| Author |
Message |
|
| Earl |
 Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:20 am |
 |
|
|
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 2621
Location: Houston
|
Billyweeds wrote:
Quote: Haven't yet seen I Love You, Man--it will follow Duplicity--but I expect to like it. What makes me very amused is the fact that "Apatow-style" is now an accepted term. A year-and-a-half ago or so no one outside inside Hollywood knew the name Judd Apatow from a hole in the ground. Now he's the eponymous leader of a whole style of comedy. Is this a great country or what?
Maybe it's my imagination, but there seems to be a lot of cross-pollination going on among the cast and writing staffs of Judd Apatow movies, Kevin Smith movies, The Office and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; I'm just saying. |
_________________
"I have a suspicion that you are all mad," said Dr. Renard, smiling sociably; "but God forbid that madness should in any way interrupt friendship." |
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:58 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Billy,
I guarantee you this movie will not echo your relationship with male friends, the reasons you needed them, or the way you made them. It's a "guy picture" chick flick. And it looks to dole out the cliches of male bonding that women are comfortable with. It's nothing like Buch Cassidy, and not because of the difference in genre. You want a real "guy love story"? Take another look at Clerks. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:58 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Earl wrote: Billyweeds wrote:
Quote: Haven't yet seen I Love You, Man--it will follow Duplicity--but I expect to like it. What makes me very amused is the fact that "Apatow-style" is now an accepted term. A year-and-a-half ago or so no one outside inside Hollywood knew the name Judd Apatow from a hole in the ground. Now he's the eponymous leader of a whole style of comedy. Is this a great country or what?
Maybe it's my imagination, but there seems to be a lot of cross-pollination going on among the cast and writing staffs of Judd Apatow movies, Kevin Smith movies, The Office and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; I'm just saying.
As they say on Seinfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with it." |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| lshap |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:09 am |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4248
Location: Montreal
|
mo_flixx wrote: lshap wrote: ...
Off the top of my head, the only total miss that comes to mind was her cipher-like performance in Ocean's 12.
"Mary Reilly?"
Never saw it. But yeah, by all reports it was a mess. |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| lshap |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:29 am |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4248
Location: Montreal
|
About this whole "I Love You Man" debate, on the one hand I can sort of relate to the premise. I had plenty of female friends and got to a point where finding an equally satisfying male friendship just wasn't happening. I do have plenty of male buddies I run with, jam with and work with, but nothing as close, as free flowing or as open as what I had with those female friends (I say "had", because it's not practical to maintain that level of opposite-sex friendship once you're married).
So the idea of searching for that perfectly attuned male friendship is a good premise, and one that strikes me as pretty original. A man-date? Very cute. The problem is that under the Apatow pen the story smells more like scene after scene of dumb guy caricatures as described by Joe, which drags down the interesting premise and leaves me ambivalent about seeing the film. I might be totally off, but it's a well-educated guess.
And by the way, Billy, I really don't see the obvious connection of close male friends and homoerotic undertones. Not every close bond has to be sexual. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:40 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
lshap wrote:
And by the way, Billy, I really don't see the obvious connection of close male friends and homoerotic undertones. Not every close bond has to be sexual.
I guess the term "homoerotic" is misleading, though I think I used it correctly. It doesn't mean "sexual" in the sense of "Let's get it on, dude." It's simply a rather acute (IMO) assessment of the mix of friendship and attraction that can exist between two members of the male gender. To put it bluntly, I would find it difficult to have a really close bond with another man who I found physically unappealing. Is this sexual? To some degree, and that's one element of what I call "homoeroticism." Let me check the dictionary definition and I will be back.
I'm back and you're right. The dictionary defines "homoeroticism" as "homosexuality," and I stand corrected. But I think I explained what I mean above. If not, get in touch with me, Lorne. Btw, what are you wearing? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Re: this delightful Sunday morning discussion; Last night I was just about to phone my sweetheart and had already decided how I would greet her (I decided on 'darling' aren't I just a precious romancer?  ). Before I lifted the phone, it rang and I was pretty sure it was Marta. I didn't have my glasses on, but the number looked like hers. I answered the phone and greeted my sweetie with Hi Darling! My friend Barry who was phoning from Las Vegas replied with, "Are you going gay?" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
As far as male friends go, I have only two close male friends One i have been friends with since the age of eight and the other from the age of four, we met in kindergarten. I've had many boyfriends through my life but there are only two that I am still close with. Quality, not quantity.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:38 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
lshap wrote: About this whole "I Love You Man" debate, on the one hand I can sort of relate to the premise. I had plenty of female friends and got to a point where finding an equally satisfying male friendship just wasn't happening. I do have plenty of male buddies I run with, jam with and work with, but nothing as close, as free flowing or as open as what I had with those female friends (I say "had", because it's not practical to maintain that level of opposite-sex friendship once you're married).
So the idea of searching for that perfectly attuned male friendship is a good premise, and one that strikes me as pretty original. A man-date? Very cute. The problem is that under the Apatow pen the story smells more like scene after scene of dumb guy caricatures as described by Joe, which drags down the interesting premise and leaves me ambivalent about seeing the film. I might be totally off, but it's a well-educated guess.
You put it better than I did. The premise isn't the problem (though the girl instigating the search for a buddy kinda is), it's really what looks like the execution.
Quote: And by the way, Billy, I really don't see the obvious connection of close male friends and homoerotic undertones. Not every close bond has to be sexual.
I have close straight male friends, and close gay male friends. None of these relationships would I define as homoerotic. I think that's most often an adolescent phase where you're still looking for your identity and still looking up to other people to lead you and help you become what you want to be. You romanticize/love aspects of other men that you want to encorporate into yourself. Of course, sometimes older people go through this, too. As George memorable did with Elaine's boyfriend on Seinfeld. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ghulam |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:13 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4742
Location: Upstate NY
|
The correct term may be "latent homoeroticism", a universal phenomenon, and Freudians would probably not find fault with Billy's use of the term. The theme as a subject of comedy is interesting, but what makes the movie enjoyable are the jokes and the characters.
. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:32 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
I'd rather spend a night in the glory hole at the Mineshaft than watch
I LOVE YOU, MAN. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:35 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Billy,
you seem to have chosen one of the worst photos of Julia Roberts I've seen as your avatar. And I'm a fan of Julia's. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lshap |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:07 pm |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4248
Location: Montreal
|
Marc wrote: I'd rather spend a night in the glory hole at the Mineshaft than watch
I LOVE YOU, MAN.
So does this mean you're going or not? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lshap |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:08 pm |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4248
Location: Montreal
|
billyweeds wrote:
I'm back and you're right. The dictionary defines "homoeroticism" as "homosexuality," and I stand corrected. But I think I explained what I mean above. If not, get in touch with me, Lorne. Btw, what are you wearing?
Now I'm all aflutter... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lissa |
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:55 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2148
Location: my computer
|
| Get a room, guys. |
_________________
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
