Showing posts with label ben stiller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ben stiller. Show all posts

Sunday, June 29, 2025

Being single bites

When one of my movie podcasts mentioned Cameron Crowe's Singles in my past week of listening, in an episode about favorite movie quotes, it planted the seed that a Singles rewatch was nigh. (The quote: Cliff Poncier's "All this negative energy just makes me stronger.") 

When a second, unrelated podcast also name-checked Singles -- a music podcast this time -- in the context of 1990s alternative music, I knew this was the universe telling me to rewatch this movie now

Of course, when I think about Singles, I also think about Ben Stiller's Reality Bites, so I decided to make it a double feature.

Am I the only one from my generation who links these two movies? Definitely not, though I don't know whether it rises to the level of common knowledge that these movies go hand in hand. But let's consider what they have in common:

1) Both are about twentysomethings feeling jaded and unsure about their futures, though more so in Reality Bites than Singles.

2) Both heavily incorporate music, though more so in Singles than Reality Bites, and different types of music.

3) Both feature a rock band with a funny name where one of our main characters is the lead singer, the funny Citizen Dick in Singles and the funnier Hey That's My Bike in Reality Bites. (I especially like that the purported groupies of Hey That's My Bike are called Hey That's My Bikers.)

4) In both movies, that lead singer treated their love interest with contempt or indifference and came to regret this, crawling back for a second chance.

5) Both movies have one central plot and two subplots.

6) Both movies have sort of a Melrose Place thing going on. The apartment complex where most of the characters live in Singles is directly reminiscent of the one in Melrose Place, though obviously at a lower socioeconomic level, and Melrose Place is directly invoked in Reality Bites, where the character waiting for the results of her AIDS test, played by Jeanene Garofalo, says she's like the new character on Melrose Place with AIDS, and concludes by saying that Melrose Place is a really good show.

7) Both movies have a six degrees of Kevin Bacon connection with John Mahoney. Mahoney is actually in Reality Bites, and he was also in the movie Cameron Crowe directed before Singles, Say Anything

Because Reality Bites came out two years after Singles, 1994 to 1992, if you want to accuse anyone of theft, it would be Stiller of Crowe. But there's enough of a difference between the two that it would be a baseless accusation. They are more like kissing cousins than a movie that owes a debt to another movie.

Reality Bites is the far more serious movie, as evidenced by the specter of AIDS, not to mention the character played by Steve Zahn being thrown out of his house after coming out to his parents (and no further word on that topic before the conclusion of the movie). Singles is far lighter on its feet, and yes, this does correspond to a preference of one over the other, which I will expand on as this piece continues.

I will say, though, that coming in, I did not know which of these movies would play better for me in 2025. I watched them in chronological order, starting the first in my office in the early evening before finishing it on the couch after 10 o'clock, and starting the second far too late, but finishing it within the same night anyway. They're both less than 100 minutes long, which helps. It was the first time I had seen either movie since I started keeping a list of the movies I rewatched back in 2006. 

After the fact, I checked on Flickchart to see how I actually had them ranked. It's #648 for Singles and #957 for Reality Bites. That is definitely consistent with my preferences, but the gulf should be wider. Not necessarily because Singles should be higher, as I think it's ranked about right. But Reality Bites should not be in my top 1,000 movies. I wouldn't bust it down to 2,000+ or anything, but inside the top 1,000 is too high. 

Okay let's get to my takeaways from each movie, starting with Singles.

1) I was surprised at how flat-out charmed I was by this movie. It's sweet and, as I said a moment ago, very light on its feet. It's not that I didn't remember this being the case about Singles, but I was surprised by the extent of it being the case.

2) I love the fact that the characters randomly talk to the camera. It's not part of some artificial construct like a faux documentary, though I promise that's not intended as a dig at Reality Bites. It's just that sometimes, the characters need to chat with the audience.

3) My affection for Bridget Fonda was fully reignited with this movie. I won't get into the fact that I think she has the perfect mouth, not only great dental work, but those teeth are ideally framed by the shape of her mouth as she does what I call a "frown smile" -- a slightly downturned look that you can tell is a smile anyway. Sharon Horgan also has this. Anyway, I guess I did get into it, but I'm trying not to be too much of a creep here. 

