Week Of May 31, 2006 - Wed / Fri

May 31, 2006

What's Wrong With The Break-Up?

I would love to say "nothing"… but I can't.

Nothing's wrong, that is. There is something wrong at the core of this movie and it starts with good intentions and high ambitions. And that's what makes it so discouraging.

I don't know quite what a spoiler is on this movie, with all the hum around the ending. I'll just say now that this review will probably ruin the movie for you if you just want to go and try to have a good time. So you might want to wait to read this after you've seen the film. I will offer a specific spoiler alert when I mention the ending.

And on we go…

Comedies can be funny or unfunny. But there is a breed of comedy that is all about tone… and when a director tries to find a tone that is outside of the norm, it can be the greatest challenge there is.

Peyton Reed has a history with tone. His Bring It On was straightforward, 50s style camp with a modern edge. It worked perfectly. Sexy, but not too sexy. Politically incorrect, but never offensive. Cheesy, but so self aware that the audience always forgave it, even embraced it.

On the flip side, Reed made Down With Love, which had everything going for it… except for a tone that connected with an audience.

The Break-Up is his biggest challenge to date. Finding the right formula for Down With Love was hard and played with the idea of resurrecting a genre. Here, he is dealing with a Vince-Vaughn-wants-it-this-way screenplay which swings, in fits of aesthetic schizophrenia, from big laughs to heavy sighs.

The ability to combine sadness and light in a movie is rare. But the ability to go from broad comedy to heavy, mean, real anger and hurt - while keeping the audience engaged - is near impossible. And it proves to be the death of this well-intended movie.

They didn't want to make The War Of The Roses II and they didn't want to make How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days. They didn't even want to do When Harry Met Sally. This is a movie about a couple that splits based on a whim and then proceeds to allow its characters to behave in endless stupid, if occasionally funny, ways.

It then makes another massive error of tone, which really condemns the possibilities, by making Ms. Aniston's character into a character conniving to get her man back, while he just keeps raising the stakes because he is too dumb to get what's going on. He seems to want her back. But they just can't find any relief. And this may be how it works in some relationships. And it may be realistic. And the audience just isn't going to the movies to see some couple break up like real people break up... at least, not in a Vince Vaughn comedy.

For instance, the is-he-gay-or-is-he-not-gay brother. From the commercials, it is very 40 Year Old Virgin… wacky. But when you see it in the movie, it has a rough edge to it. Here is 6' 5" Vince Vaughn trying to physically remove 5' 11" John Michael Higgins from his ex-girlfriend's bedroom… and Higgins beats him up. Suddenly, the whole humorous thing about Higgins being or not being gay is not so funny. Suddenly, because of his earlier remarks, Vaughn is a bit of a gay basher. And he kinda' deserves to get his ass kicked. And it's not a lucky punch, it is a beating. Well, once your brother beats up your ex-boyfriend, it's not funny anymore, no matter how cute the basis for the fight.

Likewise, when Vaughn turns the living room into a strip club, it's not okay. It's a funny idea which then turns into something disgusting, just because, as an audience, you start to think about it.

And one of the other giant problems with the film is that we never really get a strong sense of this as a great, happy couple. Vaughn is charming in the meet cute (which feels a lot like a reshoot meant to fill the hole I just mentioned), but he is a charming jerk, hitting on Aniston while she is on a date or with a boyfriend at a baseball game. And there is something of a Bill Murray thing there, but Murray was not as physically intimidating as Vaughn and not as physically attractive. And there is no real establishing of Aniston as being unhappy with her uptight guy, though his outfit is, apparently, meant to get us to forgive Vince his trespass. But you know, a girl who gets picked up by a guy at a Cubs game while on a date, and a guy who gets her seems sure to be good for a great month or two in bed, but our expectations of a strong relationship are not there. And yet, by the end of the credits, they have bought a condo together.

