Withdrawing room 4
It’s time for a new one.
Anybody seen Train Wreck? I haven’t, but I saw about half an hour of it (starting ten minutes in) last night, expecting to like it and being confounded in that expectation. I didn’t find any of the part I saw remotely funny, and I did find at least three scenes downright ugly as well as not funny – so I stopped watching.
I expected to like it because I’ve liked Amy Schumer in the past, but I didn’t know (until I Googled today) it was directed by Judd Apatow. I can’t stand Judd Apatow.
Jonathan Romney at the Guardian didn’t like it much.
The film slightly suffers from Apatow’s characteristic taste for improv and loose structure, never quite adding up to a coherent whole. The already controversial romcom redemption of Amy’s inner “nice girl” is a big minus. But just as troubling is the way that Amy, who staunchly declares herself indifferent to sport – the ultimate American heresy – is finally made to join in and cheer with everyone else. Enjoyable enough, and certainly not a trainwreck – it just doesn’t quite clear the platform.
Anthony Lane in the New Yorker dug deeper:
As in previous Apatow films, the temptations of togetherness eventually drown the siren call of the boudoir. Amy, though informed by Steven, “You’re not nice,” is nice enough to befriend a homeless man outside her apartment; her philandering is not that of a genuine free spirit but of a conscience wrenched out of joint by an equally faithless father (Colin Quinn), who now, as if paying for his sins, suffers from multiple sclerosis and resides in an assisted-living facility. Amy has a sister (Brie Larson), who has a husband and a stepson, and, fiercely though Amy mocks their domestic harmony, they have much to teach her, the end result being a long shot, late in the proceedings, of all four of them gathered for a group hug. And that, as it were, is Amy’s final instruction: “Be happy for me, fuckers.” So much for the promise of the title. “Trainwreck” sticks to the rails.
Train jokes ffs.
Anyway – I was somewhat baffled that anyone could think any of the part I saw was funny. I’m not talking a little funny but not funny enough, I’m talking not funny at all. I’m easily amused, and this thing didn’t raise so much as a smile.
I’m a sucker for Amy, so I enjoyed it. It felt somewhat fresh, even though it was really just a gender-flipped version of some standard rom-com storylines — which says something about how tired the usual rom-com stuff is.
This seems even worse than sitting through a Melissa McCarthy movie.
I haven’t seen “Trainwreck,” and so can’t comment on it. But I wonder if its alleged badness — for not being especially funny or funny at all and for its attitudes about women, sexuality, promiscuity, marriage, etc. — can be totally laid at the feet of director Judd Apatow.
Apatow’s strong commercial track record doubtless gave him control over the project and got it financed by a major Hollywood studio, Universal. Therefore, yes, if the movie is bad in whatever way or ways, the primary responsibility is surely his.
But Amy Schumer doesn’t just star in “Trainwreck”, she also wrote it as an original screenplay (which can be found online).
Apatow has reportedly been a longtime fan of Schumer’s comedy career, loved her script, and doubtless influenced its development.
However, though he generally at least shares the writing credits on the other movies that he has directed, Amy Schumer is the movie’s only credited writer. Her breakthrough to this credit (her first) on an expensive Hollywood production is highly unusual.
So if “Trainwreck” is an artistic trainwreck, it seems likely that she ought to share some of the blame for its ideas about women and sexuality that have drawn criticism.
Oh, definitely. The writing in the part I saw (from about 10 minutes in to about 40 minutes in) sucked.
Okay, now I feel like a plonker for defending him. Richard Carrier leaves FtB under a cloud. A bit too much, um, sex positivity, apparently.
@ ^
Or in other words, Happy Christmas Thunderf00t!
Oh, the other shoe dropped, did it?
Imagine my lack of surprise.
Carrier had, and I guess has, his place as an academic in his field. His skills in research and pedantry are useful. Unfortunately he never seemed able to translate his pedantry into elegant or easily readable prose.
In any case I’d stopped attempting to read him because he had begun to come across as a needy delinquent teenager trying to curry favour with the cool kids. On top of that, post his marriage break-up, I had pegged him as using poly as an excuse to go forth and shag as much as possible. Admittedly I had no rational basis for that, it was just a hunch.
The movement is better off without harassers.
I found Carrier’s writing to be unbearable. He’s very much into “claiming victory” as an argumentative tactic. I started reading some of his posts when I was curious about the whole Jesus-as-myth thing, and noticed how much he loves to declare that “I demolished all of so-and-so’s arguments,” and “Professor Whoever has no rebuttal to my thesis,” which… plainly wasn’t true.
And he certainly did not acquit himself well in his comments on FtB-B&W.