I’ve seen the ads, and I still haven’t the slightest idea what this is supposed to be about.  Stand up comedians maybe?  Doing what?

It’s no Punchline.

It has the hilarious concept of a comedian with leukemia trying to get his ex-girlfriend back (that he cheated on) from her husband (who’s also cheating on her).  But if you just hide that as much as possible and instead put up Jonah Hill making random observations, it must be the new Superbad or something.

I’m glad I’m not the only one that is starting to find Apatow tiresome.

I still think the NYT is playing a meta-game by hiring the dumbest, most banal conservatives possible and giving them space in the paper. After months of Douthat, any halfway literate person who was on the fence about conservatism now thinks conservatives are dumb as stumps.

Why does the label “conservative” this or that ultimatlely conflate the word “conservative” as “bowlderized FAIL”?

If they have to slap the term “conservative” on it these days, that means it has no other merit besides its representation of a clearly failed world view.

I didn’t realize this was an Apatow flick, but I still kind of want to see it. (Actually, now that I think about it, I don’t think I’ve ever *seen* one of Apatow’s movies.)

Two reasons: 1) I have really liked Sandler in the “serious” moves he’s done (“Spanglish,” “Punch Drunk Love,” even though I don’t remember anything else about either of them) (this statement will probably get me kicked out of Pandagon, or at least polite society, forever ) and 2) I have “terminal” cancer and it would be nice to see a movie that realizes LIFE GOES ON, even when you’re DYINGOMFG!!!111!!!! And that once the word “cancer” enters your life, it doesn’t mean there are no more funnies, ever. (Good drugs means there are more of them, actually….)

Apatow’s conservative morality, which generally has a lot more to do with forced relationship engineering than larger attitudes about sexual activity, is always an undercurrent that sneaks its way into his films

Very true. The underlying romantic theme of all Apatow’s movies (which I’ve generally enjoyed) is a variation on the Manic Pixie Dreamgirl, wherein the male lead starts in some form of arrested adolescence and is “saved” in the end by a kooky yet grounded (and sexy) woman who’s willing to let him keep some of his harmless quirks even as it’s implied that she’ll transform him into a normal, “solid citizen” (e.g. married, kids, corporate job). It’s apparently the story of Apatow and his wife, Leslie Mann (the lady on the right in the poster).

I haven’t seen “Funny People” yet, but most of the reviews say it goes off the rails in the last 30 minutes. I’m assuming that it’s because at that point in this more serious movie Apatow goes beyond implication to show the sacrifices and compromise involved in that transformation process—something Apatow’s audience (male or female) really doesn’t want to see.

In any case, Apatow’s romantic storylines push the conservatism of marriage as the ultimate goal of adulthood, but it’s not really the sort that most Know-Nothings can sing praises for (at least not in public): the women do have agency, there’s lots of naughty drugs and sex going on, etc. It’s more classic money-making Hollywood conservatism: a date movie that both a teenaged boy and his girlfriend can enjoy.

I laughed out loud at this part of the column:

But it’s also reminder that Americans of all ages tend to like their social conservatism much more in theory than in practice. [...] In other words, we’re conservative right up until the moment that it costs us.

Yes Ross, glad to see that you agree with us about the hypocrisy of much of social conservatism.

I mean, call me crazy, but didn’t 40-year-old virgin have a whole bunch of very non-conservative people have wild sex on the edges of the plot and suffering few if any negative consequences?  I thought the Apatow films were good precisely because they go out of their way to say, “We’re not here to judge people outside of a comedic standpoint.”

There weren’t really any villains in 40yrold or Knocked Up.  The conflict was in the situation, but the people were just people.  Apatow didn’t divide up the cast into the evil sluts and the noble marriage advocates.  He didn’t demonize gays or reprimand teenage sex.  And there was an entire comic scene dedicated to condoms.

If this is a “conservative” movie, it’s not a movie for any conservative leaders I’m familiar with.

Why is it that every time a comedy movie flops, the first people to charge to the defense always seem to miss the lack of “funny”?  At least when I read the bad reviews of “Burn After Reading”, the critics were up front about not getting / liking the jokes.  Douthat is defending this like it’s a freak’n documentary.

I didn’t realize this was an Apatow flick, but I still kind of want to see it. (Actually, now that I think about it, I don’t think I’ve ever *seen* one of Apatow’s movies.)

Once you’ve seen one, you’ve basically seen them all.

Apatow didn’t divide up the cast into the evil sluts and the noble marriage advocates.

True, but marriagenkids is always the desired end-point. Douthat likes that aspect, if only because it makes him feel better about getting married early. If he has any objection to the Apatow films, it’s that the characters spend most of their running time having far too much fun and being far too open-minded—Douthat doesn’t like that aspect of these movies, because as a particularly priggish young man he denied himself even the mildest pleasures portrayed in the movie and doesn’t like to see others enjoying themselves.

I’ve never taken to the notion that Apatow pushes: that the normal state of adult males is some form of arrested development.  I loathe that sexist notion with a deep passion.

I still think the NYT is playing a meta-game by hiring the dumbest, most banal conservatives possible and giving them space in the paper. After months of Douthat, any halfway literate person who was on the fence about conservatism now thinks conservatives are dumb as stumps.

This is exactly what I’ve been saying since before they hired Douthat. Some of Bill Kristol’s columns were just that stupid - and, of course, they always print the good letters from liberals and the really, really stupid letters from conservatives.

I’ve never taken to the notion that Apatow pushes: that the normal state of adult males is some form of arrested development.  I loathe that sexist notion with a deep passion.

Having been a shy acne faced four-eyed as a teenager and young adult, I considered some of the individuals in his movies refreshing. I know there are movies like revenge of the nerds and the like, but his movies made the awkward nerd guys much more normal than quite a bit other movies. What I recent is the notion that being an awkward nerd implies that you are an deviant. The fact that he doesn’t use plastic alpha males is a selling point to me.

That all said, I do agree with the notion that most of his movies are likely geared towards males, since he is one himself. There are very few people capable of making accurate commentary of the opposite gender.

Wait, I thought conservatives were the majority? So, if Funny People is a conservative movie then shouldn’t it be MAKING MONEY?!? Like An American Carol was gonna go gangbusters at the box office (remember that?).

<em>Once you’ve seen one, you’ve basically seen them all.
Ben D.  on 08/10 at 11:35 AM<em>

I second this. And pretty much once is enough. To me, Apatow’s feature comedies are highly disposable and once I’ve seen them I have no desire to ever watch it again, unlike other comedies that I can watch over and over. I’ve also gotten off the Apatow train, skipping Pineapple Express. Though I recently watched Forgetting Sarah Marshall (it was free OnDemand) and was grateful I hadn’t paid money to see it.

To me, Apatow’s feature comedies are highly disposable and once I’ve seen them I have no desire to ever watch it again, unlike other comedies that I can watch over and over.

This, too. I’ve never watched one more than once. If a movie isn’t very memorable, it’s not very good. That’s probably the real reason Funny People is flopping, because the Apatow format has grown really stale. He needs to try something else.

True, but marriagenkids is always the desired end-point. Douthat likes that aspect

And if he likes it, it becomes “conservative”.  And if he doesn’t like it, it becomes “liberal”.  Which is pretty standard fair for wingnuts.

Apatow might have been conservative twenty years ago, but his movies are far too congenial and friendly to match the frothing scream-fest of modern conservatives.  Every conservative narrative since Gingrich has focused on the “enemy” - the gay, the immigrant, the tree-hugging hippie, the welfare queen, the insidious socialist - who the Real American must defeat.

There’s none of that in any Apatow films.  In that sense, it’s not a conservative film at all.

I’ve never taken to the notion that Apatow pushes: that the normal state of adult males is some form of arrested development.  I loathe that sexist notion with a deep passion.

You know, a person can be wrong without being sexist.
And the idea is that the man character isn’t in a normal state.  He’s abnormal (which is why he’s the focus of the movie’s plot and not the normal, unexciting guy) and get get’s “fixed” when he gains maturity.

Becoming mature does seem to go hand in hand with getting married, but - again - I don’t see why this is sexist or even conservative.  It’s just Apatow’s view of the world.  Young, unmarried guys tend to be goofy and gross and immature.  Older married guys tend to be more serious and clean cut and responsible.

You might have a completely different perspective, but you don’t have to go calling the guy names over it.

Has Douthat lauded Starship Troopers yet?

(Actually, that’s unfair, since I think there’s agreement that there *is* a latent conservatism in Apatow’s story arcs.)

What’s also been depressing is that Apatow and Rogen, in pressers for the film, finally responded to Katherine Heigl’s comment about the male/female double-standard in Knocked Up (men got to have fun being idiots while all women are wet blanket killjoy “grownups”) by completely ducking the issue and redirecting towards her career choice of doing The Awful Truth.

Douchehat’s latest column just left me incredibly bewildered. I guess one really can read reality in whatever way they want to make themselves happy - even if that reality is 180 degrees from what they’re trying to believe. Now Hollywood is “promoting the conservative agenda”? Ummm.. sure up until the next set of talking points comes out.

Also, I don’t think that as many people are commenting on his screeds now since it’s the same boring ass tripe over and over again.
So tired of these pundits. So. F’ing Tired.

You know, a person can be wrong without being sexist.

It’s a very old sexist trope, where all males are natually hapless slobs and need women (really marriage) to “fix” tghem. It’s not the virulent, hateful sort of sexism we see from misogynists (Apatow seems to genuinely like women), but it’s a sexist trope none-the-less because it makes bogus assumptions about both men and women.

Becoming mature does seem to go hand in hand with getting married, but - again - I don’t see why this is sexist or even conservative.

It’s sexist and conservative because it re-enforces exactly that blanket societal assumption that mature adult male =  married and vice-versa (as well as the converse, that an unmarried male is by definition immature). The real world is more complex.

Has Douthat lauded Starship Troopers yet?

Younger conservatives like Douthat and Trevino stay away from that one, partially because they’re not sure if Verhoeven’s having them on, and partially because if he’s being sincere they’d have to confront their own chickenhawkery.