No, the thing I really loved was how kind her reactions are to unrequited romantic intentions. Two different characters make overtures toward her in this movie, one her own doctor basically asking her out, another an ex-boyfriend going in for a kiss at a time of maximum vulnerability for him. She doesn't make either of these characters feel like they crossed a line, she just sweetly lets them down while also boosting them up. It's one of the more generous things I've seen in a movie in some time. That showcases an extraordinary amount of self-possession for this character, which is kind of a big deal given how little of it she has in her initial dealings with her boyfriend Cliff, whom she ultimately dumps. (Leading to him crawling back, as discussed earlier.)

4) While we're on the topic of the female leads, I was also very charmed by Kyra Sedgwick. It's not that I am anti-Sedgwick, but as her career went on, she did less and less for me. My wife and I have a joke where she yells "Confess! Con-FEY-OO-essss!", emphasizing her southern accent, from when she was on that show The Closer. (I think the bit actually came from a Saturday Night Live sketch.) Here, though, I was reminded how sympathetic she is in the right role, so sympathetic that I wanted to pat her on the head. You can see the vulnerability in her eyes, her awkwardness, her uncertainty that it will all work out.

5) As it has now been 30 years (!) since the height of grunge -- even more, I guess, as grunge was already starting to fade by 30 years ago -- I was surprised at how nostalgic I felt for the bands that play here, like Alice in Chains and Soundgarden. The musicians don't themselves play an essential role in the story, I wouldn't say, though some acting is required of the members of Pearl Jam, who serve as Cliff's backup band in Citizen Dick. (Using their real names, which I thought was even more charming.) That's another similarity with Reality Bites, as the Lemonheads' Evan Dando has a very small role in that movie.

6) It's all about the Campbell Scott-Kyra Sedgwick love story, with the Matt Dillon-Bridget Fonda plot and the dating scene desperation of Sheila Kelley's character clearly serving as B plots. And though the B plots are more lightweight, they aren't inconsequential. They are lightweight in a warm and friendly way. 

The thing I like so much about the Scott-Sedgwick courtship -- Steve and Linda by their character names -- is how everyday it is, how grounded in the real world. They don't meet cute. They don't instantly realize the other person is for them. They are suspiciously lacking in grand romantic gestures, leaving anguished voicemails rather than running through airports, proposing marriage casually while one of them is eating a corn dog, which she does not want to become a "historic corn dog." I'm just thinking how a movie made today would not be allowed to languish so much in the apparently pedestrian, whose very relatability is key to its impact on us. 

7) Speaking of the way this movie is "friendly," I like the bit where Steve and Linda believe they are going their separate ways and they shake hands. "Let's be the first people to say they'll stay friends and truly mean it," says Steve. I don't know if it's an inconsistency in Crowe's writing, but I prefer to think of it as intentional, as Steve not realizing what's right under his nose: Each of these two have examples in their own lives of exes with whom they are "truly" friends. While it's clear that there is something unresolved, romantically, in Linda's relationship with her ex Andy (James Le Gros) and Steve's relationship with his ex Janet (Fonda), since she gets back together with Andy and he tries to kiss Janet (leading to one of her generous light rebuffings), until this point they are actually carrying on well enough as just that: friends. And while we don't see enough of the relationship between Linda and Andy to judge it, we know things seem quite comfortable between Steve and Janet, affection without longing. 

Overall, I like how this film does not feel like it has life or death stakes, even with a lost pregnancy, the losses of jobs, etc. Crowe manages to keep an upbeat tone throughout, which I suppose was a unique gift of his movies, one he didn't really step away from until Vanilla Sky in 2001. And then he went scrambling right back to it, but was never able to make another movie that felt as easy as Say Anything, Singles, Jerry Maguire or Almost Famous.

Okay, on to Reality Bites, which was not so charming.

1) I had forgotten about how many lines of dialogue there are from this movie that I either say or think of. For some reason Garofalo's line "Don't bogart that can ... man" is something I think of a lot, even though I am usually not bogarting anything myself or asking someone else not to bogart something, least of all a can. Then there's Garofalo's line where she calls out Ethan Hawke's and Winona Ryder's characters for the sexual tension of their bickering and squabbling, where she says "Oh why don't you guys just do it already and get it over with."

