Punchline

A difficult picture, one that nags at me, will not go away no matter how much I try to dismiss it as a half-baked TV idea that got made into a mediocre movie. Let's make it clear at the outset that Tom Hanks is the best thing in this picture, as a volatile and mostly unlikeable, though brilliant, standup comic. He is extraordinary, perfectly filling the role. The problem is that I think the role is poorly written (by David Seltzer, who also directed). Some of his standup routines are great--worth the price of admission alone (especially the last one, which is absolutely rapier-like in a latter-day Lenny Bruce style, with a little Eric Bogosian thrown in) but the problem is that I never was really able to get a handle on his character. Just who is this guy? A nice Jewish kid who didn't like medical school and turned to comedy instead? Or a true borderline psychotic who is funny because he treads so close to the dark side of his own personality? Either way you interpret it, something else in the film chucks your interpretation.

The nice guy could be seen falling for Field's character I suppose, in a sort of “I need mothering” kind of way, but he would never be close enough to the edge to do the bitterest bits in his routine, or--especially--the "Singin' in the Rain" riff that is like something out of Edgar Allen Poe... real Bates Motel stuff. On the other hand the near-psycho guy would probably never start to fall in with Fields, and he would certainly never break down into total gel when his father and brother (doctors) show up at the club to see him perform; nor would he have groveled at the feet of the professors who flunk him out of med school. The thing is you can't have it both ways; sure Hanks is fascinating to observe, but it doesn't count for much if we haven't really learned to KNOW the character at the end.

But I suppose that that is what makes the picture difficult to dismiss entirely; it is trying to say something, even if it doesn't really know what, and that raises it up out of the gutter of films made for easy consumption by an undemanding public. There is a sense of ambiguity there which you just don't see that often in films today, and that is what really makes the film worth seeing. The fact is that I also have the nagging feeling that this effect was almost an accident; that is, in trying to create a character that is actually easy to understand, Seltzer stumbles and falls into what is actually a much more complex situation. HE probably knew what he was after with the "Singin' in the Rain" bit even if nobody else does, which leaves us to interpret it any way we choose. And I choose to do it this way. Call it success through failure. Or don't call it anything at all. Meanwhile... Sally (Fields) struggles manfully (womanfully?) with her role... a Sisyphean effort, since it keeps rolling back on top of her. She is a suffering Polish housewife who "was always funny" and now she is drawn to the standup stage; she is like an addict and she cannot stay away.

Problem is that she is not very good, at least until Hanks works his magic with her (one of the best sequences: the scene on the subway when they work on a joke for her and he gives the nod to Manson as a punchline but states flatly that Berkowitz won't work--a prediction that is borne out when she tries the joke on a live audience. What makes it good is that he doesn't explain why it won't work, he just says "it isn't funny" as though there were some immutable law and he was the prophet interpreting it). And in trying to display her longing, Seltzer makes her come off as a bit ridiculous. I actually burst out laughing at one of the crucial serious scenes, when she confronts her family with the immortal lines: "I want to be a wife. I want to be a mother. But I want to be a comedienne." Talk about bathos. Give me a break. That kind of grandstanding hasn't been in vogue since Albert Finney and Diane Keaton "acted up a storm" in “Shoot the Moon.” It comes across as silly, and even worse, completely fake. I also don't much care for the manner in which the film ridicules her husband for being unbearably boring and straight--for not UNDERSTANDING her when in fact he is just a standup guy who is understandably disturbed by his wife's aberrant behavior. She is the one violating the contract, not he. Of couese, all of this goes on until his rehabilitation after the blg contest, in the interests of a happier ending, and it is pretty funny how he starts suggesting things for her to use in her routine. (Maybe he will become her manager.) But that is another example of how Seltzer Insists on having things both ways all the time (God he's spoiled).

Of course the question (or at least A question) is would Fields peally have turned down the prize after she wins the contest? Who knows? It does bring up another point though: the comedy scene portrayed here iis one big happy family, everybody helping each other out. But from what I read and heap, the real scene is cutthroat in a way that makes the battle in the Ardennes look like a walk in the park. No matter... in Seltzer's world, his comedians can have the drive to succeed but still give each other a pat on the back or help them out when they heed a break. Oh well. Putting it all together... this picture has a number of problems, some of them significant. I never get a handle on Hanks'character (actually some of the supporting figures are sketched much more deftly), I never buy into the relationship he has with Fields, and her character is simply not constructed in any kind ef a believable way.

Seltzer's instincts seem poor when it comes to pointing out the direction he wants us to go, and when it comes to taking a stand and providing some sort of moral perspective in which we can view these characters There are also a few too many cheap laughs, and a few utterly misbegotten scenes, and the bottom line is we often do not really understand why the characters are doing the things they are doing. Nevertheless... in spite of all this I have to say that the picture is worth seeing. Number one for Hanks'performance--both the entire role and the standup sequences it contains. Number two for having the guts or the luck to be a little tough, a little ambiguous, a little raw.. a little difficult. Like I said, this picture is not one you swallow whole; it sticks in your craw and nags at you. It won't go away (in an era when most pictures go away before the credits are off the screen). This picture isn't a drama... it's a drama stylist.