<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: That&apos;s not funny
    
      by Pat Graham</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=944006&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: That&apos;s not funny
    
      by Pat Graham</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:00:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#964265]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#964265]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[homo superior]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Okay, I'm adding this comment way late, but only because I can't track comments on the Reader's blog via cocomment. Not my fault. The reader is, once again, non-standard, and behind the curve. (no field for whoring my own site? for shame!)
    
    Pat: Did you search for my nick or something? wow, cool, but spooky.
    
    still, i like reading your stuff.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by homo superior]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:51:59 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#965597]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#965597]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[GBzz]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Yes, I was the poker-faced guy.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by GBzz]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:03:40 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#962925]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#962925]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[pat g.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[GBZZ--so YOU'RE the one who was sitting next to me! ...
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by pat g.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:40:11 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#949397]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#949397]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[GBzz]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA["It's also extremely perceptive in what it emotionally deconstructs and clarifies ... maybe even too much so."
    
    Pat, seriously, quit trolling. You were howling all the way through Caddyshack.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by GBzz]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:45:14 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#966559]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#966559]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Mike]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Pat Graham sounds like a total    blow-hard. How did you become a film critic if you can't relate to anyone?     And sleeping through movies? You need to get a sense of humor and try not to be so self - important.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Mike]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:03:41 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#967547]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#967547]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[pat g.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[PAULA again--re "numbness," "nitrous oxide," etc: there are lines that scan and/or evoke and lines that you actually mean, and the trick is making them one and the same * if it works for you, then by all means go with it ... maybe it'll work for someone else too
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by pat g.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:41:00 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#971933]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#971933]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Paula]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Sorry, this should read:
    
    regardless of how successful he is at the end of his career at achieving the clarity of purpose that would indicate a truly "great" director.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Paula]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:41:45 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#965700]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#965700]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[pat g.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[PAULA--if you must know, i don't like lubitsch and sturges very much either ... but more on that another time
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by pat g.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:37:54 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#962227]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#962227]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Paula]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Last comment: 
    
    I don't do this because I think anyone "needs" to hear anything in particular from me. I don't hang out on blogs on a regular basis, and I post even less, though I like reading them from time to time. When I do post, it's mostly out of exasperation. In this case, I'm tired of overly simplistic summations of the Apatow bandwagon and sickened by the politics-baiting that they incurred this summer. (BTW, your implicit dismissal of my opinion by using the words "highly manipulative ... PC castor oil" seems rather disingenuous considering your complaints re Knocked Up. But never mind.)
    
    I wrote "art house" specifically because the language of your original post is probably evidence of the worst impulses that such a knee-jerk categorization implies. Mainly that you find little filmic value to the "yackety yaks" and the "screaming, gesticulating" ferrety laffers that "rely on funny lines" and stand-up comics but somehow find "chortlesomeness" in a director whose subject matter would probably be subject to accusations of exploitation if she wasn't, you know, French. What would you have done with directors like Lubitsch and Sturges in their day? Yackety yaks and one-liners all ...
    
    But I realize that's a low blow. What if I used the language that you use, but to defend Apatow? "Maybe it's the very numbness of it, like a whiff of nitrous oxide in the dentist's chair: cleaned out and bracing, daring you to find subliminal riffs in an open, airy void&acirc;&#128;&#148;". Because oddly enough, it's fairly accurate set of terms for my feelings when I see certain scenes and hear certain lines. The giant box of porn in 40YOV is a void, filled with loneliness, exploitation, degradation both physical and emotional; the scene where they lock him up with the giant-screen porn is similar. Watching Leslie Mann's Debbie eviscerate Paul Rudd's Pete for not giving a shit about their children's safety is bracing, because it refuses to cover up the nastiness inherent in male-female relationships with a veil of "complicated, adult maturity". Apatow's work is difficult to hear sometimes, not afraid to show people being callous and mean and shallow and yet have the audaciousness to argue that these are not abnormally dysfunctional people, that real people who are perfectly nice otherwise can be this consistently nasty and immature. And it's from the mise-en-scene of constant, mind-numbing frustration and filthy talk that he's trying to navigate what it means to be fundamentally decent in this day and age. IMO that is the most fascinating thing about his work, regardless of how successful he is at the end of his career.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Paula]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:10:43 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#959238]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#959238]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[pat g.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[PAULA--you're right, it's too little compensation, though what "art house" has to do with anything i've been wrestling with eludes me--your pigeonhole, not mine
    
    unfortunately can't join you in your main line of argument, since even if everything you say is true, the end result is still pretty much watered down--maybe there's a "benign" (or at least socially innocuous) outcome, maybe there isn't ... * but since i can't be spokesman for positions i don't find consequential (not that my own are, but they are in fact the ones that engage/enchant me most), i can only applaud people like yourself (no, i'm not being sarcastic) who argue fervently and, yes, intelligently in support of the films that move and excite them * wish there were more who'd do the same, connecting these outcast genres to the culture of articulation--except i can't help wondering if there's not a kind of missionary impulse beneath it: "good" for you presumably benighted folks who, by your own estimate, "need" it ... but what does this have to do with you?
    
    but yeah, as a highly manipulative form of PC castor oil ("a spoonful of invective helps the medicine ...," etc), apatow's stuff does go down easy
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by pat g.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:39:44 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#967783]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#967783]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Paula]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Adam --
    
    I'm not offended as a feminist, I'm offended as a person who likes comedy. As for wasting my time, I see that you've made 4 posts in two hours, 3 of which add nothing to the conversation. Glass houses, buddy. If you're gonna be inebriated then there has to be some cooler shit you can do besides reading blogs you don't like.
    
    Pat --
    
    Re "complexity", Apatow strikes me as fairly simple but if most of the nation's critics insist on reducing him to funny ha ha (and yet still being able to ferret out the subtleties of, say, "Funny Ha Ha") then he must be the fucking David Lynch of dick joke movies.
    
    In any case, Apatow doesn't have much of a visual style to speak of so that's not really what appeals to me. I like that fact I find Apatow to be one of the most anti-chauvinistic, even anti-patriarchal writer/directors I've yet encountered. His focus is not on women, sure, but in the nerd trilogy his focus is on the extent to which men are also victimized by patriarchal notions of gender roles simply because they're surrounded by people and a general culture that allows, even condones their tendency to be stupid, macho assholes who don't know how to communicate their feelings and, in the name of the general "liberalization" of social etiquette makes them completely unconcerned with women's POVs. In this case, the most graphic moments are probably not meant to actually be funny, in case you didn't get that. There's a point where Apatow crosses the line, and if his intentions are murky to other people, for me they're crystal clear -- it's the violence inherent in the system that gives sanction to such behavior, and Apatow makes it sound appropriately painful even if in the context of something being sold as a "comedy" it also makes people laugh rather uncomfortably. Also, in their own crude way, the movies are making the point that men are concerned with many of the same things with which women are concerned in these "sitcom-worthy contrivances" (aka standard rom com tropes that have been told mostly from the POV of women). IMO that is radical mainstream entertainment in an age when what passes for feminism is Carrie Bradshaw & co haranguing about commitment. 
    
    In this case, Apatow's writing more than his direction that carries the day. When Leslie Mann's character starts going postal in front of the night club bouncer, she's speaking about the fetishizing of youth and the extent to which it inadvertently leads to the devaluing of motherhood and age, two things over which her character has been agonizing for the entire movie. When Steve Carell's Andy accompanies the teenage daughter to a safe sex counseling meeting and he meets a group of teenagers with overly developed sex lives and limited judgment, we see where the origins of his work crews' attitude to sex may begin. But Apatow doesn't stop there. When Andy starts to have serious questions regarding his own virginity, even the adults join in ridiculing him, thus making a small comment on the extent to which the presence of sex is such a given that you're considered freakish if you're not participating. This, in the end recalls the "drama" or farce of the teenage daughter's insistence on having sex ASAP, her own mother's accidental pregnancy and the extent to which Andy might actually be the most mature out of everyone simply because he refuses to be rushed. 
    