Just a note, Funny People actually does go against anywhere anyone expected it to for being a Apatow movie - I don’t want to spoil but you did know, about thirty minutes in, you know how Knocked Up, 40-year-old Virgin, etc. were going to end and Funny People kind of turns that on its head. It isn’t a hilarious everyone ends happy with a wedding or whatever kind of movie.
Not to say that it is an excellent movie, I thought it was interesting for tackling a trite but still sad concept (rich not-nice guy gets cancer) without being syrupy about it and had a few good jokes. If we’re going for the presenting women without negative stereotypes angle it doesn’t fail its heritage, I found it really irritating the treatment the female comedian gets.
Anyway, yeah, it isn’t the most hilarious comedy ever like it was advertised which kind of contributed to its flopping - not how people don’t like conservatism.

MurkusR, there’s nothing about being shy or socially awkward that speak to arrested development in and of themselves, though they can be interactive.  I was speaking rather to the notion that Apatow pushes that both inside and outside all adult males is an inevitable immaturity, one that need be cured by the intervention of a woman.  Sorry, but that’s sexist as hell, insulting as hell and I’m not buying it.

“I’ve never taken to the notion that Apatow pushes: that the normal state of adult males is some form of arrested development.  I loathe that sexist notion with a deep passion.”

yeah, me too
But since the normal state of wingnuts IS some form of arrested development, I guess it works for them

What Apatow did with The 40-Year-Old Virgin (and has hammered into the ground ever since) is simply take a genre that had been hammered into the ground since Animal House and Porky’s and freshen it up.  It was the raunchy sex comedy in a different setting with a different age group.

Animal House was a sex comedy?  I thought it was more about drinking…

I don’t get why Douthat thinks “Knocked Up” is “conservative” because a woman exercises her right to, uh, CHOOSE to carry a pregnancy to term.  Does he imagine liberals gnashing their teeth in the theater because she didn’t have an abortion?  (Sorry, stupid question - of course he does.)  A “conservative” plot would have had Katherine Heigl wanting an abortion, but getting beaten to within an inch of miscarriage by Seth Rogen as he bellowed about his sacred seed.     

Also, FWIW, I really liked Funny People, but maybe that’s because, although I’ve matured a lot since getting married, penis jokes still crack me up.

I am tired unto death of Apatow’s ouevre: if you count what he’s produced, the teen boy angled crap, adult men acting like adolescent boys, and inevitable scene in which two of the male protagonists are either doing something that could be misconstrued as gay—hilarious!—or it’s supposed to be funny when they accuse each other of being homosexuals.

Haven’t seen Funny People yet, and have my problems with Knocked Up, but as a commenter stated above, in addition to the couple who marries in the end of 40 Year Old Virgin, the other happy couples “come” together in a variety of ways, including after a forgiven adultery and from very freaky sex.

Even the slutty girl gets a loving boyfriend, and in Superbad the high school girl who offers a blow job as introductory to a relationship, is spared that public humiliation (everyone agrees they forgot every humiliation from the night before) and starts off fresh with a low-pressure date at the mall.

How fucking “conservative” is that?

opensecrets.org is interesting.  I took a quick look at the donor database, and there are a lot of entries for Judd Apatow, who is listed as a “writer/director” at “The Apatow Company” and based in Beverly Hills, CA (in case there was someone else with the same name.)  This prominent conservative has given $500 to moveon.org, $1000 to Howard Dean in ‘03, $2000 to Wesley Clark in ‘03, $1000 to Patrick Leahy in ‘04, $2000 to John Kerry in ‘04, $2500 to “DNC Services Corp” in ‘‘06, $5000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in ‘06, an additional $2500 to the DCCC in ‘08, and $2300 to Barack Obama in ‘08.

Maybe he is writing what he writes because he thinks it will hit the largest audience?

I really enjoyed 40 year old virgin, and there was a lot of sex positivity in that film—including especially a discussion of how sexuality is deeply individual and works different for different folks.

I mean, it didn’t rock my world or anything.  But there was a lot of fun playing with ideas in there, and a settlement on the idea that people should do what’s best for them, which is actually a really good ending.

seeker,
I have watched most of his movies, and the dvd edition of Undeclared, and the feeling I got from them is that they mostly deal with guys who I would call unprepared rather than immature. The two aren’t necessarily the same thing. In both cases, and I suppose this is why they may strike a MRA’esque note, is that the men rebel against the women’s expectations. In Virgin it was the collectibles, in Knocked Up it was just differences in personalities in general.

This is just my perception of his stuff.

James, are you really so thick as to believe that no social or economic conservatives vote Democrat?  If so then you’ve missed an awful lot of threads where the posters here have despaired against the extent and power of the blue dogs in the party.  (Unless Obama hires them, of course, in which case they become magically okay, something that I’ve never been able to swallow.)

So the Times’ conservative columnist du jour, having the wherewithal to comment as he pleases in arguably the most influential op-ed turf in the English-speaking world, labored mightily and bought forth . . . [drum roll] . . . a movie review.