2) I had also forgotten how much of a prick everyone is in this movie. Even when/if they are ultimately good characters, and that's debatable, they are prone to treating each other monstrously. Having told a friend of mine about the double feature, as I was watching it, I wrote him the following message: "Everyone's really mean to everyone else in Reality Bites." And this is definitely true.

It's particularly difficult to like Hawke's Troy, whose intellectual narcissism -- which Stiller's character has such a hard time defining in one of his tongue-tied rants -- goes beyond the level of toxicity usually required of a character primed to reform himself and factor into a happy ending. Which is why I always found the ending of this movie disappointing. The thing is, I didn't really want Lelaina to end up with Stiller's Michael either, even though I must admit I am probably more of a Michael than I am a Troy. He's also not great. (My friend called him "insufferable.") Hawke has moments here where his philosophizing reminds one of the sort he would go on to do with Richard Linklater, as Before Sunset was set to come out the following year. 

3) Of the two films, Reality Bites appears to have aged significantly less well. Although I liked how much characters smoke cigarettes in this movie -- an accurate depiction of these people specifically and many people in general, even today -- that made it no less shocking to see how much smoking there is, since smoking has almost totally dropped out of the modern movie. (Yes, Hollywood has taken on the informal role of being a role model to young people.) Then there's the use of the "R" word, and I can put both of these things together into one scene, where Lelaina is sitting at the kitchen table, smoking, talking to her mother (Swoosie Kurtz) and her stepfather (Harry O'Reilly), who is also smoking. In this scene, both Lelaina and her mother use the word "retarded," and they don't mean it as "to slow the growth of."

4) A movie called Reality Bites is obviously in conversation with the concept of reality TV, but it feels a bit ahead of its time in that regard. One of the core conflicts is whether Lelaina is going to give up the documentary footage she's shooting of her friends to a TV network called In Your Face TV, where Michael works. (Would have been a stand-in for MTV at the time.) Now granted, it's not as ahead-of-its-time as you might initially guess, since MTV's The Real World had already been around for two years at that point, enough time for Stiller and company to poke fun at it. (Her footage is repurposed into a crass Real World clone, which includes, as one example, images of one rhinoceros mounting another, scored to the song "Let's Talk About Sex.") In introducing a test screening of the show -- called, appropriately, Reality Bites -- Michael refers to it has their foray into "real programming." The internet tells me the term "reality TV" was first used in the early 1990s, but can find no concrete examples of its actual origin. It's possible that it was not really used in 1994, since there were so few examples of reality TV that there would not yet need to be a name for it. I think of the debut of Survivor in 2000 as around the time the term really would have taken off. 

5) This movie was shot by Emmanuel Lubezki! Who would have guessed. Yes, he was just a regular working professional before he became the preferred director of photography for prestige directors making ambitious films. Movies from this period you might also not have guessed he shot: A Walk in the Clouds, The Birdcage and Meet Joe Black. (He was working with Alfonso Cuaron too, but those don't come as a surprise given the Cuaron works later associated with his name, such as Children of Men.)

6) Rodrigo Garcia was one of Lubezki's camera operators! And this I didn't even get in the opening credits, I had to wait and happened to catch it in the closing credits. If that name is not familiar to you, he would go on to direct films like Mother and Child, Albert Nobbs, Last Days in the Desert and Raymond & Ray. (I also see he directed episodes of a TV series I was not aware existed, a reimagining of Party of Five, but about the five children of parents who get deported to Mexico. That show was made in 2020 but it feels very relevant to 2025.)

7) It's interesting how these films reflect the persona of their director. I talked about how cool and easy Singles felt, in matching what we know to be Cameron Crowe's persona. Well, Reality Bites is tightly wound and anxious, matching the mode we most often see from Stiller on screen, as he's often whinging (to use the Australian term) or arguing with someone. Don't get me wrong, I love Ben Stiller -- he directed all-time favorite The Cable Guy as his very next film -- but I don't think he could have made a movie that was relaxed and slower paced like Singles, though it should be said he did not write Reality Bites, only directed and starred in it. 