    Now, to do all this without resorting to Lifetime original movie mawkishness or worse, Bill Bennett's Book of Virtue-isms is striking to me. Because it's a hard balance. Sometimes he tips too much on the side of crude and overcompensates with sugary endings. But there are so many points in the middle that he does get it right. It's the kind of thing where it looks easy when done well but is easily forgotten when not, as evidenced by any Farrelly Bros. movie that isn't There's Something About Mary, much of Ben Stiller's oeuvre, or Wedding Crashers. I appreciate that skill of balancing tones, both (gross) comedic and melodramatic, along with a subtle side of social commentary. This may be too little compensation for your art house tastes, but it makes Apatow fascinating for me.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Paula]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:38:25 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#950238]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#950238]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Adam]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[You're right.  Didn't mean to be so hard on Pat.  I was considerably inebriated when I wrote that post.  Pat's blogs are obviously worth reading, despite all of the drawbacks.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Adam]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:35:11 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#951608]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#951608]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Reader]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I'm sure Pat is a bright guy, and that he has a lot to say. I just don't buy his act for a minute.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Reader]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:17:20 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#964290]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#964290]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Adam]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Paula - Wow!  Nice to see a feminist wasting her time on Apatow's sitcom-worthy contrivances.  More power to you!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Adam]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2007 05:05:29 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#958135]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#958135]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Adam]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Wow, I'm sorry.  I apparently submitted my comment way before finishing it. I confused Pat G. with George Lucas.  Weird.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Adam]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:50:02 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#970845]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#970845]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Adam]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Okay, a few things I wish to point out:
    
    First of all, I agree, Pat G's language is always cringe-inducing.  He uses fanciful, muddled verbiage to mask the fact that he isn't saying much.  After you read a few senteces in and understand his subject than he's forced to confessing talking about, you're forced to re-read, and then you realize Lucas isn't saying much. (Characteric example: Instead of writing "Don't you agree? "He writes "You agree, oui?"  That about spells it out for you.  That being said, I agree with him that contemporary comedies stink.
    
    2 comedies that made me laugh a bundle" Milos Forman's "The Fireman's Ball" and "Goodfellas".
    
    Yes, I think "Goodfellas" is hysterical.  If it is to be considered a truly great movie, it must be under the presumption that is a gangter comedy.  Ray Liotta's Skeletor laugh - 
    
    
    
    
    
    Nevertheless, I can't help but agree with
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Adam]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:46:31 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#958267]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#958267]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[pat g.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[PAULA--the problem with your theory is camera placement: close-ups invite complicity/identification, and those "complicated reactions" you're insisting on, which (though maybe you'd like to argue the point) mostly involve distance, aren't part of the commercial package * the camera TELLS you what it expects; if you're responding in a nontypical way, well fine, we all do that to some degree, but basic intentionality lies elsewhere
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by pat g.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:58:19 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#969849]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#969849]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Paula]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Say what you will re Apatow. Despite the amount of verbiage on the guy's nerd trilogy I've yet to see any critic besides maybe Stephanie Zacharek and Jim Emerson actually give them a fair intellectual take. Everyone's too busy, uh, "forcing" themselves to laugh or too busy cooking up pseudo-feminist, self-righteous tirades.  
    
