I heartily concur. I even stopped blogging at The Oil Drum for a day and wrote an entry over at profgoose (the first in a couple of months)...that's how good it was!
No, it's not for the squeamish...but it's been about 24 hours since I saw it, and I am *still* laughing.
Two things I noticed: 1. There were a shitload of disclaimers at the ticket window...if you didn't come back to the window within a half and hour, you couldn't get your money back. 2. I noticed women laughing harder than men towards the end of the film...that surprised me.
The website is good too...http://thearistocrats.com
I got carded twice on the way in. Then again, I look 17.
I agree with the review, except that I didn't think the card guy was funny. And I wonder whether the whole thing isn't a hoax -- the joke doesn't make sense, and is funny, partly, for that reason.
Saget could easily believe he was doing it, as he's famous for having an incredibly dirty routine, and has since before he was well-known as a whitebread douche.
I enjoyed the movie immensely, but found it more thrilling than funny (even though I did find it funny). With the exception of Sarah Silverman's bit and a few others, none of the comedy was produced by anything like wit or cleverness, just by grossness. Even South Park and the Farrelly brothers rely on elaborate set ups or some form of social commentary. This was really just a more sexually sophisticated version of a little kid saying: "Poo poo, ca ca." And yet it was oddly joyful (despite the fact that I'm not 3 years old)!
I liked how it was illustrative of personal style, as well as what makes things funny. It was most interesting, to me, to see what the female comics made of it--how gross they were willing to be, or whether they felt some responsibility to make it more clever. I suppose Sarah Silverman had that working in her favor. Though actually the Christopher Walken bit was my favorite.
I've just become extremely grumpy at text's subversive suggestion that it might be a hoax. True, it would be an almost pointlessly clever and elaborate con - but even the mere thought knocks a little shine off the enormous pleasure of seeing it last night. There was an "absolutely no refunds!" sign posted at my local arts cinema, too - which worked wonders to suppress any prickles of old fartdom I might have felt at times - but now I'm wondering if the danger is being proved a fool - rather than a prude?
Is there any proof that The Aristocrats joke IS the professional comedians equivalent of the Masonic handshake? I mean, outside the film - and the publicity? Is it all a brilliant movie riff inspired by Gilbert Gottfried's surreal turn at Hugh Heffner's roast? Once you start down this dismal, suspicious path, the oddly dull or peculiar bits - Saget's increasingly OTT protests, for example - as well as everything else could all be viewed as part of the perfect hoax. Surely it's not possible we've all - even Frank Rich - bought into a manufactured esoteric urban myth? Is it?
I wanted to link to the post I made about a year or so ago about the film, back when it was news, at film festivals, but I seem to have only posted in my mind. Oh, well. But it was still more interesting back in 2004, I think, when everyone was first writing about it. I would think that, of course, but not if I'd actually read anything this year said not last year.
11 -- I think it becomes much more interesting when you consider it a hoax, much as This Is Spinal Tap would not be nearly so enjoyable if one thought it was about an actual rock band.
These comedians are all capable of just making shit up. But you are confronted with the fact that, told once -- as in a routine -- the joke just doesn't make sense. How could such a joke have been created in the first place, if not as a meta-joke?
I thought that a lot of the shorter tellings—like Emo Philip's—should have been cut. Absolutely non-illustrative: too short to work as a litany and not revealing of any sort of personal style, unless you think the sound of his voice is interesting in itself. George Carlin's in the beginning was too short to work as a litany, but it wasn't one, and the fact that he added lots of detailed asides made it work—same deal with the longshoreman bit.
I totally need to see this movie.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-14-05 11:05 PM
Yeah, I think you'd enjoy it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-14-05 11:05 PM
I heartily concur. I even stopped blogging at The Oil Drum for a day and wrote an entry over at profgoose (the first in a couple of months)...that's how good it was!
No, it's not for the squeamish...but it's been about 24 hours since I saw it, and I am *still* laughing.
Two things I noticed: 1. There were a shitload of disclaimers at the ticket window...if you didn't come back to the window within a half and hour, you couldn't get your money back. 2. I noticed women laughing harder than men towards the end of the film...that surprised me.