But let's go with our original premise that Singles was in some way a text for Stiller when making Reality Bites. If so, it's easy to envision how there could be a parallel in the relationships between his character, Michael, and Hawke's character Troy, and Stiller and Crowe extra-textually. In a way, Crowe is like a Troy, only much nicer -- cool, with even the long hair, and with even looking a bit like Ethan Hawke. I can't honestly imagine that Crowe would have truly been a figure of frustration, resentment and of course aspiration for Stiller, since they might not even know each other unless they happened to meet sometime at an industry event. But you can easily see Stiller stammering out some sort of frustration at Crowe about how Stiller doesn't meet the cool threshold necessary to speak to him, just as his character does toward Troy.

Okay that's honestly a lot more than I imagined I would delve into these movies when I launched my double feature Friday on a lark. 

Saturday, June 20, 2020

Ben Stiller's unlikely coterie of 1996 collaborators

It seems impossible to believe that I have only tagged The Cable Guy once on this blog. It has to have come up more than once, but only once did I consider that the discussion merited giving it a "label" (the tags appearing at the bottom of the post), which enables you to search the blog by subject matter. And in that post, I didn't even use its poster, so according to my own rules for never using the same poster art twice on the blog, its poster still remains available for use in this here post today.

This lack of Cable Guy love on my blog surprises me because the movie is in my top 20 all time on Flickchart. It doesn't just barely eke into the top 20, either. It is my full-on #12 movie of all time, so it's closer to my top 10 than my 20-30.

It is by far the most surprising choice in my top 20. I won't go on at length about how it scaled these heights in my personal film rankings, nor will I apologize for it or feel guilty about it. On what was probably my tenth viewing of it on Thursday night -- I only have the last three recorded, so that's just an estimate -- I still loved it. Just to give you some explanation, I first saw it under the absolute perfect circumstances to appreciate it, and it became a minor religion for a couple friends and me for years afterward, as we would quote it incessantly. In fact, the reason for my viewing on Thursday, my first in six years, was having a phone call with one of those friends, and still being able to quote lines to each other like we'd just seen it last week rather than 24 years ago.

So while The Cable Guy undoubtedly deserves some post where I plumb the controversial depths of its brilliance -- I'm reminded, from recently exposing it to other film fans in a monthly project to watch each others' highest ranked films, that few people like it as much as I do -- today I am instead going to focus on something I gleaned from the movie for the first time on my tenth viewing.

The Cable Guy and Flirting With Disaster were in close proximity on my 1996 year-end rankings, the first such one I ever did, coming in at #4 and #2, respectively. (For the record, Fargo, which is now ahead of them both, was my #3, and Looking for Richard, which I have only seen once, was my #1.) But I have never actually watched them in close proximity until now, as my most recent Flirting viewing was just at the end of May.

The thing these two films have in common, other than their release year and being squirm-inducing comedies that focus on socially awkward scenarios, is Ben Stiller. So, pretty great year for Ben Stiller, at least in my corner of the world. He's the star of Flirting With Disaster and the director of The Cable Guy. (Didn't know that, did you?) He also appears in a small role, or actually a small dual role, in The Cable Guy, as twin child actors Sam and Stan Sweet, the one of whom grew up to murder the other, whose trial is a running bit throughout the movie. One of the movie's many sharp satires of the tabloid entertainment machine of the mid-1990s.

But Stiller is not the only thing the movies have in common, and as I was watching on Thursday night, I kept noticing them.

The first one I have always known, which is that comic actor George Segal appears in both. In both films he plays the father, Stiller's adopted father in Flirting, and the biological father of the character Stiller would have played had he starred in The Cable Guy rather than directing it, which is instead played by Matthew Broderick. (I would never switch out Broderick for Stiller, since Broderick's performance is one of the reasons this movie is so good.) Checking on Wikipedia just now, I am pleased to see that Segal is still alive. For some reason I thought he had died.

Here's George from The Cable Guy. You know him:


But you may not know Shawn Michael Howard, who has not had quite the career Segal's had, though he's been busy enough over the years. Here's Shawn from around that same time, though I can't find any pictures of him from either movie, since his role is so small:


Only on this viewing did I realize that the guy who attempts to "car-jack" Stiller and company in Fliriting -- who is actually a member of a church group trying to return Stiller's lost jacket -- is the same guy who appears in the basketball scene in The Cable Guy, where Jim Carrey shatters the backboard after a monstrous dunk.