Is this young woman with art world aspirations really buying a condo with a guy who won't pick anything up and won't help with the dishes in the first months after they move into the condo? And then, is she pining for him? That's sad really. Hell, we don't even know whether the sex is all that good. But either way, she is so willing to settle for less that it makes it hard to sympathize with her. And he is such a slug that it makes it impossible for us to root too hard for him.

The truth is, with all of that said, we want them to work it out because we like Jen and Vince no matter what they have done in the course of a story.

END SPOILER COMING

There was a highly publicized issue of how the film should end… that audiences wanted them to get back together and when they went and reshot the end to let that happen, the test audiences didn't like that either. I don't know the truth of all the steps, but this I can tell you…

They end up apart and then they run into each other and have a bittersweet reunion. And by the time they do meet, they both seem to have grown up a bit… and grown a bit more boring and afraid… and as an audience, we don't want to see them together. There has been too much acid under the bridge. And I can see that they thought this was a charming, bittersweet, Mike Nichols ending, but it's not. It's mostly bitter.

The movie crosses the line where these two are too mean to one another - for no real reason, remember - to even think that they will get back together and make it work. When he makes an attempt at getting her back in the third act and she just can't, we are in agreement. These two are not ready for a serious relationship.

END SPOILER OVER

But let's go back to the start of the film. It's wacky! He's a fast-talking bus tour guy in a business with his two brothers. (Vincent D'Onofrio is no less than brilliant in his small role as one of Vaughn's brothers.) Judy Davis suckles the scenery in every scene, going high camp, as does Justin Long, thrust into the Jimmy-Fallon-was-too-pricey role of the queeny art gallery assistant. And John Favreau is a very funny man's man pal, doing a raging deadpan throughout.

But there again is a good example of what is wrong with this movie, even though the intentions were so good. The female answer to Favreau's character is Joey Lauren Adams' best friend to the Aniston character. And it is truthful to the stereotypical difference between men and women… he is gruff and simple and she is nurturing and wise. But the counterpoint is never really played. And while Vaughn's character stupidly follows much of Favreau's character's advice, Aniston follows almost none of Adams'. Again, maybe this is real. But it's not good drama. And it's not a good dramatic structure for a comedy.

And it speaks to the inherent problem with this idea. Most relationships fail. A movie about a relationship failing is not interesting, especially not for a comedy.

And the gags have to make sense in the overall scheme of things. You have seen the scene of Ms Aniston walking through the apartment naked after getting a wax job. Cute. She is making him want her. But in the logic of the movie, sex barely exists. The advice to do this is nonsensical. He has no lack of interest in bedding her. He just doesn't want to clean up after himself.

Even the scene in the bowling alley that you have seen so often. It seems kinda' funny cut for the trailer or TV spot. But in the movie, it is really mean. She forces their friends to make a choice right then. And they choose her. When a couple is mean to one another, it can pass. As soon as you include your friends, it's pretty much over.

And in the bigger picture, where is the win in this story? Are either of them better for the experience? Is there any comeuppance for their matching selfishness in splitting up over nothing? What have they lost? Did she make him feel smarter? Did he loosen her up?

But there is the rub. If we feel these things, it's not a comedy anymore. If we don't, it's a bad comedy.

People aren't going to hate this movie. These two actors and a great supporting cast have too much natural goodwill. But it's a shame to see it miss so badly. It could have been great fish or great fowl, but as it is, when it's not drowning, it's busy not quite flying. For me, this makes it the summer's biggest disappointment - though hardly the worst movie - so far.

E Me: What are your favorite challenging romantic comedies?

---

Week Of April 3, 2006 - Life In the Bubble - Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of April 10, 2006 - List Week - Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of April 17, 2006 - Review Week - Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of April 24, 2006 - Overlooked Week - Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of May 1, 2006 - Mystery Week - Tue / Wed / Fri
Week Of May 8, 2006 - How We Watch Week - Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of May 15, 2006 - Premature Week - Oscar Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of May 22, 2006 - B-13 Mon / Inconvenient Wed / Fri