Expect more of this sort of thing. The cons are so clearly, consistently, demonstrably, reliably  wrong about every major issue, that their mouthpieces are now reduced to two choices: (a) defending positions that are usually demonstrated to be ignorance-based, irresponsible and bat-scat crazy even before the writer clicks SEND; or (b) discussing trivialities.

Douthat picked (b) this time.

I don’t think Apatow is a raging sexist or a wingnut, but as seeker said, he uses a very sexist trope.

Saying he doesn’t act in sexist ways because he doesn’t call women “bitches” and “cunts” or beat his wife is like saying someone can’t act in racist ways unless they’re an open neo-Nazi or burning crosses in the Klan.

MarkusR, fair enough.

In an thread some months ago, a byproduct of that came up: how the metaculture teaches boys that they must Resist and girls that they must Coach Their Lad.  Me, I think that there’s nothing wrong in and of itself with the idea that girls/boys men/women rebel against expectations because most of the dating expectations in our culture are arrant BS to begin with.

I’d just be cautious about things like collectibles: there is a fairly strong tendency in our culture to equate “fun” with “immature”, video games and collectibles being two things that are most often derided for that reason.  It’s a BS meme and I know that it is definitely rejected by our esteemed host, Ms. Marcotte.

And it is really unfair that a male bachelor over, say, 28 years old or so is assumed to be (pick one)

1) Immature
2) A creepy loser
3) closeted gay

Molly NYC:
The sad thing is that he has examined film before, and did a terrible job:  his too-long Atlantic piece on the paranoid style in American cinema.  In that he condescendingly sneers at all the silly, silly, silly deluded liberals who make such odd movies about government malfeasance but never bothers to address the rafts of known government amorality, immorality, conspiracies and wrongdoing that helped make a formerly idealistic citizenry into near-paranoids in the first place.  It was the journalistic equivalent of sneering at people who write about being “mugged” (`as if such a thing actually happens!’ he seems to say) without finding out a damned thing about street crime. 

Confession: Slightly reworked from an earlier post.

I’ve never taken to the notion that Apatow pushes: that the normal state of adult males is some form of arrested development.  I loathe that sexist notion with a deep passion.

seeker6079, you’re my hero.

It’s presumably possible to have a positive view of marriage _and_ be a feminist as well.  I only saw the TV shows and “40 Year Old Virgin,” so more data might help:  are the marriages showcased in the Apatow films male-dominated, would you say?  The idea that women have their shit together and men don’t isn’t necessarily an _anti_ feminist view; identifying women with maturity and men without it doesn’t seem so bad if the films are pro-maturity.  If women are buzzkills but your agenda is that men have to realize that they could do without so much buzz, again, that’s not tremendously negative.

I wonder if it would be helpful to think of the films as “bourgeois” rather than “conservative”:  the contented, consensual, companionate domestic unit is like an article of faith in the long tradition of bourgeois liberalism that includes people like John Locke and John Stuart Mill.  When I think of conservative marriages, I think of the Duggar family.  In my experience to his works, Apatow surely doesn’t do that.

This prominent conservative has given $500 to moveon.org ... [etc]

This is where we get into the difference between Big-C Conservatives who have signed onto the entire agenda of the current Republican Party, and small-c conservatives, who operate in the real world.  Under today’s rules, Walt Disney, probably one of the most conservative movie moguls ever, would be considered a raging, wild-eyed, pinko lefty by today’s Conservatives because he was an environmentalist who showed hunters killing Bambi’s mother in a scene that traumatized generations. 

Apatow’s movies do show a very small-c conservative view of the world.  That doesn’t make him Dennis Miller.

(Whoops, I got caught between ‘experience of’ and ‘exposure to’ in that last sentence.)

Funny People is flopping for the same reason Jersey Girl flopped.  Apatow is suffering from Kevin Smith’s problem:  Apatow’s fans don’t want him to make anything remotely serious, and he hasn’t built any cred outside of his fanbase, so no one else wants to see anything he does.  In fact, I’d say anyone outside his fanbase is sick and fucking tired of his movies.  As other people have already mentioned, if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.

My primary beef with Apatow’s movies is a problem I have with all modern comedies.  It’s joke, after joke, after joke, after joke, after joke, after joke, with the story taking a backseat.  The last comedy I saw was Tropic Thunder and, while it did have some really good jokes (the full retard bit comes to mind), by about halfway in I was sick of laughing and starting to get bored.

By the way—why would anyone accept Douthat’s view that Apatow represents a particularly conservative view? Seriously, Douthat’s never been out of the Beltway Village in his as-yet short and tender life; he sees everything as confirming his adorably myopic views.

This column isn’t because Apatow has—by amazing coincidence—perfectly captured the quintessential conservative ethos on end-of-life issues or whatever the hell Douthat’s blathering over. Douthat went to the movies, which exposed him to something that was as far out of his ‘winger bubble (and thus as intellectually striking) as he ever gets, and he and was otherwise stuck for something to put in his column.  Also, this way, he gets to write off his and Mrs. Douthat’s movie tickets (plus popcorn and Raisinettes) on his taxes forevermore.

