Responses to this message:
Well, I'm not going to wait for Cranky to open his forum for "Man on the Moon". Instead, I'll post it here, and repost it when the forum pops up...
I'm not so sure where to start. I guess what you expect me to say at the beginning is how good it was overall. The answer is pretty good. I'd rate it at ***1/2, if you need a damn number. And yes, Carrey does a great job as Kaufman. Heck, give the guy thicker eyebrows, a fatter face, and a larger forehead, and I'd have trouble telling him apart from the real Kaufman... Also, it was hilarious, but was not 100% comedy. Still, entertaining all the way. If you fucking NEED to compare this to the other films of Forman, no, it is not in the same league as his two Oscar winners nor "The People vs Larry Flynt" (as if it mattered). But, as you should be able to tell from the rating I gave it, it's still pretty good... The R.E.M. title tune is played at the beginning in the form of score, and once again during the middle, and then in song form for the end credits... Finally (as far as this intro is concerned), no, I doubt it well get the Oscar, but it has a chance of getting nominated, and of winning the Golden Globe for best comedy (although it will be a tight race with "Being John Malkovich").
Now that I've gotten rid of what you probably care about, the only reason you're reading this, the questions and the basics (yeah, you can leave now), let me go on to talk about the film and analyze it somewhat. Let me start at the beginning. The intro is another one to add to the collection of great intros that have appeared this year, next to "American Beauty" and "Dogma". We get a black screen and Kaufman (well, Carrey as Kaufman as Latka), in black and white, popping up and messing with the audiences' heads. After that we get a short glimpse into Kaufman's childhood. Then we forward to the beginning of Kaufman's career.
By now, if you are a Milos Forman fan, you've picked up that this film is going to follow a similar structure to "The People vs. Larry Flynt". You are absolutely right. Forman first gives us a short glimpse into the main character's childhood that may seem insignificant, but that if you analyze the film it does provide a piece of the puzzle behind the character's eccentric behavior. He then shows the rise of the character from a zero life in dim bars in the 70s to a slow climb to success by breaking the rules and creating shock. Along the way he picks up a couple of key accomplices (in this case, George Shapiro and Bob Zmuda, played warmingly by Danny DeVito and Paul Giamatti - this time in a role far different from the annoying characters he played in "The Negotiator" and "Private Parts"), and also a love interest in the form of Courtney Love (who does alright, even though she isn't given much). The film shows the most famous antics of the character, while he gets more outrageous each time, and between the scenes we get to see other sides of the man and the reasoning behind his stunts. The character gets more controversial towards the end of the film, yet achieves his purpose. And despite not liking the character in real life (except for you Kaufman fans), we are rooting for him here. Forman even uses the same type of cinematography...
However, this does NOT mean this is "The People vs. Larry Flynt, Part II". The structure is actually very effective for telling Kaufman's story, showcasing his talents, and giving a look into what makes the charcter tick (without clearly defining it), while entertaining us. This movie is Kaufman's movie, with his own lunacies and life ironies. And it's a pretty good one...
By now, if you have been reading other reviews, you are probably puzzled by what I said that the film show's you how Kaufman ticks. Half of the critics have been saying that the film does not show you why Kaufman behaved the way he did. I guess they didn't care to put together the pieces. The film constantly shows Kaufman's need for doing something different, because he hates regular comedy. It also shows his need for performing, his need for being unpredictable, and his delight in manipulating everyone. And it attributes his personality partly to some mental instability. "Man on the Moon" is not completely a collection of Kaufman's sketches. There's more going on. Forman skips any of the typical Hollywood attempts of blaming a person's behavior completely on the person's past and some specific incidents. We are not shown Kaufman's problems as he was growing up, nor events like when he had a daughter at age 20 and put her up for adoption. All the potential soap opera melodrama is spared by Forman's structure, and we are instead treated to learning why the guy behaved as he did by focusing on details of the guy's life during his fame years, and by his own explanations between lunatic stunts...
Neither is the film a complete collection of Kaufman's stunts. We get all that is covered in the usual specials on Comedy Central, but we don't get to see that time Kaufman went on "The Dating Game", for example. Nor do we see his appearing among several real policemen dressed up as one during a parade in New York, during Larry Cohen's guerilla filmmaking of "God Told Me So", and pretending to go psycho and shooting blanks at everyone before getting fake shot himself. Nor do we get anything on "Breakfast With Blassie", "Heartbeeps", nor "In God We Tru$t". Nor do we get Kaufman insulting the cast of "Taxi" during the Golden Globes in 1979. But we still get to see his first SNL appearance, his screwing around with "Taxi", Tony Clifton, the whole wrestling deal (including the fight on Letterman), the time he messed up "Fridays", his college tour, and the Carnegie Hall performance. Forman recreates these well and captures their essence and ambient.
A cool detail is seeing all the people who are good sports and play themselves. We get most of the cast of "Taxi" (luckily, no Tony Danza), Dave Letterman, Lorne Michaels, and several others. The odd detail is that Michael Richards did not play himself, and instead was played by Norm McDonald. I guess Richards is still too pissed that he wasn't picked to play Kaufman, as he wanted...
Focusing again on the portrayal of Kaufman, there are some interesting ironies set up at the end. Particularly the "Boy who cried wolf" syndrome, when no one wanted to believe that Kaufman was dying (although the very end scene leaves a mystery behind Tony Clifton), not even his friends and family. There's one precious scene in the end, when Kaufman goes to try one last treatment, but finds that he is in the hands of another type of performer, who fooled his audience greatly, forcing an ironic smile into Kaufman's face...
I'm predicting that not everyone will enjoy this as much as I did (some will say it was merely good or somewhat good, others that it is excellent), but I do say that most of you will like it to some degree, or at least will be entertained by it, even if you hate Kaufman...
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread