This Is 40

[MacGuffin]

'This Is 40' director says joke about child murder stays

Director Judd Apatow has refused to remove a joke about child murder from his new film "This Is 40" following the Connecticut school massacre last week.

In the filmmaker's latest movie, a sequel to his hit "Knocked Up," Albert Brooks' character says, "Line up! Line up for murder! Come on! Who wants to be killed?" while spraying his kids with a garden hose.

The children shout out "Murder me!", prompting the character to add, "All right. The kids are murdered. That will save us some money."

After 20 children were slain at Sandy Hook elementary school by suspected gunman Adam Lanza, Apatow was asked whether he would cut the line out of the movie - but the director insists the joke will stay.

He tells TheWrap.com, "I wrote this script two years ago. That line is spoken by a sarcastic father kidding with his children. In light of recent events, I understand if some people might make an unfortunate association or put it in a context in which it was not intended."

Several film premieres, including "Django Unchained," "Jack Reacher" and "Parental Guidance," as well as episodes of "Family Guy" and "American Dad," have been scrapped following the tragedy, which claimed the lives of 20 school children and six staffmembers.

[BB]

That scene sounds like a real knee-slapper. Good thing he's keeping it.

[Sleepless]

I read something a couple of days ago about studios and TV networks postponing shows due to Sandy Hook. The article made the argument that how can it be that something is inappropriate following Sandy Hook, but it's suddenly appropriate again two or three weeks later? Point being, maybe we should reassess what is actually appropriate or not regardless of recent cultural context. A discussion for another thread, I know. Still, I come down on the side of Apatow is a dick in this instance.

[Ravi]

I can't wait to feel the air sucked out of the theater when that scene plays out. Maybe he should take it out for the theatrical release and reinstate it for the extended cut, which is coming anyways.

Without the context of Sandy Hook the scene doesn't sound offensive.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I listed to Slate's Spoiler Special on this movie today, and that scene sounds par for the course, i.e. boring and unfunny.

[matt35mm]

I was pleasantly surprised by how well this movie worked for me. I think that all the criticisms that will be levied at this movie are all things that I could easily have been bothered by, as well. For some reason, that didn't happen. I got swept up in it.

[matt35mm]

The more I think about this movie, the more I like it. I think the main criticism being thrown at it is that it's "unfunny." It's true that a decent amount of the jokes don't land. Sometimes it seems like the movie is taking a time out to do a comedy bit... BUT! There are also many times where the humor is successfully weaved into the drama or into the characters--it's not as HAHA funny, but it's also something that movies rarely try to do.

The main thing that sticks with me is that it really is one of the more emotionally honest movies I've seen lately. Yeah it's about "white people problems," but so are most movies and they don't do it as honestly and so knowingly. I'm fascinated by the use of real family and friends. I feel like this movie captures love in a family so well. This movie is packed with real love, and is an expression of that love, and it's ballsy in how openly it's putting the way that they all feel about each other in that family onto the screen.

I like that it's long and dense. It's almost more of a domestic drama than a comedy.

No one else is really making movies like this and I just find myself wanting to defend it when I hear people say, "Psh, too long, wasn't funny, white people problems." I found it to be insightful, honest, loving, thoughtful. Yeah it's hit-and-miss in some places, but man it's aiming for something that no one else is aiming for. And the parts that are good are good enough to really stick with me. It worked its charm on me.

[Sleepless]

I'll be honest, this didn't really appeal to me from the get go. Based on that, it's easy for me to agree with the haters, and simply ignore this. But I also agree with Matt, too much of these "white people problems" criticisms are thrown around on this board without any real effort to just look at the film for what it is, and ask did it deal with these "white people problems" in an insightful manner then, if those are the problems the film is intend on dealing with?

Still not interested in seeing this in particular, but I'd be interested to know how it compares to Funny People? (I though that was awful)

[Ghostboy]

Oof. I could barely sit through this.

