Have you heard the one about the magician and the comedian who decided to make a film. . .?

Comedian Paul Provenza and libertarian magician Penn Jillette (sans Teller) have created a first -- a feature-length documentary about a single dirty joke. But not just any dirty joke, the most depraved, disgusting joke of all time -- The Aristocrats. Yet while the idea is interesting, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. First things first -- Filmbrain doesn't find the joke particularly funny. Classic setup, amusing punch line, but the extended improvised middle is little more than an exercise in how creatively vile one can be. As someone in the film points out, society has changed tremendously, and the power to shock (or get a laugh) with mere vulgarity has weakened over the years. Riffs on shitting, bestiality, or anally fisting a child might be funny to some (yawn), but they are no longer shocking as fodder for the joke. It's the delivery that gets you laughing -- which explains why Gilbert Gottfried's apoplectic rants get some of the biggest laughs in the film. But to listen to somebody like Paul Reiser tell it -- you could almost hear the crickets in the screening room. Contrary to what Filmbrain had heard, the film is not simply a series of variations on The Aristocrats, but rather a history and analysis of the joke, as told by a cast of about a hundred. This is the first problem with the film -- it's too damn long. While it was perhaps generous of the directors to include just about every comedian in the known universe, do we really need to hear Carrot Top's or Rip Taylor's ruminations on the joke? You spend about a third of the film just marveling at the fact that some of these people are still alive (Larry Storch, Phyllis Diller), and that others still have careers (Emo Phillips). Of the comic geniuses that do offer some insight into the joke, there is a tremendous amount of overlap and repetition. There's only so much one can say about the joke, and it gets said time and time again. At half the length it might have made for a far more interesting (and funnier) film -- 90 minutes is just too much. The second problem with the film is that like The Aristocrats joke itself (which for the most part was just shared between comics), it's a bit too inside-y. Provenza and Jillette can be heard cracking up off camera, even at things that don't come off as very funny, and it is definitely guilty of casting a sycophantic eye on many of its subjects. (Filmbrain can only wonder what the film would have been like had somebody with even a hint of objectivity directed it.) Sure, there are plenty of funny moments in The Aristocrats, mostly by comics who take a unique approach to the joke -- i.e., Kevin Pollock doing his Christopher Walken imitation, or Sarah Silverman's turning it into a first-person account. Chris Rock, easily one of the funniest standup comedians working today, sort of writes off the joke by explaining that black comedians never had to worry about whether or not they worked blue -- there were no opportunities for exposure anyway, so what did they have to lose? A similar logic can be applied to today's comedians -- there's nothing dangerous about the joke anymore, nor are they risking anything by telling it on film. Gone are the days of seeing Lenny Bruce escorted off the stage in handcuffs for riffing on religion, sex, Jackie O, etc. And while hearing TV-friendly comedians tell a dirty joke might be amusing to some, the shtick grows old real fast. Judging by the almost unanimous praise on Metacritic, Filmbrain is clearly in the minority. But then again, his idea of hysterical is this, this, or this.

Comments

[Aaron Hillis]

If they ever decide to post my review at Premiere today, you'll see that I'm with you.

I wanted to yell at the screen, "Okay, okay, I get it! Either make me laugh consistently, or at least stop telling me why the joke is considered funny unless you're going to delve deeper already."

[Filmbrain]

I think Carina Chocano from the LA Times hits the nail right on the head: "There's something about professional comedians breaking down what's funny for civilians that gets annoying after a while."

[Aaron Hillis]

I agree with that, but I would also have been happy with a much-more-than-surface-deep deconstruction of the language of comedy and "crossing the line." With all those comedians involved in that kind of project, they could have really made fun of the analysis of comedy to boot.

[la_depressionada]

you ARE SO RIGHT. there's something about professional critics breaking down what's great movies for civ . . . oops my slip is showing.

on a more jolly note: i'd marry sarah silverman tomorrow.

