Movie Review – The 40-Year-Old Virgin

A no nonsense comical

‘The 40-Year-Old Virgin’, for the lack of better word was, proper. Even though it’s a great material for comedy, it wasn’t to my complete satisfaction, may be because I watched it tad too late or may be the title was in my mind for quite some time and I imagined all sorts of scenarios that would pop up in the movie. Nevertheless, it was a decent time pass movie or in my words a ‘K TV’ movie which one needn’t put an effort to watch but works reasonably well when watched on the fly.

It’s easy to caricaturise a 40-year-old virgin and they do so in the first few minutes. It would have been better if it had been dealt in any other way apart from him being methodological and organized. Because that need not be the characteristic of a typical “virgin”. But its not a film to complain about this as it serves the purpose. We quickly get introduced to Andy Stitzer (Steve Carell) and how he generally is. His friends make a mockery of him after knowing that he’s a virgin, not that they didn’t before knowing about it. But conveniently for them, they get to know about his virginity only the night after movie starts, even though they had worked together for years.

The love-hate relationship between the friends were tremendous. I thought in the end there would be one cheesy dialogue like that of ‘Hangover’ but no they kept the track pure. Most of the laugh out loud jokes worked and happy that they were harsh and unapologetic. I’m sure the dialogue, “do you know how I know that you’re gay” would have got a separate fan following in local culture around the time the movie released. Actually, these are the things one misses in a comedy which is not in their language. It was funny, no complaints about it. But English natives would’ve been able to enjoy the joke as if its something among their peers, instead of watching from an outsider’s view. May be a movie like ‘Saroja’ wouldn’t appeal to others but would work for local audience, because the movie understands the pulse of locals better.

The four friends are typical template characters. A loudmouth black man, a “self-deprecating” loser and a “passionate” man. They’re easyly definable characters. That’s what comic movies of the old do. They don’t invest on deep characters, something like ‘Sideways’ but its more subtle. ‘The 40-Year-Old Virgin’ is not, because the genre is different. That’s why it works too, so no complaints there. My favourite of the four would definitely be the “lovelorn, self-destructive” loser David (Paul Rudd). It was lovely to see him and reminded me a little bit of myself too. Mostly all of scenes worked. But the “gay” scene and the scene where he gives porn to Andy stood out. It was lovely.

As expected, there should be a love track with “matured” women, which was typical but again worked. More than the writing, Catherine Keener as Trish Piedmont, did an excellent job. The short emotional scenes in the comedies are the ones which really make the film work and here too it was the same. I loved the love angle between the two. Especially the twenty-date streak before sex, it was lovely. Of course, there was drama towards the end but we all see it coming right. It would have worked better for locals and theatre audience but to watch a movie from the past on a seemingly innocuous point of view, I had already formed an opinion about the movie by that time.

Anyways it was pleasant feeling to watch a Hollywood movie after years, which I don’t know how it just flew buy. Though not a spellbinding (I didn’t want that) it still was a film to watch on a jolly good evening having tea and biscuits. Even though I enjoyed it, I felt the movie could have been still better and it was stuck somewhere between reckless laugh out loud comedy (which I’d have preferred) and subtle humour. These things happen when you catch up on a movie without knowing what to expect. Most of the time, it’s good because it surprises you in a different way but at times doesn’t satisfy you as much as you’d have expected it to be.

Movie Review – Synecdoche, New York

An unmeasurable excellence amidst a pleasurable anxiety

Some movies get to you right from the word go, some even before that. ‘Synecdoche, New York’ is one such movie. If you ask me to explain the movie, I’ll terribly fail. But, the impact it leaves behind is terrific. It is not at all an easy movie to watch. If PTA pushes us into a certain form of depression, Charlie Kaufman, takes it to a level above. PTA is my personal favorite but Charlie Kaufman is someone who I hold high regards. And, the fact that there was Philip Seymour Hoffman, my favorite ever Hollywood actor there in the movie, one couldn’t really couldn’t find out whether it’s a PTA or a Charlie Kaufman movie.

• 

Charlie Kaufman is such a household name when it comes to complex writings. His writings are meticulous and keeps us tense. Also interests and stimulates our intellect. That’s what differentiates his writing from the rest. He is so famous that the films that he had written, but directed by someone else, is still known as his film. Not many screenwriters have that much acknowledgment for their work. Not even Paul Schrader whose ‘Raging Bull’ story is widely known. In spite of it, it is still known as a Scorsese film.

Generally a Charlie Kaufman movie, even though sad, could be identified by a definitive wit, be it ‘Being John Malkovich’, ‘Adaptation’, ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’, to name a few. Also all these movies are tense. Not stifling but tense, it keeps you hooked. That’s the beauty of it. Spike Jonze made it look so approachable and entertaining for the audience. That is why they both are a deadly combination. That’s why the first two movies in the list above are gems of cinema.

If Charlie Kaufman is a phenomenon, Philip Seymour Hoffman is another kind. The authenticity he lends to movies, especially PTA’s are unexplainable. And, the way he owns the film, even otherwise, like a ‘Capote’ is some work of art. For a film like ‘Syendoche, Newyork’ he is the perfect foil, as a dazed and confused individual who could not be guessed.

The beauty of the movie is its complexity. Not really a criteria for being great movie or something I appreciate of easily. If it is a meditatively complex movie like a Tarkvosky movie or a setting wise complex movie like a Nolan’s its different. He is a mix of both. There are a few Tarkvoskian moments as well as few Nolanisque moments and in addition to it, there are few trademark Charlie Kaufman moments too like the scene where Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman) cries after applying tear-inducing liquid in his eyes.

The film is complex not only in the story but also structurally, literally. There are certain set pieces where you cannot see the start and end. Certain set pieces where you cannot find which the sets are and which are sets within sets. This is what complexity is all about, not ‘Inception’, which is far more literal. Not complaining about it as its one of the best commercial thrillers but ‘Synecdoche, New York’ makes us think, even post the movie.  Even though it’s a play which Caden directs. This could suit the film in film category. Until this point, ‘Day for Night’ was the best one in the category but ‘Synecdoche, New York’ outsmarts it.

It’s one of the movies, which scores right from the title. ‘Synecdoche’ is not a word, which people usually hear of, but its one apt title. Very few movies have a title, which truly explains about the movie. Explaining the synecdoche phenomenon is as tough as explaining the film and that’s the beauty of it. Whatever we try to interpret from the film goes round and round. I guess this movie would be great for film analysis and film studies. Dissecting the movie could be a dream for any film enthusiast.