[matt35mm]

I've been rooting for Judd Apatow without ever totally loving his movies. But I think he's got a particular kind of ambition and large-heartedness that I rarely see in comedies. (There may be saccharine moments put into comedies to placate the audience, but that's not what is happening in an Apatow movie)

While watching THIS IS 40, I kept thinking of Ingmar Bergman but not being totally sure why. It's not stylistically similar, obviously. I've realized since that there is a similarity between Apatow and Bergman in that they're unironically and unflinchingly looking into their own existential concerns, and they're working with people that they're close to (Bergman was very close with his actors, even having affairs with them and fathering a child with Liv Ullmann, and he wrote his roles FOR them). It is intensely personal filmmaking.

FUNNY PEOPLE is an interesting movie, though I don't love it, but that's mostly because it seems to abandon what makes it unusual and specific and moves toward a generic "win your ex-girlfriend back" story. But signs of Apatow's ambitions are there, and it's even shot by Janusz Kaminski, which signals to me that Apatow wants to think outside of the comedy-movie box. Similarly, THIS IS 40 is shot by Phedon Papmichael, who usually shoots dramas.

There are folks like Alexander Payne who are making "dramadies," but Apatow's balance of things are different, and they're also more personal. Someone like Payne is a storyteller. Apatow is not a very good storyteller, and I don't think he's interested in telling stories, and his process involves writing down individual scenes and cobbling together a movie out of that. It's part of why a lot of folks don't like him. Also, I will admit, the jokes in his movie aren't that funny.

So, why would I be interested in this filmmaker who isn't a good storyteller and is making comedies that aren't that funny? I think it comes down to his urge to delve into his own life and his own concerns and put them quite directly up on the screen. Nobody fucking does that and I really love him for it. It's all connected with the amazingly large heart he seems to have, which is evident in how many careers he's helped to create by saying, "I like you and I want to help you." I can feel the same large heart watching THIS IS 40, wherein he's saying, "I don't know you but I'm going to share my life with you."

If the idea of this movie does not appeal to you, then the experience of watching it is not gonna be great. I obviously love the dude and am cheering him on as he tries to do what he hasn't done totally successfully yet. In that spirit, watching THIS IS 40 was fucking great. I think it's a better movie than FUNNY PEOPLE. Critics are complaining about the low stakes of the movie and how all the suffering is linked to white middle-class privilege, which I am usually first to complain about, but in the case of this movie it needs to be there because it is about existentially examining that sort of life. The conflicts are internal, not external. I'm not watching the movie and hoping that their money problems will be solved, because yeah, fuck their money problems. It's a movie about meeting your 40-year-old self not recognizing that person, so it's existential not in the "Who Am I?" way, but in the "I know who I am, but who the fuck is this person in the mirror?"

The movie worked for me but it's not gonna work for people who are fighting against what Apatow is interested in doing or for people who expect it just to be a goofy comedy. But as I said, the more I think about it, the more I like it. This is a movie that's gonna stick with me.

[Kal]

I love everyone involved with the movie, which made me want to love it. At the end I keep feeling like Apatow peaked with his first movie and every movie after that started getting worse.

This has some great scenes. Some of them are really honest and well written, some are really funny, some are emotional, but at the end of the day the story is just too over-dramatic considering that they are indeed 'white people problems' and it seems like they overreact constantly and then everyone is fine 5 minutes later.

SPOILERS

It just doesn't sit with me that the movie starts with their birthday and they talk about the party they're having in a few days. The whole movie goes by and what it seems to be weeks or even a month, but then the movie ends with the party. Did all that shit happen in just 4-5 days? I don't get it. Something seemed off with the timing and everything that went on in such a short period of time.

[matt35mm]

SPOILERS

It just doesn't sit with me that the movie starts with their birthday and they talk about the party they're having in a few days. The whole movie goes by and what it seems to be weeks or even a month, but then the movie ends with the party. Did all that shit happen in just 4-5 days? I don't get it. Something seemed off with the timing and everything that went on in such a short period of time.

Yes, this is part of why I said that Apatow is not a good storyteller. I don't think he's interested in telling stories, and the balance of things in the timeline are never quite right. But that's fine with me, because he's up to something else entirely and I find what he's up to interesting. He could certainly hone his craft, but that doesn't bother me because he's winning me over with the unique kind of personal filmmaking that he's doing.

