MovieChat Forums > Funny Ha Ha (2007) Discussion > This film.

This film.

posted 19 years ago by raphael-crawfordmarks
12 replies | jump to latest

I left this movie saying, "GodDAMN that movie sucked."

The friend who saw it with me was even less enamored with it. As we talked about it, I found myself taking a devil's advocate position, just for the sake of discussion, but slowly I realized that maybe I didn't hate this movie as much as I thought.

There is no plot arc. No narrative question to keep you engaged. It reminds me of 70's and early 80's indie flicks (Stranger Than Paradise comes to mind). Instead of creating suspense by showing a clear desire or goal that drives the main character, the audience is subjected to watching the characters go about their lives without any device that creates suspense. That narrative question is not "What's going to happen next?" but "Why are the characters doing (insert current activity) now?" It's much harder to make a movie of this type that is still interesting, as it requires an extraordinary ability for subtle storytelling. And Bujalski doesn't have that skill yet.

Upon reflection, however, there are a lot of things that Bujalski gets right. Several other posts have complained of the inarticulate, unintersting, mopey characters who stagger through post-college life without any real direction. They (seemingly) hate the movie because they hate the characters. I really disliked most of the main characters. But I realized after the movie, that the characters were perfect representations of many people who I know in real life (most of whom I also dislike). Like it or not, there is a large portion of the population who, through a mix of privilege, stupidity and sheltered upgringing, really are THAT annoying and incapable of articulating even basic ideas and emotions. This movie does a *stellar* job of putting this type of person on the screen.

What's more, the three main characters (Marnie, Alex, and Mitchell) are three variations on the inarticulate-bumbling-hipster-slacker-loser-mope who each deal (or not) with the challenges of living their lives in slightly different ways. It's interesting, after watching the movie, to think back on how each of those characters behaved throughout the movie, and to realize that (in my opinion) that the one who seems most like a loser (Mitchell) probably has the most redeeming qualities out of all of them.

As a character study of *certain types* of twentysomethings, this is actually a fairly successful and skillfully made movie. But the movie is not for everyone. First, it takes a lot of patience to watch. Second, viewers probably need to know a person or two who is like the characters in the movie. Lasty, and possibly most importantly, viewers need to suspend their annoyance with (and perhaps downright hatred of) the characters (and there will be plenty) and really examine them with a sympathetic eye, because these film portraits are very true to life.

[–] Limeginger 19 years ago

I agree that the portrayal was true to life. To a point. Most people like that are like that sometimes, and sometimes more animated or emotional. And although the script includes some animated repartee, the delivery is flat, droning, and monotoned. Marnie is described by others as being incredibly funny. She isn't. Either it's the writing or the acting, I'm not sure. She's neither droll nor kooky, and has no spark of humor or liveliness. And for someone that apparently depressed she never seems to really think or talk about anything very much, which seemed not very true to life.

[–] ja5599 18 years ago

"he audience is subjected to watching the characters go about their lives without any device that creates suspense."

The key word here is "device". Traditional dramatic structure (comedy, tragedy, three acts), symbolism, the use of symbols to anchor a story, all have their root in theatre and the oldest forms of storytelling. So isn't it refreshing to see someone tell a story in a way you haven't seen before?

And some of the best films that purposely strayed from traditional dramatic structure were made in the seventies (I don't know about the early eighties--Stranger Than Paradise did, actually, have a three act structure). Cassavettes is the most obvious example.

[–] crookedmouth2003 15 years ago

you can break with the conventions if you find reason to. i didn't see that here.

cassavetes this ain't.

[–] kalamazoo101 18 years ago

I hated the movie because I thought the movie sucked. I want to watch a movie to be entertained. This wasn't entertainment.

[–] rfeinberg-2 18 years ago

I'm not trying to be snarky, but maybe you should avoid independent films and save your money for "entertaining" blockbusters. I saw this one at home on cable - I will admit that if I'd paid to see it in a theatre I might have thought "Worth 5 or 6 bucks, not worth 8 or 9." Though the reviews I read beforehand did indicate that the movie didn't have a neat, tie-up-all-the-loose-ends resolution.

Basically, I thought it was realistic and funny. Well acted and well cast, except for Alex, who was a complete jerk - though perhaps that was the point.

[–] skervich 16 years ago

If this kind of crappola blows yer skirt up, there's a much better one out there: The Puffy Chair. But I still kind of hate it.

[–] paperstreetpress 15 years ago

yep, I like it. My friend bought this DVD and disliked it (but did not hate it or anything). I suppose for some who are used to a three-act structure and seamless classic hollywood editing, they might think this is a bad film. Anyway, like rfeinberg, I thought this film was funny and very realistic. Come on, that scene where she gets fired for asking for a raise--the way they shot it and Dollenmayer acting very deadpan (or maybe numb with shock) despite being sacked, was just so funny. Since my friend didnt like the DVD, she gave it to me! :D

[–] PassTheSeason 16 years ago

My problem with the movie is that no real effort appeared to be put into it. Yes, the characters (not the actors) are true to life and they do behave (in the script, if there was one) like real people, but the terrible acting and lack of action to make the movie even remotely appealing to the senses (is ADR really that evil?) make the movie feel like a lazy way of attempting to be artistic.

I'm all for indie flicks, and I usually love movies where characters wonder about their daily lives without any real plot device, but when no effort is put into the filming, it comes off feeling fake. Like here. Filmmaking is an art mainly dealing in illusions, the main illusion being to make the scenes feel real. Here, everything was so poorly done that it felt completely fake.

[–] BobMustgrave 15 years ago

This is a really well stated opinion. I found myself not loving it the first time either, although I really wanted to. There were parts I liked and smirked at, but I had a lot of problems with similar things that you brought up.

I was interested enough to watch it again though, and I really really liked it. Even on an entertainment level, I enjoyed it all the way through. Then, the third time (about a month later) I absolutely fell in love with every little nuance of the film.

I think it helps to A) know what you're getting into, and B) watch it in an engaged/analytic state of mind, where you can appreciate what the characters are doing or saying and why.

The movie Fargo by the Coen brothers is another one of my favorite movies to do that with; just watch it to appreciate the directorial and character choices and really enjoy the absurdity of them.

Definitely a sign of a mature filmmaker in my opinion.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] crookedmouth2003 15 years ago

first of all, yes he did do a good job of portraying what these people are like. and this film (and the rest like it) really are only for them. cuz i don't need to see them mope around.

but i disagree that its a large section of the population.

and if you don't have a story then don't waste my time. painters, photographers, sculptors, people creating art are telling story. this was a scholastic exercise, a resume builder.

we can knock george lucas (and i certainly have myself) for telling poorly written stories, but at least his movies had 'em!

[–] midgetman94 15 years ago

I think you get the film. It's not meant to be a joyride where you fall in love with all these characters. These are supposed to be real people. You might like them, you might not. Disliking characters shouldn't make a film bad. You don't like everybody you meet in life, do you? And to the person who said they wanted to be entertained, film can do so much more than that. Many of the greatest directors- Cassavettes, Ozu, didn't make films to "entertain." Sorry, but if your taste in film never gets beyond the "entertaining" films like Jurassic Park or Jaws then you're really missing out.