier for me. I can watch a movie that has terrible production values, bad acting, bad everything, but still wring enjoyment or value from it.
It may have a greatish performance (Steve Carrell in Bewitched) or truck in a genre I'm likely to forgive (Bruce Willis vehicle in Hostage). I'm such an impatient critic that writing reviews is difficult for me because I'm interested in an aspect of a shitty movie, or bored to tears by a "brilliant" one. So may not be able to rate it effectively (enough) for the $10.00 ticket buyer.
An illustration of the nature of criticism:
I wouldn't call The Aristocrats the best movie of the year. It's not even in my Top 10. But I also wouldn't call it the worst of 2005. Not by a long shot. Not with this deep "talent" pool to choose from:
Stealth
Assualt on Precinct 13 (remake)
Mindhunters
Be Cool
Sahara
The Man
Guess Who?
The Pacifier
Bride & Prejudice
The Perfect Man
Man of the House
Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo
Elektra
The Adventures of Sharkboy & Lavagirl in 3D
Racing Stripes
The Honeymooners
Miss Congeniality 2: Armed & Fabulous
Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith (sorry; only half-kidding).
You could make a strong strong argument for most of those movies being the Worst Film of 2005. But that's opinion for ya. I'm waiting for the Golden Raspberry Award nominee announcements before I handicap the field.
12 - RogerMDillon
Your review illustrates that you didn't get the movie rather than the movie being the worst of the year.
You make the complaint that "You just got a bunch of comics to admit that the very punchline that the movie is named after is not even the funniest option?"
But earlier you wrote, "So the actual punchline isn't really the punchline at all. It's the build-up to the punchline that's the funny part." If it doesn't matter what the punchline is because the build-up is "the funny part," why complain about the punchline later in your piece when you've established its lack of importance?
You also complain "that's the only kind of humor this film consists of."
Considering it's the same filthy joke over and over what other kind of humor were you expecting?
"There wasn't a single bad review from anyone. Not one single critic had a major problem with the movie."
Since everyone else you cite enjoyed the movie and you are the lone naysayer. Why should anyone take your opinion? Especially as you defeat yourself with your review.
13 - Tiffany Leigh
Jacques! You magnificent bastard, I read your essay Of Grammatology!!!
14 - Rodney Welch
I'm somewhere between Don and Derrida. I went, I laughed loudly (at George Carlin), I was revolted (by Andy Dick), I got bored (Richard Lewis, Bob Saget), I was exhilarated (by Gilbert Gottfried's routine), and I recited a fair amount of it to people who hadn't seen it. Overrated but enjoyable, all told. By the way, I don't think anyone can ever be "wrong" about a comedy -- it just either works for you or it doesn't.
15 - ClubhouseCancer
Further eveidence of the subjectiveness of humor: I liked much of the movie, but I wondered what was the big deal about Gottfried's version. I'm sure it was transgressive considering the conetxt, but as a piece of film, he just wasn't that funny. And no matter how many of the other comics claimed that Gilbert killed, that crowd was NOT going crazy for him. Listen to the reaction, and compare it to, say, the noise emanating from the crowd during ANY punchline of, say "Live on the Sunset Strip" or any other Pryor concert movie.
16 - Don Baiocchi
Apparently I should have done better research. According to the following link, there were other critics who didn't like this movie as much as me.