I can agree that he peaked in terms of crafting a cohesive and pleasurable movie with THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN, which is a "comedy with heart," but is not really meaningful in any way. KNOCKED UP has a little bit of dealing with growing up and accepting parenthood, which starts tapping a little more deeply into Apatow's actual feelings and experience. FUNNY PEOPLE is a really interesting movie that is quite personal and pulls from a lot of his experience, and it just ends up faltering because of Apatow's inability to hold it together as a movie--but it's a signal of the direction he's going in (and if you like his first movie best, then it's a signal of what he's moving away from). But I'm more interested in this direction he's moving in, and so, for me, THIS IS 40 is my favorite of his.

Anyway, I can see that I'll be the lone defender of this movie on this board. It's clear that most people are not digging on this movie very much, or are just not interested. But I'll continue to sing its praises. I'm okay with that.

There are a lot of things in this movie that I can't defend, but I find Apatow's impulses fascinating, and refreshing in this sea of cynical, distant, safe, overly-considered filmmaking. There's a purity and honesty here that I rarely see. Nobody else would make a movie like this, and maybe for good reason, but fuck good reason. I want to see movies that nobody else would make.

[Gold Trumpet]

Fascinating to read some of the early reviews on this site. If I had to forecast a site's general take, I didn't expect some of the criticisms. I enjoyed the movie. That being said, it was hardly laugh out loud funny. For me, Apatow is getting comfortable with his style of comedic writing. It's the opposite of The Hangover in that it isn't going for laugh out loud stunt laughs, but it wants you to relax, like the characters, and generally just enjoy the ordeals they're going through.

Still, I think Apatow is still trying to transition beyond his 40 Year Old Virgin self and occupy a more dramatic sense. This is 40 reminds me more of Funny People in its dialed down approach. The tone is just more appeasing and less serious. It feels like Apatow read the criticisms of Funny People and how it was trying to reach too far dramatically so he kept in the general approach but lightened up on the tone. In that way, a lot of serious situations remain, but the edges are less rough and more of a balance between 40 Year Old Virgin and Funny People. Of course, even as I say this, I feel like I am replying to something very subjectively.

[©brad]

... it seems like they overreact constantly and then everyone is fine 5 minutes later.

I kept saying this while watching it the other night. Paul Rudd will complain about money in one scene, then be happy as a clam planning a party in the next. Every 5 minutes a different conflict is swapped out for another. Oh no we're poor! We're getting old! Our teenager is acting like a teenager! We're sexually frustrated! Our parents are abusing us! Oh wait I forgot we're still poor!

I also didn't understand Paul Rudd's character. So he's basing his entire career/label on one geriatric has-been? How was that ever going to work? And his big career revelation in the end is "huh, Ryan Adams. Maybe I should sign more people." LOL. 

The movie had its moments but nothing felt new. Apatow covered all this in his other stuff, particularly Funny People. The 'let's have a drug-fueled heart-to-heart in a hotel' scene felt like a direct lift of the mushroom hotel scene in Knocked Up. I do really enjoy Leslie Mann and I think his kids are hysterical but if he's going to continue on like this, his entire filmography will be a very expensive series of home movies.

[Alexandro]

I tried with this one twice and ended up falling asleep both times. too much unimportant stuff was given too much importance. and even though it's a very honest and emotionally naked film, the dynamic of having a 80% vs 20% radio of unfunny versus funny jokes really becomes tiresome after a while. there are few things more troublesome than having a comedy shoot out jokes in all directions all the time and never getting to that lough out loud place. all the characters talk with a half smile on their faces, as if they are joking themselves, as actors in a comedy having so much fun with the material they can't even keep a straight face. the problem is, well, is not that funny. and the smirk thing makes it very hard to take their problems seriously..."oh i'm having a terrible time again, but let me slip in another witty remark about life while I smile a bit because this is a movie"...

I think the Bergman comparison is apt, but he was way, way, way, way, waaaaaay more disciplined than this, even in his lesser efforts.