MovieChat Forums > Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World (2006) Discussion > 98 minutes of meta-humor

98 minutes of meta-humor

posted 16 years ago by ryancorn
20 replies | jump to latest

I have a theory that this movie is more than anything anyone here is alluding to. I believe that the actual premise is that the movie is funny because it is unfunny in its attempt to satirize comedy. There are a few hints, all of which point to this fact in a tautological manner. For instance, right after the show in India, the audience's intelligence is insulted and, in the next scene, the words "perhaps this is more than it seems" are spoken. The hamfisted manner in which the satire itself is performed is the actual joke.

If I'm correct, then this is one-upping Andy Kaufman. The problem is that, while a treat to discover, the joke doesn't exactly warrant 98 minutes worth of mirror-in-mirror contemplation just for a chuckle. It would be, however, a fine work of art.

Of course, I could simply be giving this movie too much credit. It's been years since I've seen another of Brooks' films, and I don't recall them being of the same caliber as what I'm proposing, here. Of course, his entire career could be part of the joke, culminating in this movie.

[–] jayraskin1 16 years ago

Yes, it is definitely meta-comedy.
The comedian Brooks plays is totally clueless. The comedy does not come from his being funny, but from his total lack of self-awareness that he isn't funny.

[–] cbartal 16 years ago

I kind of gather from your posts that you are couching this film as meta-humor as a nice way of saying it's not funny.

I strongly disagree.

Sure, Brooks comedy routines fall flat, as they would in India (or in the US today).

But this scene comprises about 10 minutes of the film.

The rest of the movie is chalk-full of hilarious awkard human interaction.

It's Curb Your Enthusiasm without Larry's sense of privilege. Not to mention that Brooks was exploring this territory 20 years earlier in films like Modern Romance.

[–] alfonzoburha39 16 years ago

I agree with the OP's description of this as a meta-comedy. I think its also a bit of a joking commentary on the cluelessness of american foreign policy. In the sense that the current foreign policy assumes that we know what muslims/rest of the world want and disregard the fact that their are differences in culture between most groups in this area of the world. the first joke in this movie is of course the title, looking for comedy in the muslim world. Only maybe 10 mins of the movie takes place in a muslim country, while the bulk of it deals with referring to hindus as muslims.

[–] cbartal 16 years ago

Leaving all the political implications aside, this is still classic Albert Brooks.

There are countless small scenes of confusion amid human interaction.

This is Brook's speciality.

To cloak this film in some grand political statement misses the beautiful smallness of the film.

This isn't a knee slapping comedy. Knee slappers are generally sophmoric and lose momentum upon repeated viewings.

Looking is subtle. I've seen it at least 20 times and there are 20 or 30 moments that endear me to Brooks more and more each time.

People center on the "big show". The big show was embarrasing. It was meant to be embarrasing.

John Carroll Lynch was a major comedic force in this film. As were all the other players.

To underplay the roles of all these wonderful performces in favor of the political statement is to miss Brook's point entirely.

[–] KGotschall 15 years ago

I recently stumbled across a film in which Albert Brooks acted, and fell in love with his acting style and wit.

So I rented 'Defending Your Life' and may be in danger of becoming a fan...

From most of the posts on this board, I thought maybe this one wasn't worth renting, but from your comments here, it seems like I might 'get it.'

Any other brooks films worth watching?

They're so flamboyant and melodramatic, it just makes me want to set myself on fire.

[–] cbartal 15 years ago

Modern Romance is brilliant.

Lost In America is great.

Those are the mainstays.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Derek-18 15 years ago

If you're right...and admittedly you may be...then it still wasn't worth it.

If it was brilliance, then it was not entertaining. I prefer art when it achieves both.

[–] cbartal 15 years ago

Well I think it was brilliant and entertaining. It is a film that I watch over and over. I wouldn't watch it if I didn't think it was entertaining.

To each his own.

[–] johnjohnson68510 14 years ago

I agree, this movie was brilliant and funny. I get his humor, step by step. The standup scene, which so many people are dogging, was _in reality_ really good. Brooks is a fifty dollar bottle of wine, and most people just complain about the price. I'm know I'm supposed to say "in my opinion" but I don't want to. I don't think it is opinion, I think it is perception; and most people's instruments just aren't set on subtle. Meta-humor is a great way to describe it.

[–] Bank_of_Liberia 14 years ago

The thing with humour and comedy is that if no one laughs - it's not funny, period. If one is too subtle, beyond the point of perception, to where one needs to explain their joke, the comedy is lost.

Brooks is more like an expensive pate: It comes off as a delicacy, but in the end tastes more like dog food than anything else.

"No more pull-ups."
"Nice."

[–] johnjohnson68510 14 years ago

Well, try subtle, You might acquire a taste for it.

[–] Bank_of_Liberia 14 years ago

I like subtle. Subtle is great. Unfortunately, I just didn't find this film humorous in the least.

We need more ads.

[–] skohl632001 14 years ago

This film has me laughing from Penny Marshall's voice over the opening credits; re; Brooks coming in to read for the lead in her remake of "Harvey".
"Albert Brooks? Do we want to go jewish?"

[–] cbartal 14 years ago

Well I laughed, so I guess it's funny, period, right?

Look, Bank, I respect your opinion. Looking for Comedy isn't slapstick, yet it isn't subtle either.

I don't know why it even needs to be declared a comedy and judged as so.

The humor in this film is in the small situations that Brooks is placed in. The short conversations with the his assistants, the interaction with the theater operator at the college, the confusing interchanges all around. Brook's tired old act falls flat because it is supposed to fall flat.

I didn't laugh at this film the first time I saw it, but I knew it had potential. Small situations yield long lasting results.

[–] ryancorn 13 years ago

From what I see here, the people who like this movie are all claiming that others don't "get" Brooks's act. My entire point was that the satire in this movie is so heavy-handed that it must itself be the joke, or else there is none at all. The only other possibility is that this movie caters to an audience so self absorbed that they laugh at the mere possibility that someone could be so clueless as Brooks - or their fellow theatergoers, I might add, if they are incapable of discovering the 'subtle' humor of Brooks's playing a bad comedian.

Again, I will state this in no uncertain terms: I understand that Brooks is supposed to be acting as a poor comedian and inept ambassador to American culture. I think it was so obvious, in fact, that it was unfunny, unless the entire point was showing the audience that modern satiric humor is bland and stupid. Someone compared this to "Curb Your Enthusiasm" without Larry's sense of entitlement. I think this is an apt comparison, but to an entirely different end - Brooks is saying that without its gimmick, "Curb" and other works of its ilk are actually unfunny. Whether he is successful (or actually unsuccessful at making an artless clone of "Curb" and others) I shall never truly know.

Think of David Foster Wallace's essay on the tyranny of irony; was Wallace being sincere, or was the joke on us for taking anything seriously? Either way, that sort of mise en abyme humor is simply intellectual masturbation.

[–] cbartal 13 years ago

Brooks cloning Curb? It is the other way around ryancorn. Albert Brooks made Modern Romance in 1979 when Larry David was no where near a camera. David owes a great debt to Brooks, and I'm sure he knows it.

And as for some type of comedy that others just don't get, I have never said that. I think he is funny. You don't. Fine. I don't claim any superiority. I just think the film is subtle and funny.

"Think of David Foster Wallace's essay on the tyranny of irony; was Wallace being sincere, or was the joke on us for taking anything seriously? Either way, that sort of mise en abyme humor is simply intellectual masturbation"

Talk about intellectual masturbation. I think you epitomize it ryancorn.

[–] carlsez_1 13 years ago

As one sound engineer said to the other in Modern Romance: "Funny".

[–] Yorick-6 11 years ago

I disagree. This movie was funny because it was funny. I saw it with an Italian, when it was recommended to us by an American and a Pakistani. We all have different tastes and levels of understanding films, and all found it hilarious. Though when they recommended it to us, they did say it was very dry.

I think perhaps that's the problem - a lot of people don't particularly like dry humor? I love dry humor so I loved this movie. I haven't seen it in a few years, but often think back to a number of scenes in the movie and laugh. Brooks isn't trying to be "unfunny" - he's trying to be funny, and he succeeds.

[–] emncaity 11 years ago

That is the best four-word review (your thread title) I have ever read.

As somebody who used to write reviews for publication, I am saluting you big-time. I think you nailed it.