Maybe he is writing what he writes because he thinks it will hit the largest audience?

I think it’s slightly more than that. Apatow is a social liberal by most standards, but one with this sappy belief that a cool, sexy, funny woman can redeem a man from his natural state of permanent adolescence. The belief comes from his own experience, and—fortunately for him—it’s an evergreen trope in Hollywood. He’s added a lot of raunch to go along with the romantic sweetness, and that’s been a winning formula for him thus far.

In both cases, and I suppose this is why they may strike a MRA’esque note, is that the men rebel against the women’s expectations. In Virgin it was the collectibles, in Knocked Up it was just differences in personalities in general.

Except that Apatow’s women let the men (or learn to let them) hang on to what they consider harmless aspects of their adolescence—the ones that aren’t “holding them back” from being men in full. The 40-y-o Virgin’s collectibles have to go, but she allows (indeed encourages) him to keep the bike.

In “Knocked Up” the Rogen character has to give up living like an animal and give up the porn Web site and get an apartment and a corporate Web design job, but he’s not gonna stop blazing up a relaxing evening spliff on the patio or telling off-colour jokes. The Heigl character will probably join him.

So these women aren’t complete killjoys—even the Leslie Mann character in “Knocked Up” learns that, just as she’s allowed a girl’s night out at the club, there also has to be some give on harmless fun for hubby, lest he sneak off with other hen-pecked men to participate in secret fantasy baseball sessions.

But the fact remains, the desired outcome is marriage, which in Apatow-world (and Hollywood-world, and by extension American society) automatically conveys maturity and adulthood upon the male lead. In real-life, that just doesn’t happen.

And it is really unfair that a male bachelor over, say, 28 years old or so is assumed to be (pick one)

1) Immature
2) A creepy loser
3) closeted gay

or, per the running joke in “40-y-o Virgin,” a serial killer.

The real problem is that, while Apatow jokes about assumptions 2 and 3 (and 4) to show how bogus they are, he’s a little too sincere about option 1.

Molly puts her finger on something in noting that Douthat is not onlty priggish but also astonishingly sheltered.

Gracchus notes: ``Except that Apatow’s women let the men (or learn to let them) hang on to what they consider harmless aspects of their adolescence—the ones that aren’t “holding them back” from being men in full. The 40-y-o Virgin’s collectibles have to go, but she allows (indeed encourages) him to keep the bike. ``

How do you see Apatow`s framing: that the collectibles are holding them back (ie: harmless fun, somethng boyish, etc) or merely symbolic of their lack of development.

Apparently using a question mark to denote a question is beneath my lordly station.

But the fact remains, the desired outcome is marriage, which in Apatow-world (and Hollywood-world, and by extension American society) automatically conveys maturity and adulthood upon the male lead.

Is it that marriage confers maturity and adulthood, or that finding the right quirky low-key woman confers maturity and adulthood, with marriage as the perceptible sign of new-found maturity?  Because I don’t think “getting married” instantly makes the men more mature, because they have to earn that maturity first.  “Getting mature” (to coin a phrase) makes the men feel like marriage won’t be a soul-sucking trap.  I guess I’m quibbling with your sequencing rather than your overarching point.

I’ve never taken to the notion that Apatow pushes: that the normal state of adult males is some form of arrested development.

This.  And a main component of that immaturity is always a deep and abiding contempt for women, who of course all want to put an end to your couch-bound, slovenly fun and drag you to social events, shopping centers or, God help you, buy drapes.  And one thing you will *never* see on the screen is a male character who is horrified by his buddies’ sexism and calls them out on it.

Joe Queenan is one of the few critics who bothered to address any of this in his review of Knocked Up:

The point it purports to make is that men do not grow up until they have children, and maybe not even then. This will probably not come as a complete surprise to most of the women on this planet.

The other point that Knocked Up seems to make is that women, even the ones who work in television, exist for no other reason than to help men grow up, if necessary by having babies.

I think women need to start their own film industry: this one isn’t working.

Full review here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/sep/04/features.juddapatowfilm

, God help you, buy drapes.

Real men buy their own drapes.  Real real men ponder how best the drapes work in the room in question before they do so.  Real real real men get it right the first time.

And a main component of that immaturity is always a deep and abiding contempt for women, who of course all want to put an end to your couch-bound, slovenly fun

But that contemptuous view is what the main character loses in the course of the story, no?  Men who have contempt for women stay immature and loser-ish; men who respect (or learn to respect) women reap the rewards of maturity—which, even if you don’t want it at first, is Good For You. 

Again, I’m going by an extremely limited dataset here, so I’m happy to relent in the face of specifics.

How do you see Apatow`s framing: that the collectibles are holding them back (ie: harmless fun, somethng boyish, etc) or merely symbolic of their lack of development.

More symbolic, I’d say, although heavily freighted symbols (toys, obsessions with R-rated movie nudity, etc).

Is it that marriage confers maturity and adulthood, or that finding the right quirky low-key woman confers maturity and adulthood, with marriage as the perceptible sign of new-found maturity?