Neither film's Wikipedia page reveals when the movies were shot, and I can't be bothered to dig deeper on the internet to find out. But if we are to assume that they had the same delays between shooting and release as each other, and Flirting was released three months before The Cable Guy, I can see Stiller working with Howard on Flirting and then offering him a role in The Cable Guy.

The same basic timeframe and sequence of events could apply to Cynthia LaMontagne, whom you also probably don't know, but whose picture I could find in one of the films, in this case, Fliriting. Here is Cynthia:


She's the one on the left.

Her role in Flirting is memorable enough, as she has maybe five to ten lines of dialogue in a five-minute scene, where she's one of the potential biological sisters of Stiller's Mel Copeland, though of course the adoption agency made an error. Her presence in The Cable Guy may have been the real forehead-smacking find on this viewing, as it's really of the blink-and-you'll-miss-it variety. She plays the restaurant hostess seen for just a couple seconds when Leslie Mann goes on her date with Owen Wilson.

Alas, as women are never allowed to stick around Hollywood as long as men, she hasn't had a role in anything in 12 years.

The interesting thing is that their collaborations with Stiller were indeed limited to that year. LaMontagne didn't appear in another Stiller film, though she did work with Judd Apatow, the Cable Guy producer, again in her final role, as a bartender in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. (I noticed that IMDB lists her as "Female Bartender," which should go without saying -- why do you need to clarify the gender?) And though Howard is still working, I don't see any other credit in his IMDB that relates to Stiller, though he did appear on an episode of Mr. Show, which features Cable Guy cameos David Cross and Bob Odenkirk, before they were famous enough to be considered cameos. (Interesting to note that when you search Howard on IMDB, the brief description that clarifies who he is says "Actor, The Cable Guy (1996)." I'm not even sure he has a line of dialogue.)

With Segal, the one most likely to have worked with Stiller again, I could not find anything that had even a couple degrees of Kevin Bacon separation from Stiller.

I'm wondering whether Stiller would have worked with these three again if The Cable Guy had not been such a massive flop, and if he were not so eager to purge anything and everything about it from his memory. Too bad. I always planned to tell Stiller, if I met him, how much I loved The Cable Guy, but I chickened out on my lone opportunity, when he and I were both in the same bathroom during intermission for a play.

I'm sure these sightings are not nearly as interesting to you as they are to me, but I think I also might be one of the only people who could even make them in the first place. Who else out there happens not only to love these movies enough, but watch them enough, to make the connection?

Ben Stiller's parents, maybe. (Rest in peace, Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara.)

Monday, July 2, 2018

The unlikeliest movie not to have seen

I'm not talking about the movie I'm most embarrassed not to have seen. I've had a clear answer for that over the years, but I don't really have one now. Informally, it might be the original King Kong, but there's likely something that deserves the honor more than that.

No, I'm talking about the movie it seemed most likely I would see in the theater, or at least very soon after that, but never did.

That's Ben Stiller's The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, as you can see from the poster.

It seems almost incomprehensible that it's taken me nearly five years since it was released in 2013 to see it. But them's the facts.

Why is it so unlikely I wouldn't have seen it before now?

1. I really like Ben Stiller as a director. The Cable Guy is among my favorite films all time, full stop, and I also really really like Reality Bites, Zoolander and Tropic Thunder. In fact, he has yet to direct a film that hasn't worked for me, as I was even pretty positive on Zoolander 2. (Though his directing page on IMDB really needs to be updated -- he's got a 2007 movie known only as Untitled Christine Taylor Project that I kinnnnda don't think is going to still come out.)

2. I really like any movie that appears to be "Kaufman-esque." The Secret Life of Walter Mitty really looks like something Charlie Kaufman could have written, and reminds me of other movies that are more directly indebted to Kaufman, like The Science of Sleep and Stranger Than Fiction. I have a boundless optimism about the quality of such movies and always prioritize seeing them in time to rank them in the year of their release. Present company excluded, I guess.

3. It was released in time for me to see it before my ranking deadline that year. That's not always a given in Australia with late-year releases that have awards ambitions, some of which don't come out until February, well after I've closed off my rankings around the 20th of January. But this one came out on Boxing Day in 2013, giving me nearly a month to grab it before that deadline.

