The Aristocrats

Directed by Paul Provenza
Year: 2005
IMDB / Wikipedia

Going from an over-the-top comedy to an over-the-top documentary about over-the-top comedy, The Artistocrats attempts to break down an unimaginably filthy free-form joke that comedians have been bantering about for the last several decades. Not readily known by people outside of the comedy industry, it’s a joke that has a standardized structure, with a beginning and ending put into place, but the entire set-up is all at the discretion of the person telling it.

Note: this movie, or this post for that matter, is not for the young or people with sensible natures. Every link in this post should be considered NSFW.

The joke set up is this: a person walks into a talent agent’s office trying to sell a specialty act. The talent agent asks the person to describe the act. Now, the following description of the act is usually something that is as unimaginably depraved and raunchy as can be conceived by the human mind. After the act is described, the talent manager asks, “What’s the name of the act?” to which the person replies, “The Aristocrats!” denoting that such ungodly filth would be undertaken by people in high society.

Still don’t get it? Well, here’s Gilbert Gottfried‘s version of the joke from the Friar’s Club Roast of Hugh Hefener.

The point of the joke, as is examined int he film, is that the set-up and the acts described–and even the manner of presenting the joke and the act–is as unique as the person telling it. The film examines the different ways comedians tell the joke and how that is telling about how comedians think on their feet and how far they can take the joke before succumbing to repetition and crushingly unfunny absurdity. The first time I saw this film, I laughed all through it and then for days afterward. However, the one and only time I tried telling the joke myself it came out flat and unfunny, inspiring shocked looks from everyone in earshot all wondering what form of Tourette’s I have.

But, as is also examined by the film, is this a classic joke? Well, any joke or story, crafted well, can be a classic. The ability to stand the test of time is what makes something a classic. However, like comedy in general, there must be some evolution to keep The Aristocrats fresh. As was noted near the end of the film, most of the original tellings of this joke are considered tame by now, even if there are references to incest, fecalphilia, beastiality, necrophilia, and other unspeakable topics not usually associated with the aristocracy. Because of that, the film itself falls flat after repeated viewings.

Plus, because the documentary is about something as intangible as a joke, the interview subjects become the focal point which is fine. However, Director Paul Provenza felt the need to spice things up by creating jarring and disorganized edits during single shots that are intended to make the subject matter and the film feel less like an interview piece and more like an actual movie. However, when your interview subjects are comic legends like George Carlin, Don Rickles, Phyllis Diller, Lisa Lampenelli, and a slew of other titans of comedy, you don’t need any hackneyed camera work to add anything.

In the end, the film is an intriguing look into comedy by deconstructing its most fabled joke to the point where you understand the meticulous detail and work that goes into crafting any piece of humor but it lacks the staying power of a truly great documentary. Give it a shot, watch it one more time, and then consider yourself done with it.

Best Part of the Movie: Though one of the more memorable parts of this film is Bob Saget’s telling of the joke, but probably the best one is the South Park version of the joke. Not only is it the only one that made me laugh hard after repeated viewings, but it is probably one of the best crafted tellings of the joke, probably because Trey Parker and Matt Stone had time to script it out and record it while most everyone else had to tell it off-the-cuff. Whatever, it’s still the best. Enjoy!

Trailer:

American Splendor

Starring Paul Giamatti, Hope Davis, and Harvey Pekar
Directed by Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini
Year: 2003
IMDB / Wikipedia

Documentaries and biopics can get really old really fast. Most of the people who are worth making such films about are typically a rags-to-riches story with some personal drama and the struggle to cope with success and failure. The story of Harvey Pekar and his efforts to chronicle the life of an average loser (himself) is no different. But something had to be different just like Harvey’s comics were different. Instead of making up stories and adding drama, showing the real life experiences and allowing the reader/viewer to connect on a personal level instead of a visceral level makes it all the more powerful. That is what puts this documentary/biopic above many others, in my opinion.

Yes, Paul Giamatti plays Harvey during the dramatic scenes but Harvey narrates the film at times with voice-overs and with the occasional interview sequence where aspects of his life and the character of himself are elaborated upon in greater detail. We see the people Harvey surrounds himself in dramatic form (Hope Davis as Harvey’s wife, Joyce and Judah Friedlander as Harvey’s friend Toby) but we also get to meet these vividly plain and normal people as they actually are. The filmmakers take painstaking care to remind everyone that Giamatti is simply a stand-in for Harvey and that what is happening on screen actually happened in real life.

The best example of this is, in my opinion, one of the best strokes of genius in this type of filmmaking. When Harvey and Joyce go to New York so Harvey can appear on Late Night with David Letterman they show Giamatti as Harvey in the green room preparing to go on stage but, on the television that Joyce is watching in the green room we are treated to the actual footage of Harvey and Dave which adds an unbelievable layer of credibility to the film. The actor portraying the person walked out and the actual person walked back in. Granted, not all documentary or biopic filmmakers are lucky enough to have their source on-hand and willing to take such a proactive role in a film of their life, and that is what truly makes this films something. It is one thing to imitate Harvey, it is another to be Harvey.

To compare this film to other biopics and documentaries would be a disservice, not only to this film, but to the other films who have little to no shot at duplicating the feel and the authenticity achieved here.

Most Valuable Actor: Paul Giamatti is the only actor alive who could have played Harvey Pekar. Not only does Paul look like Harvey but is able to grasp his mannerisms and truly make it more of a reenactment more than a portrayal. At no time is there a sense of imitation or caricature in what Paul does; more of an effort to become Harvey by one of this generations best actors.

Trailer: