The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
Monday, March 23, 2009 - 5A
All sales, no substance
"Dude. There's this new thing called the Internet. In five years, it's gonna be huge."
A0 lvble loser
The endearing Paul
Rudd flounders in
his starring role
By NOAH DEAN STAHL
Daily Arts Writer
Paul Rudd is one of the stron-
gest supporting
players in com-
edy today. Bring-
ing his affable I Love You
yet smart-alecky Man
demeanor to mov-
ies like "The 40 At Showcase
Year-Old Virgin" and Quality16
and "Knocked paramount/
Up," his great DreamWorks
strength is his
ability to be asource of both sen-
timent and hilarity. This being the
case, it's only natural that Rudd
would foray into the role of leading
man, following in the footsteps of
fellow comics Will Ferrell, Vince
Vaughn and Steve Carell, who all
graduated from co-pilot to head
honcho. Earlier this year, Rudd
starred in David Wain's "Role
Models," which was entertaining
enough, but not at the same stan-
dard of his previous roles. Even
with all of this in mind, it's hard
not to be thoroughly disappoint-
ed with his most recent role in "I
Love You, Man."
Rudd plays Peter Klaven, a
sweet, good-natured realtor and a
"girlfriend-guy" - that is, he has
no male friends of his own, only his
new fiancee Zooey (Rashida Jones,
TV's "The Office"). It sounds like a
role in which Rudd could flourish
comedically. Instead, he is spine-
less and awkward. And not the
amusing kind of awkward, but the
awkward that makes you just want
him to shut up.
As a complete product, the movie
is decidedly subpar. Barely direct-
ed by John Hamburg ("Along Came
Polly"), it's hard not to feel like a lot
of it was conceived in the editing
room. Judd Apatow's productions
are known for being freewheeling,
with the written script used as a
guide for riffing and improvising.
With Apatow's golden touch com-
pletely absent, Hamburg, who also
wrote the script, tries to employ
this same type of filmmaking but
fails miserably.
The film's basic premise is
funny enough. It takes characters
coasting through life - a staple
of buddy comedies today - and
forces them to interact with one
another in uncomfortable ways
(as though they were wooing each
other). In short, it is a romantic
comedy for guys, affectionately
termed a "bromance." The idea is
clever, but it fails to materialize in
a meaningful way on screen.
Jason Segel ("Forgetting Sarah
Marshall") plays Sydney Fife, the
man in Peter's life, and he shines
in the film - he would be the film's
saving grace if it were worth sav-
ing at all. Sydney is carefree and
matter-of-fact, constantly offering
candid and hilarious outbursts of
vulgarity. As one of Seth Rogen's
buddies in "Knocked Up," Segel
stole the show - and he was ironi-
cally at odds with Paul Rudd. In "I
Love You, Man" he steps up in a
supporting role and ends up hav-
ing to support the entire movie.
Getting back to Rudd: It can't
be stressed enough that he is a
tremendous player in contempo-
rary comedy. He is such a likable
guy, which makes it all the more
difficult to see him flounder in a
lead role. While Segel is refresh-
ingly funny, the best way not to let
Rudd's performance leave a sour
taste in your mouth is by not see-
ing "I Love You, Man" at all.
Jt botbers me wben art
becomes dictated by capi-
talism. Not in a Warholian,
appropriate-
capitalism-and-
fuck-The-Man
kind of way,
but in an if-
this-doesp't-,
pay-The-Man-
won't-fund-it WHITNEY
kind of way.,
Arguably, this POW
is the way the
world works - for anything to be
produced and sold, there needs to
be consumer interest. And accord-
ing to popular trends, something
noted as "best-selling" or "popu-
lar" isn't necessarily high-quality,
innovative work.
Somewhat cliche examples of
popular trends (a redundant state-
ment) include "Marley and Me"
(which grossed over $36 million
in its opening weekend), Thomas
Kinkade (the "Painter of Light"
and mass-producer of commer-
cialized, soft-colored Christian-
themed art seascapes of crashing
waves over rocky harbors) and
chick-lit books by Meg Cabot
(author of "The Princess Diaries,"
whose books center on find-your-
man-and-be-happy fairy tale
promises).