4. I also heard it was good. Early buzz was that it wasn't, but then after it actually got released, I heard nothing but good things. So skipping it was not even a decision motivated by having better uses of my time.

So why did I skip it?

Well, I did have better uses of my time.

December 26, 2013 -- its release date -- was just under a week before my younger son was born on January 1st. I had bigger fish to fry. Well, smaller fish, I guess.

I did see one movie in the theater that week between Christmas and New Year's, but it was The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, which actually is my least favorite of those six movies. So I would have been better served on Walter Mitty. Then on December 31st they wanted to induce my wife, and for a while we didn't know whether my son was going to be born in 2013 or 2014 (or even, at that time, that he was a son).

It's not like I didn't get out to the theater again after that, though I made only three more theatrical visits before my deadline, one of which (Frozen) had the benefit of being able to get the older son out of the house with me. It was actually only two visits, since my wife also consented to a double feature of two must-haves just before my ranking deadline: Inside Llewyn Davis and Her. Llewyn Davis actually ended up at #3 for the year, and would have been higher if I were doing those rankings today.

What can I say. When you've got a new baby in the house, there are sacrifices that must be made.

So, no room for Walter Mitty, even though it was directed by Ben Stiller, was Kaufmanesque, was released in time and was supposed to be good.

The reason I'm telling you all this is that I have finally corrected this oversight ... though it took some rather unusual circumstances to do it.

Ever since I skipped Walter Mitty that year, I've had my eye open for easy opportunities to see it. But in that whole time, I didn't once see it available on a streaming service or to borrow from the library. It's the kind of movie that would have made my hand leap forward with extra urgency to pull it off the shelf, but it never appeared on any shelf that I saw. Oh yeah, I could have rented it from iTunes, and our neighborhood video store was actually still open then. But after the time of its greatest relevance to me -- pre-ranking deadline -- had passed, I guess I just decided to watch it whenever my first free opportunity arose.

And that never did actually happen.

When I finally acquired The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, it was as a purchase at a used video store. Which is particularly unusual because I almost never buy movies I haven't seen. In fact, I cannot immediately think of another instance of that happening.

You may remember the video store I discussed in this post, where the shelves are full of stacks of undifferentiated movies, and the store's owner had a look on his face like he was going to go out of business any day now. To contribute my small little share to preventing that from happening, I made a conscious decision last weekend to take my kids and buy a bunch of titles for both them and me. We spent $60 and came away with about two books (they also sell books and CDs) and about ten movies, one of which was Walter Mitty. It was never going to show up for free, it appeared.

The owner actually seemed profoundly grateful. I couldn't tell if he remembered me from the last time we came in and I briefly commiserated with him about his dwindling customer base, or if he was just grateful in isolation. But I hope the mere act of someone spending $60 in one fell swoop will convince him he still does have enough customers to stay open.

Anyway, that lined me up to finally, finally, FINALLY watch the movie Saturday night.

It did not disappoint. The Kaufman comparisons were correct, though I like it better than either of those movies mentioned above. It's no genuine Kaufman -- Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine and Synecdoche, NY are all better films -- but it's near the tops among "Kaufman imitators," if that doesn't sound like a backhanded compliment. I was toying with whether to give if four or 4.5 stars, and ultimately went with the latter.

I was also really impressed by the actual direction of the film. However well Stiller had done in the films he's directed previously, they are all comedies that feel scaled a bit smaller, which suggested a certain comfort zone. This one paints on a much bigger canvas, and paints exceedingly well, as it looks fantastic (thanks also to DP Stuart Dryburgh) and also has a lot of far-flung locations, including Greenland and Iceland. Much as I like him, I thought this would have been beyond Stiller. It totally isn't, and it makes me kind of sad that he had to follow this up with Zoolander 2 (even though I like that movie). I hope he gets a chance to do something on this scale again.

I also really liked how the film functions as a love letter to print journalism, of which I am refugee. The film is centered around the end of Life as a print magazine, something that actually occurred long before 2013, but which feels forever current in an age of ever-dwindling readership of, and publication of, print media. It lends an additional poignancy to the material that lingered with me, and does still.

So going from not having seen it to owning it is a positive development. I'll be eager to see it again.