[Flickhead]

As I don't read press releases, have never heard anyone ever make reference to "The Aristocrats" joke, and am woefully out of the loop when it comes to joke titles (other than "Who's on First?"), could you please enlighten me about this one?

Meanwhile, the best line of your review: "libertarian magician." For some reason, that cracks me up!

[la_depressionada]

Flickhead: I really liked the movie, but remember I am a sick sick girl.

[Todd]

I might have liked this film more if they maybe had hired a professional editor. Seriously, during each telling of the "joke", they must have switched from medium to close-up and back like 15 times. It was totally unnecessary and highly distracting. Why on earth would they slice the film up like that?

[burritoboy]

I find the movie to be indicative of the great decline of American comedy. First, there's an important reason why the joke is really not that funny - it's essentially a wholesale mis-use and misinterpretation of the purpose of sex jokes.

Sex jokes are in essence about overthrowing political conventions. This is why such writers as Machiavelli and Beaumarchais so readily focused on sex-capades as a central way of understanding (and reforming) politics. That's also precisely why Mort Sahl, Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor were such ground-breaking comics. American comedians previously had worked blue many times (not on TV or radio or movies - but certainly at nightclubs/vaudeville/etc) - Dean Martin's entire comedic schtick was how many women he had slept with. But the previous blue comedy was mostly lifeless and irrelevant until Sahl and Bruce and Pryor combined it with their political understanding, something that had largely been absent from American comedy previously.

The problem with current American comedy is that the lesson most comedians learned from Pryor et al was to work blue and outrageous - but NOT that they needed to be political and real. (I'm not using political in the sense of "make fun of the President's big ears or accent" here).

Thus, the joke is not really shocking precisely because (the vast majority of) these comics do not have a good understanding of where the current political/religious/cultural boundaries are anymore - again, precisely where Pryor and Bruce situated their comedy.

[Filmbrain]

Absolutely perfect analysis, burritoboy! That's exactly what's wrong with the joke (and the film for that matter).

I've been listening to a lot of Lenny Bruce over the past year, and my respect for him has grown tremendously. People just wouldn't have the patience for somebody like him today.

[burritoboy]

Yes, it's that these comics are, for the most part, actively failing to find where true outrageousness is. It's not that they're blue, it's that they're superficially blue.

This is not merely a problem, but it's the reason why American comedians are no longer anywhere near as culturally important as they once were - remember that Sahl, Pryor, Albert Brooks, Tom Lehrer, Nichols & May and so on were full members of the cultural (and political) vanguard. Going to the Hungry I or Second City was considered similar to going to the Blue Note or the art gallery.

This is also the reason why David Chappelle and Chris Rock have sky-rocketed to fame so quickly, especially as the remaining Black comedians have shifted from the Pryor/Gregory era to today's "take my wife"/"kids these days" routines that were old in the 1930s (even though Rock does some "take my wife" routines, these routines are part of his overall political structure).

So what would be my take on "The Aristocrats" joke? I'm no comedian, but my version probably wouldn't even touch sex, but probably focus on the nearly unmentioned areas of class / status / economics.

[Eppy]

I'm unclear what an "objective" documentary about a joke involving throat-fucking would be like, or indeed how it would be different from this one. I didn't get a sense that they cut the film based on who they liked more as people rather than on the quality of the material. (But then, I loved the film.) What exactly did you mean when you said "objective"?

I think it's a mistake to see this as anything other than a first attempt at addressing comedy in this way; the joke they're telling is a pure-pleasure sort of thing, and the way in which it can inadvertantly address other issues is the way you can start to look at other forms of comedy. The information's there, they just didn't spell it out all the time, and if they had spelled it out, it would've been a much worse movie.

Also, anyone who tries to do political comedy via standup these days is a fool. It can work, but there's so many better venues.