    They're not anywhere near perfect, but the inner workings of a Judd Apatow coming-of-age picture might actually be too subtle for today's  film critics if they think that the main reaction they're being asked to have is to "laugh" (and/or get a little misty-eyed at the end). Unfortunately, Pat G.'s commentary here is probably a good example of how the "codes" of criticism for various kinds of movies sometimes break down when non-festival, mainstream genre filmmaking makes an attempt to elicit slightly more complicated reactions in the audience besides the usual "guffaw".
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Paula]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:10:17 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#964026]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#964026]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Elmer]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[I laughed at the Simpsons Movie.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Elmer]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:48:01 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#969775]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#969775]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Reader]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[pat g.--no other word seemed appropiate
    
    Why must your blogs be so muddled? It's bad enough we continue to get your pseudo intellectual posturing on all the obscure films you enjoy that nobody else does...just take a step back, slow down and re-type your posts. It's no wonder they won't let you write reviews the way you muddle your blogs.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Reader]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:02:56 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#951056]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#951056]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[pat g.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[SEAN--since 90 percent of the post is purely confessional, i don't see why you'd think i'm attacking the "fans" of any particular film ... unless it's a case of "love me, love my movies," which necessarily puts ALL of us in a critical bind
    
    READER--re "now there's a word!" ... umm, sorry, it's not
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by pat g.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:08:21 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#967598]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#967598]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Sean]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[what bothers me about about your post is not the subject matter - i think there's some truth to what you're saying - but the tone. attack the films, not the fans. stuff like "if the characters don't immediately turn into screaming, gesticulating ferrets, does it mean the "comedy" has somehow failed?" just makes me want to disagree with you because you sound like a screaming contrarion.
    
    but perhaps that's the problem with genre criticism. if you say a comedy fails, then you're in turn stating that anyone that laughs at is is perhaps a failure. i don't like the 'saw' films, and cringe whenever someone recommends them to me.
    
    but i'm not too sure why you're complaining. you list a good set of films you find funny - you only seem to deride three apatow films, in comparison to the examples you give at the close of your comment.    would that not suggest that there are perhaps more instances of 'your comedy' than 'our comedy'?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Sean]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:03:25 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#965272]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#965272]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Reader]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Your (tenious) --now there's a word!-- grasp of  English makes me nyuk, [nyuk], nyuck...
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Reader]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:41:12 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#963931]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#963931]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[pat g.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[SEAN--looks like both of us think A FISH CALLED WANDA's pretty funny ... so thanx for reminding me
    
    HOMO SUPERIOR--pretty much agree w/you on ROAD TRIP; i've been to bratislava ... almost
    
    IRA--obviously i'd LOVE to list lots and lots of stuff, but here's the problem: some of my favorite "comedy" bits aren't even in comedies--e.g., at least half a dozen in renoir's GRAND ILLUSION alone (e.g., roll call in POW transfer camp: guard--"boeldieu!"; boeldieu--"cap-TAIN de boeldieu!" ... delicious, that standing on ceremony--military, aristocratic, etc--in absurd circumstance), which is more than in all the works of apatow combined, but why reduce to "comedy" when it's doing so much else? * still, as an appetizer, here's a handful i'll always cherish (i think): THE AWFUL TRUTH (mccarey/1937), LOVE ME TONIGHT (mamoulian/1932), BEDAZZLED (donen/1968), PASTORALE (iosseliani/1979), REAL LIFE (brooks/1979), SWEET DREAMS (moretti/1982), SITTING DUCKS (jaglom/1983), IT'S A GIFT (taurog/1934) ... not to mention walsh's THE HORN BLOWS AT MIDNIGHT (in spite of the star's publicly slagging it forever), the horn-factory opener in douglas's SAPS AT SEA (must have a thing about horns ...), ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET [fill in the blanks], and a variety three stooges shorts, but only the ones with curly in 'em--nyuk, nyuk, nyuk ...
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by pat g.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:25:40 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: That's not funny]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#963871]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/09/19/s-not-funny/#963871]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Eric]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[...especially if you though MILLION DOLLAR BABY was a laugh riot.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Eric]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:40:07 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




