MovieChat Forums > Real Life (1979) Discussion > Does anybody else find this kind of dist...

Does anybody else find this kind of disturbing?

posted 15 years ago by preppy-3
14 replies | jump to latest

Just saw it for my first time on TCM. Yes--it was ahead of its time. Yes--it parodied reality TV years before it happened. But, aside from a few moments, I found this extremely unfunny. Brooks comes across as pathetic and pretty sad and the lengths he goes to (especially at the end) to make this exciting are actually pretty disgusting. I realize some might find this hysterical but I found it disturbing, sick and pretty unfunny. I can see why this is still pretty much unknown.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Petronius Arbiter II 15 years ago

As the guy said who introduced Lenny Bruce to the Carnegie Hall crowd: It's not "sick humor." It holds up the mirror to the sickness that is in our society.

If you find it "kind of disturbing," it's because you're supposed to find it kind of disturbing. How one translates "kind of disturbing" into "raucously funny--" Well, darlin', that requires a certain kind of Jedi mind trick that only some people know how to perform.

Trust me, if you really get the joke, it's funny. But you wouldn't find it so if somebody had to explain it to you. Maybe one of these days, you might want to try watching the movie just one more time... Maybe think about some of the things that happened to the Loud family while you're at it...

"I don't deduce, I observe."

[–] preppy-3 15 years ago

I don't see how the Loud family has anything to do with this other than the same concept. I was too young to see the original documentary but I did see the one where they revisit the family 10 years or so later. Perhaps you think the son admitting he was gay (which was shocking in the early 70s) and the wife telling her husband she wants a divorce was funny--but I don't. Guess I have no sense of humor.

[–] Petronius Arbiter II 15 years ago

Nah, cheer up, bunkie. Not getting the joke at the core of this movie doesn't necessarily mean you have no sense of humor. It does, however, mean you didn't get the joke.

...And I'm still not a-gonna spoil it for you by explaining it. Watch the movie again sometime. Maybe you'll get it.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

[–] toymaker 15 years ago

I never saw the original documentary either--how did we get onto that subject? Must have been the post that got deleted. Anyway, my take on the movie is this: the elements that are sick and disturbing are quite deliberately so. What we have here is a very sharp-edged parody that at the time was aimed quite squarely at hollywood and the notion of exploitation media.
Movie Brooks (as opposed to the actual Albert Brooks) is a narcissistic, neurotic manipulative media monster who is putting this family through hel because he sees in them a sort of chance to get a normality of his own--it doesn't take long to see that he is out of touch with what most of us would call real life. The family is meant to be his proxy--he wants to experience (through them) all the sorts of things that, to him, are closed doors. Think of the bit at the end, when he's on his knees, clinging to them, begging for their Christmas. He sees the door to a normal life--even a simularcum lived by proxy--closing in front of him, and when it does indeed close, the last tie with the real world goes, and he abandons himself to the nonreality of his beloved movies.
Now, how the hell is this funny? You've heard there's two kinds of funny: funny ha-ha and funny strange? I would like to add a third kind, funny ouch. The squirming uncomfortable laughter that zeros right in on our own insecurities and prods those bits of character we don't like to think of. It's not laugh out loud stuff, but it is cathartic, and laughter becomes a release, a safety valve. Lots of Brooks' comedy is based on this idea of tension and release, tension and release. We laugh at the obvious stuff, sure: the deft parody of the montage, the ridiculous cameras, but we also laugh at the family's awkwardness and obvious discomfort. We chuckle nervously at the outrages bad judgement cropping up again and again...we even laugh at the end, as Movie Brooks runs through the house in a clown suit, setting fire to the place. We laugh because it is horrible and ridiculous because we shouldn't and because sometimes there is nothing else we *can* do.
Uhm....okay. I didn't mean to sit down and write a book--specially since my omlette's getting cold. But that's my take on things. Maybe it helps a little bit?