What do these pieces all have in
common? A sense of sentimental-
ity - a settling on laurels. They
capitalize on what ha already
been tried-and-true. People love
animals and will always want to
see a cute, lovable puppy on the big
screen (see the "Beethoven" film
franchise, which has produced
six films since 1992). Kinkade
capitalizes on an alluring blend
of Christian evangelical values
(his company aims "to share the
light of God everywhere") and
realistic 19th century painting,
which is now widely accepted and
marketable. Cabot plays off of the
stereotypical ideas and images of
young American women who are
supposedly food-obsessed, man-
obsessed and shoe-obsessed; these
,jleasjhave been cqpi;alize4,QOp,,,
numerous times in chick flicks and
magazines like Teen People.
These money-fueled films,
paintings and books don't dare
to step outside of what is already
known; they capitalize on what
has been proven to sell well. And
arguably, this is where the line
between "art" and "consumer
product" begins.
Sam Wagstaff, an art collector
and curator who also happened
to be in a relationship with pho-
tographer Robert Mapplethorpe,
put it simply: "The kiss of death in
art is sentimentality." There is a
problem that occurs when art gets
too sentimental: We dive right
into banality. We see our culture
the same way we've always seen
it - as a glowing, mass-produced,
QVC-marketed oil painting filled
with NASCAR races and Ameri-
can flags flapping vapidly in the
wind. We get kitsch without its
irony. We get nostalgic, unas-
suming postmodernism. Simply,
we get art that is not meaningful,
which is a horrible thing.
If art becomes fueled by a want
for sentimental commodities over
thought-provoking dialogue, all is
lost. Safe, conservative works will
prevail, and censorship will uproot
any idea that ever deviated from
the norm. Why do people want to
watch "Marley and Me"? Because
it presents viewers with uncompli-
cated truths, has no homosexual
couples or questionable political
themes and is inoffensive.
This is similar to Cabot's writ-
ing; while a book like "Big Boned"
may depict "racy" sexual female
norms, that's what they are -
norms. And it's normative when
women are laid out as a predict-
able formula, one that outlines
the supposed fact that the white,
middle-class girl always wants a.)
sex with men b.) weight loss c.)
clothing d.) popularity. And this
not always true for everybody.
There are whole demograph-
ics not represented in this equa-
tion, where those of the lower
class, immigrants, homosexuals
and racial minorities (to name a
feW are npt represented. tf.he,
creative hand of Cabot domi-
neered the world, I would have
no representation in it as a first-
generation Asian-American.
While people of my demographic
may not represent a significant
slice of the buyers of her books, I
know that I, and many others, do
not fit into her safe book-selling
formula. And why is this? The
representation of minorities and
incorporation of controversial
topics in art is risky. Does it sell
well? We don't know.
And while it may be risky, I
appreciate art that deviates from
the norm and causes people to
question things. Included are
books about the Dominican-Amer-
ican diaspora, like Pulitzer-Prize
winner "The Brief and Wondrous
Life of Oscar Wao" by Junot Diaz.
I would like to see more graphic
Meg Cabot is not
an artist.
novels like Adrian Tomine's
"Shortcomings," in which Asians
are represented as a diverse,
unexoticized, integral part of the
demographic of the United States.
I also want to see more films like
"Waltz with Bashir" that examine
controversial issues and the hazy
line between what is political and
moral. I want to see more art by
people like Swoon, a female graffiti
artist in a male-dominated field of
art; she questions the limits and
boundaries of property and vis-
ibility with her beautifully crafted
paper graffiti depicting urban
minorities.
When the things we cre-
ate question what this world is
about, that's when they become
art. And while I'm still often
pleasantly surprised by the art
America is capable of producing,
I'd like to see this potential used
to its fullest.