Again, symbolic, but heavy symbolism that ties into the old sexist trope that marriage conveys maturity in a way that other things can’t.

“Getting mature” (to coin a phrase) makes the men feel like marriage won’t be a soul-sucking trap.  I guess I’m quibbling with your sequencing rather than your overarching point.

In the Apatow movies, I don’t see the male protagonists as being particularly marriage-averse (as is the usual case with the male love interests in female-oriented rom-coms and f*cking-and-shopping books)—marriage (or a long-term relationship) is just not on their radar at all until the quirky low-key woman comes into the picture.

The usual sequence in these movies is: 1. single guy in his “natural” state—e.g. Blutarsky lite; 2. single guy runs head-on into dilemma that involves quirky and easy-going girl; 3. single guy can only get with her if he gives up certain of his quirks (which, symbolically, hold him back); 4. light conflict ensues; 5. single ultimately comes to the realisation that if he wants the cool chick, he has to be a little more mature and take responsibility and settle down; 6. the best way to do that (and, more precisely, to symbolise that) is to get married and have kids.

Which, again, is probably the story of Apatow’s courtship of Leslie Mann. Come to think about it, in some ways, it’s similar to Nick Hornby’s formula. I don’t have quite as visceral a reaction as seeker does (I actually enjoy them as long as they keep me laughing), but I think it’s worth pointing out what myths are perpetuated. And both Apatow and Hornby are working the old one in which only adventurous but no-nonsense Wendy can help Peter Pan grow up.

But that contemptuous view is what the main character loses in the course of the story, no?

I don’t see Apatow’s protagonists as having a contemptuous view of women. A sexist view, yes, or one in which women aren’t a factor, but they’re not misogynists. So there’s not much that’s really lost beyond certain “immature” aspects of the protagonist’s life/personality.

FlipYrWhig,

I’m not sure they learn to respect women so much as dial back the misognyny a notch or two and tolerate them because having a wife means having someone around who will clean your house, do your laundry and smile lovingly as she fixes all of your personal problems, while you still get to call her The-Old-Ball-and-Chain when she’s out of earshot.  But I’ve only seen a couple Apatow flicks, and maybe I’m overstating it.  At least Andy in T40YOV seemed to genuinely like his bride.

Gracchus:
It’s that notion that the natural state of a man is Blutarsky lite which, amongst other things, drives me bonkers.  It’s an “about males” trope which is right down in the brain gutter with blacks = fried chicken, so far as I’m concerned.

@ Sour Kraut, I’m entirely based on 40 Year-Old Virgin, and what I see there is the dudebro contingent (Rogen, Rudd, Malco) being exposed as selfish, horny, lazy, and stunted*—as against Andy, who has markers of immaturity like the action figures and bicycle but who is shown to be caring and pleasant, and whose amatory missteps all derive from his attempts to mimic dudebro selfish gratification.  So Andy has, as I see it, bourgeois liberal virtues, and those are what win out in the end.  But I think people who have seen _Knocked Up_ (I haven’t) have come up with a different schema for what Apatow Protagonist is supposed to possess, or what his developmental arc looks like.

* They’re the ones who cling to misogyny, even when coupled; would use the “ball and chain” line, etc.

It’s that notion that the natural state of a man is Blutarsky lite which, amongst other things, drives me bonkers.

For me, it’s the idea that only by getting married and having kids can a person be considered a mature adult. That and the assumption that women are more inclined to those things (and thus more naturally mature) than men.

It’s sexism—a very light, well-meaning, patronising sexism, but sexism none-the-less.

seeker6079 wrote:

James, are you really so thick

I do not appreciate being called “thick.”  It is rude, does not contribute to civil discourse.

Gracchus @ 4:13 pm.

I disagree with nothing you said.

That is all.

I’m entirely based on 40 Year-Old Virgin, and what I see there is the dudebro contingent (Rogen, Rudd, Malco) being exposed as selfish, horny, lazy, and stunted*—as against Andy, who has markers of immaturity like the action figures and bicycle but who is shown to be caring and pleasant,

I think that’s more the movie’s core joke: it isn’t sexual experience that makes a man mature, because the other 3 have childish and misogynist attitudes toward women. By the same token, though, being caring and pleasant and genuinely liking women (as Andy does, despite his fear of them) isn’t enough. Maturity = making a commitment like marriage, and that doesn’t happen until the end of the movie when he gives up his toys in exchange for a financial nest egg for his impending marriage.

Same thing with “Knocked Up”—the Rogen character, while a Blutarsky-lite, is also shown to be caring and pleasant and not a woman-hater. And yet, again, it’s not enough to make him a mature adult—that doesn’t happen until the end of the movie when he gives up his toys in exchange for a financial nest egg for his impending fatherhood (and, it’s implied by Hollywood rules, marriage).

And to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with taking responsibility for one’s part in a committed relationship, or for raising a child—those are signifiers of maturity, to be sure. But their just not the only bloody ways in the world to be a grown-up.

James:
Replace “thick” with “naive” or “in error”, if you wish.