[Filmbrain]

A good portion of the film (too much in fact) is Provenza and Jillette paying lip service to fellow comics. What I meant by objective was simply somebody not at all associated with that world -- imagine if someone like Errol Morris or Werner Herzog had directed it. (Now THAT would be a film!) To have an insider do a film about an "inside joke" is kind of pointless. Watching The Aristocrats is like watching somebody else's home movies.

As for spelling it out, that's exactly what the film is guilty of.

I also don't agree with your opinion about political standup -- while it's great that there are venues like The Daily Show, we need a Bruce, a Sahl, or even a Bill Hicks now more than ever.

[Eppy]

Why do we need that exactly?

[la_depressionada]

that is a brilliant analysis burrito boy and filmboy you too make an excellent point about penn jillette and paul provenza. the quality of the filmmaking was indeed BAD. i, too, long for ascerbic social commentators, but i think in this joke there is a commentary on american taste.

one thing i felt the film was lacking was historical situation. i mean "the aristocrats", indeed even the term the sophisticates, is a quaint and vaguely 50sish term conjuring an era of tuxedoed standups, an era when even to sneer at the bourgeoisie and their aspirations was social commentary. (and i do understand the joke dates back to vaudeville, but i'd assert the theory holds, perhaps even more so.)

the sort of meta message of the joke is 3fold i think: 1: you can clean anything up by labeling it the aristocrats, ie america's valuing of the superficial, 2: the upper class, the aristocrats, has a sort of carte blanche to get away with anything, they have their own internal set of rules and 3: aristocrats despite the divine providence of their birth are at their core a rotting incestuous thing. of course the laugh relies on the juxtaposition of filthy and ludicrous, but i'd ask why that set up? i think to some extent it is a kind of nascent social commentary. then i suppose the response would be: okay, that was then and this is now.

to that i would answer, the funniest parts of the movie were the sort of deconstruction of the joke by say bob saget and gilbert gottfried and sarah silverman -- that cool rationalizing of this horrific behaviour i would also argue is commentary. like eg people defending the entertainment value of reality shows.

and you are both right that separating blue from politics devalues the bite of such satire, and only those of the most coarse and immature tastes laugh at poopie jokes. to that i would respond: so sue me.

[la_depressionada]

btw, i do believe this:

"my version probably wouldn't even touch sex, but probably focus on the nearly unmentioned areas of class / status / economics"

was addressed several times by several different commedians in the film.

as for cultural relevance, most comedians who do address these issues aren't particularly culturally relevant. i think we had a similar discussion re: movies from the 70s. audiences really aren't interested in that sort of commentary in this decade. (i assume if this war goes on they will be though.) for example, reverend billy who is probably as politically radical as a tom lehrer is largely ignored. (although that could be because he is not as skillful a comedian.)

[burritoboy]

"was addressed several times by several different commedians in the film."

That's true, but the vast majority of the comedians in the film did not, and that's the actual point of sex-jokes and, particularly, what I think the intended point of this particular joke was. Though I think even the original joke largely failed as well, even in the vaudeville era. It's not really a fundamentally great set-up in my opinion.

Of course, the underlying fundamentals of this joke are the exact same as many ancient sex-capadic comedies (see Machiavelli's Mandragola for one) - indeed, naming the joke "The Aristocrats" is likely a direct reference to this tradition. But, this joke is a poorly done echo of those originals.

Two films, which are fundamentally the same joke, but infinitely superior to this film, are Billy Wilder's "Kiss Me, Stupid" and George Axelrod's "Lord Love a Duck".

[hewhoisknownassefton]

Maybe, just maybe, you're wondering how come you're so privileged as to receive this communiqué. Well, answer is simple, thanks to www.google.com and through the search words "blog" and "'Lenny Bruce'", I found the u.r.l to your website.

After perusing your website, I conjectured you'd be interested in my post titled, "sweetest nookie". In this post, you'll find some notions about how Lenny, were he around today, might comment about the recent kerfuffle in the Middle East.

Anyway, you'll find the hyperlink to the post just below

toodles

http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/08/sweetest-nookie.html