Pow is tryingto make the least
marketable artever. Tell her what
repulses you at poww@umich.edu.
History's greatest mistake
By TOMMY COLEMAN
Daily Arts Writer
Today, television caters to every
possible inter-
est. For those
wanting to know
more about dec- Battles BC
orative cakes,
there's "Ace of Mondays
Cakes" on Food at 9 p.m.
Network. If you History
want to know
the process behind flute produc-
tion, it's on "How It's Made" on
the Discovery Channel. Golfers
get a channel all to themselves, for
some reason, named, aptly, Golf
Channel. And history buffs, well,
they get History (aka The History
Channel, as it used to be named).
Overflowing with facts and
historical reenactments, History
covers just about everything that
happened in the past, and only
those viewers who really care
about this type of thing pay any
attention.
Recently, though, History has
been trying to expand its audience
base and reach out to people other
than self-proclaimed historians
with "Battles BC," a new show rec-
reating some of the most notable
ancient wars.
Each week, "Battles BC" dis-
sects an infamous clash between
ancientarmies.Theseriespremiere
chronicles Hannibal, the great war
tactician and commander of the
Carthaginian army, and his unsuc-
cessful effortto conquer the Roman
Empire. Future episodes will cover
the military. exploits of Alexan-
der the Great, David (of David and
Goliath fame) and many others.
Now that all sounds like the
same old stuff for History. But
there's a catch.
With "Battles," History takes a
stab at making a show that's excit-
ing for a wider audience. It's clear
that the show is intended to capti-
vate not only those genuinely inter-
It's like '300,'
but much worse.
ested in history, but also those who
love hard-hitting action flicks and-
the heroics and violence of super-
hero films. Accordingly, "Battles
BC" is different from the typical
historical documentary - it's the
mutant child of History documen-
taries like "The Presidents" and
Zack Snyder's 2007 blockbuster
"300." But, ultimately, it's a mix
that just doesn't work.
"Battles BC" shamelessly mim-
ics the visual style of "300," dra-
matic backdrops and all. There are
countless gory portrayals of decap-
itations and spears tearing through
flesh. During exceptionally bloody
moments, everything moves in
Snyder-esque slow motion, occa-
sionally stopping on one frame in
particular and allowing for a car-
toony blood splatter or two.
It's easy to understand why
someone thought these special
effects would help to make things
"look cool," but there comes a point
where historical accuracy needs
to be respected (the channel is
called History). Who is expected
to believe that Hannibal looked
exactly like a bodybuilder? Or that
during battle he would pause for a
moment to give an enemy soldier
a menacing look before using both
of his swords to decapitate him? Or
that, after decapitating the soldier,
Hannibal would stand in the same
spot, reach his arms out, tilt his
head back and let out a lion's roar?
These ridiculous exaggerations
make sense in a movie adapted
fromanexceptionallyviolent comic
book, but for a documentary on
History, a more realistic portrayal
would have been more appropriate.
In an attempt to please everyone,
History seems to have mixed two
unmixable genres.
Although there are moments
of visual awesomeness and others
of historical insight, "Battles BC"
doesn'treally contain quite enough
of either to be satisfying, leaving
both history buffs and action junk-
ies wanting more.
Undergraduate Fellows Program
2009-2010
What: Six to eight fellowships funded with a $4000 stipend for the 2009-10 academic year.
Each Fellow will carry out an individual project related to ethics in public life, and
participate in twice monthly Fellows meeting and other Center activities and events.
Who: Undergraduates currently enrolled at UM Ann Arbor campus, who will be enrolled
full time and in residence for the entire 2009-10 academic year.
When: Applications are due via email to ethics@umich.edu by 5:00pm April 10, 2009.
The Center for Ethics in Public Life (www.ethics.umich.edu) is an interdisciplinary
center dedicated to the encouragement of teaching, research and creative projects, and
public discourse that promote understanding of the ethical dimensions of our lives, and
especially, the lives we live in common.
Questions? Email ethics@umich.edu
A
I.
i