The website is good too...http://thearistocrats.com
Posted by The Oil Drum (profgoose) | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 1:34 AM
Also, I really enjoyed Taylor Negron's riff, then I hate to admit it, but I lost it with Saget. Yes, I said Saget.
Posted by The Oil Drum (profgoose) | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 1:39 AM
I got carded twice on the way in. Then again, I look 17.
I agree with the review, except that I didn't think the card guy was funny. And I wonder whether the whole thing isn't a hoax -- the joke doesn't make sense, and is funny, partly, for that reason.
If it is a hoax, all the better.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 8:56 AM
That'd be a pretty elaborate hoax. Saget really is amazing. I didn't think Richard Lewis was very good.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 10:11 AM
Huh, I laughed at Saget at first, but he seemed after a while to be playing up the "I can't believe I'm doing this" too much.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 10:14 AM
Saget could easily believe he was doing it, as he's famous for having an incredibly dirty routine, and has since before he was well-known as a whitebread douche.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 10:18 AM
I enjoyed the movie immensely, but found it more thrilling than funny (even though I did find it funny). With the exception of Sarah Silverman's bit and a few others, none of the comedy was produced by anything like wit or cleverness, just by grossness. Even South Park and the Farrelly brothers rely on elaborate set ups or some form of social commentary. This was really just a more sexually sophisticated version of a little kid saying: "Poo poo, ca ca." And yet it was oddly joyful (despite the fact that I'm not 3 years old)!
Posted by pjs | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 10:47 AM
I liked how it was illustrative of personal style, as well as what makes things funny. It was most interesting, to me, to see what the female comics made of it--how gross they were willing to be, or whether they felt some responsibility to make it more clever. I suppose Sarah Silverman had that working in her favor. Though actually the Christopher Walken bit was my favorite.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 11:29 AM
I've just become extremely grumpy at text's subversive suggestion that it might be a hoax. True, it would be an almost pointlessly clever and elaborate con - but even the mere thought knocks a little shine off the enormous pleasure of seeing it last night. There was an "absolutely no refunds!" sign posted at my local arts cinema, too - which worked wonders to suppress any prickles of old fartdom I might have felt at times - but now I'm wondering if the danger is being proved a fool - rather than a prude?
Is there any proof that The Aristocrats joke IS the professional comedians equivalent of the Masonic handshake? I mean, outside the film - and the publicity? Is it all a brilliant movie riff inspired by Gilbert Gottfried's surreal turn at Hugh Heffner's roast? Once you start down this dismal, suspicious path, the oddly dull or peculiar bits - Saget's increasingly OTT protests, for example - as well as everything else could all be viewed as part of the perfect hoax. Surely it's not possible we've all - even Frank Rich - bought into a manufactured esoteric urban myth? Is it?
Posted by Jody Tresidder | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 2:35 PM
Wouldn't it be wonderful though, if it were a hoax?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 2:38 PM
Wikipedia says not a hoax. I love wikipedia.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 2:40 PM
I wanted to link to the post I made about a year or so ago about the film, back when it was news, at film festivals, but I seem to have only posted in my mind. Oh, well. But it was still more interesting back in 2004, I think, when everyone was first writing about it. I would think that, of course, but not if I'd actually read anything this year said not last year.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 3:03 PM
Er. Wow, Gary!
Posted by Jody Tresidder | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 4:13 PM
yes, it was more interesting for you when you first saw it. But we just saw it, so now it is interesting for us.
funny how that works.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 4:20 PM
Where's the link to Farber's mind-post?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 4:24 PM
11 -- I think it becomes much more interesting when you consider it a hoax, much as This Is Spinal Tap would not be nearly so enjoyable if one thought it was about an actual rock band.
These comedians are all capable of just making shit up. But you are confronted with the fact that, told once -- as in a routine -- the joke just doesn't make sense. How could such a joke have been created in the first place, if not as a meta-joke?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 4:25 PM
I thought that a lot of the shorter tellings—like Emo Philip's—should have been cut. Absolutely non-illustrative: too short to work as a litany and not revealing of any sort of personal style, unless you think the sound of his voice is interesting in itself. George Carlin's in the beginning was too short to work as a litany, but it wasn't one, and the fact that he added lots of detailed asides made it work—same deal with the longshoreman bit.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 6:22 PM
17: right here, of course.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 08-15-05 10:18 PM