This is where we get into the difference between Big-C Conservatives who have signed onto the entire agenda of the current Republican Party, and small-c conservatives, who operate in the real world.  Under today’s rules, Walt Disney, probably one of the most conservative movie moguls ever, would be considered a raging, wild-eyed, pinko lefty by today’s Conservatives because he was an environmentalist who showed hunters killing Bambi’s mother in a scene that traumatized generations.

Apatow’s movies do show a very small-c conservative view of the world.  That doesn’t make him Dennis Miller.

If the only contribution was his $500 contribution to moveon, one may legitimately wonder if he was trying to be a “small c” conservative.  But the complete set of contributions does not show any contributions to any potentially moderating influences in the Republican party.  The overall pattern does not suggest a conservative disgusted with the Republican party, it suggests someone fairly committed to the democratic party.  He may not be as far to the left as I’d like, but for someone like Ross Douthat to be claiming he’s some great conservative icon in Hollywood is not supported by his track record of contributions.

Aren’t there some married couples in the Apatow-verse where the man remains immature, though?  I’m not remembering the marital status of all the couples in _Forty_, but I thought Jay (Romany Malco; thanks, IMDB!) was married and yet still immature and selfish; and aren’t Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann married and full of resentments in _Knocked Up_?  (The Leslie Mann character in that film seems to be the most frequently cited piece of evidence for Apatow’s misogyny; again, if I had seen it, I’d give an opinion on whether that’s true.)

James, for the most part the modern conservative movement consists of taking otherwise laudable or liked goals or people, (patriotism, the flag, decency, morality, democracy, patriotism and such), pulling them in front of conservatism and saying, “see, this is us” to hide the rather ugly reality behind the sham.  So the latest thing pulled in front of them seems to be Apatow.

But the complete set of contributions does not show any contributions to any potentially moderating influences in the Republican party.

That’s why I was emphasizing “Big C” vs. “little c” conservatism.  You can be socially conservative (as Apatow appears to be with his lionization of marriage and Mars vs. Venus view of gender relations) without being a Republican.

Modern-day Republicans have hijacked the word “conservative” for some very weird flights of fancy.  Right now, to be conservative means you have to at least pay lip service to believing that Barack Obama was secretly born in Kenya, that GM’s bankruptcy means the government is nationalizing the auto industry, and that government agents are going to show up on Grandma’s doorstep for a live organ transplant if the health insurance reform bill passes.

Aren’t there some married couples in the Apatow-verse where the man remains immature, though?  I’m not remembering the marital status of all the couples in _Forty_, but I thought Jay (Romany Malco; thanks, IMDB!) was married and yet still immature and selfish; and aren’t Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann married and full of resentments in _Knocked Up_?  (The Leslie Mann character in that film seems to be the most frequently cited piece of evidence for Apatow’s misogyny; again, if I had seen it, I’d give an opinion on whether that’s true.)

In Apatow-verse you don’t even get a shot at being considered a grown-up if you’re not married.

Jay isn’t married, as I recall—he only decides to do so after he gets her pregnant.

Rudd’s character isn’t an immature and selfish slacker—he’s a successful corporate guy and a responsible father who just needs a little space to have some “immature” guy fun now and then—without his wife, who he genuinely likes.

And she is likeable. I don’t consider the Leslie Mann character as evidence of Apatow’s misogyny—she’s more a cautionary tale about what happens when the quirky and fun but grounded girl forces her husband to give up all his cute, bro-like traits and interests (i.e. all his toys, including the harmless ones like Andy’s bike). She’s not a cardboard-cutout shrew, and after one scare that turns out to be a false alarm she learns to revert to being the sort of fun yet responsible girl that attracted Rudd’s character in the first place (i.e. like the Heigl character who’s her sister, or the Katherine Keener character in “40-Y-O Virgin,” or Apatow’s idealisation of Leslie Mann herself).

For me, it’s the idea that only by getting married and having kids can a person be considered a mature adult. That and the assumption that women are more inclined to those things (and thus more naturally mature) than men.

You have to recognize that there is a story arc here that doesn’t always fit real life.  In telling the story, Apatow uses “getting married” and “becoming a father” and “dying / watching a loved one die” as milestones to focus attention on when a character has achieved maturity.

Does a loved one’s passing instantly turn a cheerful young man into a dour adult?  No, not instantly.  But from a storybook angle, you want to take a person from cheerful and young to sour and old, so you use “death” as the tipping point.  Likewise with marriage and pregnancy.  You can reach the pinnacle of your maturity long before you first get laid (or long after).  You can be a totally irresponsible adult until your kid turns 1 year and 4 months old.  But a 1 year and 4 month old baby isn’t much of a waypoint in a movie plot.

I think you’re taking this too literally.  He’s telling a story via the medium of movies and that requires a lot of condensation and simplification.  Apatow wants to tell the story of people growing up emotionally, but he’s got to do it in a digestible time frame.  If it seems the main character starts out a very old child and races into adulthood in the blink of an eye (by the magic of marriage / babies / corpses whatever) it’s largely because he’s got two hours to tell a story and he doesn’t want to go through the main character’s entire life.