[–] preppy-3 15 years ago

Yeah--it does. I understand what you guys are saying. This kind of humor is very difficult to pull off. Look at the movie "Very Bad Things". That's VERY disturbing and full of pitch black humor. It gets laughs out of murder, bodily dismemberment and people being crippled but (for some reason) I DID find that funny. Maybe the fact that this looks like a documentary and seems real made it too uncomfortable to fully enjoy. As I said I DID find parts of it funny. Maybe I should see it again as an earlier poster suggested.

[–] Bry-2 14 years ago

I think this is possibly the least of Brooks' films. I much prefer Lost in America and Defending Your Life and Mother.

But it's always good to fill out a writer/director's oeuvre.

And as someone once said about the Marx Brothers' movies, even the worst Albert Brooks comedy is better than most of what passes for comedy these days.

--If they move, kill 'em!

[–] Dave1136 13 years ago

I am the biggest Albert Brooks fan! I love him in anything! I saw all of his films at least twice.......but this was embarrassing! Not only Albert but the story, the direction, EVERYTHING! I understood this sorry humor but it did nothing for me!

I agree with you 100%!

Thank you for your post!

[–] Wood-20 13 years ago

I enjoyed this film. It wasn't perfect, but since I am familiar with Brooks' train of thinking, I picked up on his jokes throughout. I find it hard to believe people were disturbed by a parody. It was all in good fun, and it was funny.

[–] jztzt 11 years ago

I didn't like the film either. But it looks like you like it even less.

The film started off well with its quasi-documentary approach (such as the town hall meeting and the audition scene). It had a freshness to it as evidenced by its spontaneity and free form style. I like its satire on subjects like studio politics and the sacrifices some people make to become famous (corrupts family dynamics). There isn't much of a plot but essentially consists of a series of gags and skits, most of them mildly funny. A lot of the situations and jokes are exaggerated and ridiculous.

Towards the middle, the situations became mundane, tedious, and slow-moving at times. Also, the Brooks character became intrusive after awhile. He was purposefully self-destructive, manic, neurotic, selfish, exaggerated, sarcastic, narcissistic, and cruel. But he painted his character in such an unsympathetic light that he became hateful, tiresome, depressing, and annoying. He wore out his welcome. The film focused too much time on him to the point that it sort of became a character study. More time should have been spent on family dynamics, bonding, or commentaries of family life. The film would benefit from having having more amusing, inspired, and funny moments and less on the scientific studies (are parodies themselves), film-making process, and studio politics. As the family crumbled, it became kind of depressing and a bit hard to watch.

"...sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.” ~ Cool Hand Luke

[–] jackiefoxybrown 11 years ago

I thought this movie was funny & very likeable.

[–] sumankey13 10 years ago

It's ~supposed~ to be "kind of disturbing"! it hit its mark

[–] Oliver-50 8 years ago

I think 'Real Life' has lost some of the edge and cleverness that made it so absurd and inspired in 1979. This was a biting satire of many things, including narcissistic Hollywood types, but it's no longer as potent because we've been bludgeoned with all kinds of "reality TV." This was way ahead of it's time, but unfortunately I don't think it holds up very well.

Like someone said earlier, this falls into the "sick funny" category; a film that is almost painful in it's depiction of unhappy people. Just look at how pathetic and narcissistic the Brooks "character" is, living alone in a big house, desperately wanting to live vicariously through this family's mundane existence, believing that whatever is happening is "real."

It's a wickedly smart movie, but not a laugh-out-loud comedy.

I know who I am! I'm the dude playing a dude disguised as another dude!

[–] henrimaine 8 years ago

I just watched Real Life for the first time and my initial reaction was: the movie had a genius idea but it didn't use this idea to the full extent. While watching the movie, I was thinking: why are they focusing so much on Albert Brooks and his attempts to control the family; why aren't they showing more of the "real life" the family and other townspeople are living?

Then I learned about the earlier documentary American Family (1973). It explained to me the direction the movie Real Life was taking. The makers of Real Life probably assumed that viewers would be familiar with American Family, so they wanted to focus more on the process of creating this sort of reality TV, rather than the documented reality itself. It was somewhat strange that the cameras were also in Brook's house and in the production meeting, but that allowed the filmmakers to show the backstage of the show as part of the same show.