Rudd’s character isn’t an immature and selfish slacker—he’s a successful corporate guy and a responsible father who just needs a little space to have some “immature” guy fun now and then—without his wife, who he genuinely likes.

He was pretty immature. He made plans without telling Debbie when he was supposed to drive the kids. He lied to her about doing work so he could do fantasy baseball and avoid spending time with his family, basically dumping the responsibility of taking care of their daughters to her and preventing her from having any fun herself.

The scene where she discovers he’s playing fantasy baseball and not cheating starts out as comic come-uppance, but the fight outside shows that Rudd’s character is still being a total shithead.

You have to recognize that there is a story arc here that doesn’t always fit real life.  In telling the story, Apatow uses “getting married” and “becoming a father” and “dying / watching a loved one die” as milestones to focus attention on when a character has achieved maturity.

Of course I recognise the story arc, the short-hand, etc. They’re movies, and they’re big-budget Hollywood movies at that. I was basically surrounded by the film industry when I was a teenager, so I’m not inclined to take things literally or ignore the time limitations of the medium. But by the same token I’ve learned to look at a film critically from several different angles, which means it’s seldom a passive consumption experience for me. Even with a mindless B-picture, there’s usually something to think about later.

I like the Apatow movies—he’s a very funny writer, and he knows how to direct his very funny stock company of players. But despite the variety of new jokes in every movie, you also see the same sequence I described at 3:46 PM repeated in every one of them, with small variations. It would seem that, aside from an unhappy ending, “Funny People” replicates it with the Adam Sandler character.

And underlying that common sequence is the sexist theme I described at 4:13—repeated again and again. It’s not unique to Apatow, or even to Hollywood. And so its presence in our culture, even as conveyed in harmless light comedies, is worth noting.

There are more ways to tell the story of “growing up emotionally” than the arc I described. And Apatow is not a lazy writer or director. He’s telling the story that way, again and again, for a reason.

Is he telling the same story again and again because its easy to do and he gets paid big bucks?

He was pretty immature. He made plans without telling Debbie when he was supposed to drive the kids. He lied to her about doing work so he could do fantasy baseball and avoid spending time with his family, basically dumping the responsibility of taking care of their daughters to her and preventing her from having any fun herself.

Ok, mature in comparison to Rogen and his buddies. If I asked you to name the most responsible, mature male in that movie, that’s who you’re left with.

I think you’re missing the point of the fantasy baseball sequence, at least from Apatow’s point of view. It’s not to demonstrate that Debbie’s a domineering shrew, nor is to demonstrate that he’s a selfish arsehole. They love each-other, and like spending time with each-other and their kids, but she’s forgotten that he can also have fun without his family—not the affair kind of “fun” she suspects, but geeky immature fantasy baseball kind of fun. He’s not trying to avoid his wife and kids, he just wants some time to himself (sort of like her girls’ nights out at the club with her sister, where she’s allowed to enjoy her individuality).

From personal observations, it seems to me that the strongest marriages are those that allow both spouses time on their own. That’s not so easy to do once kids come into the picture, but it’s do-able even then. Apatow is portraying a marriage that was probably once like that (given that both partners are fun-loving), but where the wife, due to the understandable demands of parenting, stopped letting her husband be an individual once in a while. She’s not a villain, and through the comic false alarm she adjusts.

Is he telling the same story again and again because its easy to do and he gets paid big bucks?

That’s a big part of it, of course. But I get the sense he could tell a whole other base narrative, with a far less stale underlying theme, and still rake in the Benjamins. Either way, I don’t begrudge the man his well-earned money in the least, since he makes me laugh.

And I should say that Apatow does an amazing job putting out fresh variations on that same old story—it’s become one of the pleasures for me of watching his films and TV shows. As you say, up until perhaps the current movie, he’s made those variations crowd-pleasers. I’m certainly a member of that crowd, just not the kind who’s blind to the underlying themes.

That said, I’ve spent far too much time analysing the Apatow oeuvre, so I’ll leave it at that.

Hah, just saw this from College Humor… really does a nice job ridiculing Apatow’s films :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJv-rG_jeGY&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=0704B55480867B61&index=40

I also disagree about the Leslie Mann character as shrew or fun denier. The point is not that she should let hubby have his fantasy baseball, but that she wants some fun in life, too.

If he’s sneaking out for a movie, “I like movies, too!” is her anguished cry—why can’t he share some of the fun with her?

She’s being forced to be the only adult in that marriage (if you define an adult as someone who isn’t allowed to have silly fun outside hanging around the children, and that’s the way Apatow is defining it.)

She wants to share the fun with her husband, maybe like it was back when they were daing, and not always be forced into mommy-wife in the house hubby gets to escape from.

Unlike her selfish husband, she wants to share the fun escape with him. And she’s hurt to the heart that he doesn’t want to be with her, and tired to death of being house mommy.

In the film, hubby gets to take off for a debauched weekend in Las Vegas with friends, a guy weekend that turns sour.

Mann and her sister get frozen out of a dance club—if there’s no fun to be had with other adults, why won’t her husband give her the chance?