Advertisement
As I’ve noted before, it’s easy to assume that Kevin Smith cast Seth Rogen in Zach and Miri Make A Porno in an effort to capture some of the magic dust that makes Judd Apatow’s films so financially successful, while remining the audience that Kevin Smith movies have offered a blend of raunchy comedy and surprisingly traditional romantic resolutions for a decade and a half now. In a post today at Burbanked, Alan Lopuszynski questions whether Adam Sandler is currently starring in Judd Apatow’s Funny People for the inverse reason.
“At first, I figured that Sandler’s interest in working under Apatow as a director was because Sandler was on a downslope of box office returns at this point in his career,” writes Alan Lopuszynski at Burbanked. But then he got out the virtual graph paper, and realised that although Judd Apatow’s films are vastly more appreciated by critics than Sandlers, “the pair’s financial track records are extremely similar” — and when there has been a discrepancy, Sandler’s films have almost always grossed more than Apatow’s.
And so Alan coins a term to explain the collaboration:
He can handle something more as an actor, but knows his fanbase doesn’t want him to. Working with Apatow suggests a better balance for Sandler, an opportunity where his comic skills can be invested in a more realistic world where the conflicts and narrative pay off better. He seeks sethrogenization - a validation of his talents and value as an actor and comedian at the same time.
Of course, many would argue that the Apatow world isn’t actually realistic at all. But I would also suggest that Seth Rogen is basically working on developing a Seth Rogen type which, as Zach and Miri proves, could easily be applied to non-Apatow projects, but which we’ve as of yet seen no evidence can easily be funneled into, say, a Paul Thomas Anderson film. I love these graphs, but for me, the question is not whether Sandler can be Sethrogenized by Apatow, but whether a Sethrogenized Sandler would actually be more versatile at all. Thoughts?
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
As far as I know, Sandler and Apatow are working together because they used to be roommates ages ago…
^^ True, they were roommates when Judd first came to Hollywood and have been friends for many years.
Sandler cameod on Undeclared and they reunited on Zohan which Apatow co-wrote with Sandler.
I guess Funny People is getting more attention because it’s Sandler’s first appearance in an “Apatow film”, rather than a “Sandler Film”. It’s a smart move, his films may consistently do well at the box office, but even he must know that the general opinion is that his comedy vehicles have gotten progressively crappier. I expect Funny People to buck the trend.
They were roommates, still friends, as many interviews, etc. have pointed out. There is an interview with Rogen where he says that he pretty much got into the business because of Smith and Smith documented how they finally teamed up.
Stupid question, of course Sandler can be more versatile, and will when he wants to. What will that prove anyway? is it your opinion that he’s not versatile? or are you just throwing it out there to see if it’ll stick somewhere in the online world? How is he an aging comedy star?
I like how your graph shows a major downslope after Click/Superbad. Didn’t Sarah Marshall and Zohan make $100M+ each?
It’s not my graph, and if you click on the link to the original post that inspired this post, you’ll see the whole thing. Read more carefully before you start crying, please.
waaaah…my mistake. what about my other questions?
I thought those were rhetorical. Unless you know of some kind of Dorian Grey thing going on, it seems self evident that Adam Sandler is a comedy star who is aging. The post was not really about whether or not Sandler was versatile, but that Seth Rogen isn’t.
“The post was not really about whether or not Sandler was versatile, but that Seth Rogen isn’t.”
Who cares. Zack and Miri is only the third comedic film that Rogen’s headlining. I don’t think anyone should be expecting him to be branching out at this stage. I’m sure he feels like he needs to prove himself as a comic actor before he starts showing up in period pieces.
It took Sandler 7 years of comedies before he did Punch Drunk Love.
“Seth Rogen type which, as Zach and Miri proves, could easily be applied to non-Apatow projects, but which we’ve as of yet seen no evidence can easily be funneled into, say, a Paul Thomas Anderson film.”
What a bullshit statement. What in Sandler’s filmography indicated that his ‘type’ could work in a PT Anderson film? Who’s to say Rogen isn’t capable of making the same transition in a few years? Nobody.
“Seth Rogen type which, as Zach and Miri proves, could easily be applied to non-Apatow projects, but which we’ve as of yet seen no evidence can easily be funneled into, say, a Paul Thomas Anderson film.”
Not to hammer this quote, but did you ever imagine, the white guy from “In Living Color” playing the lead in a “Eternal Sunshine” and not only playing the lead, but knocking it out of the park.
Also Zack & Miri proves nothing other than Smith and Rogen each wanting to work with one of the best in there genre’s.
Karina, you make an excellent point about the level of realism in an Apatow movie, but really, I find Apatow’s leaps of narrative faith to be quite a bit more recognizable as human behavior than Sandler’s world where his aw-shucks slackers and dim-witted man-children always manage to save grandma’s rest home or learn What’s Important In Life.
I think a Sethrogenized Sandler might certainly be more versatile, thus my own intrigue in bringing this up. Sandler is a talented guy and every so often - yes, even outside of PUNCHDRUNK LOVE - one sees glimmers of something going on behind the smirks and silly faces. And I think Apatow is a stronger creative guide than perhaps Sandler’s worked with before, so I’m curious to see the result.
Ultimately, it may be the first Sandler movie in years that I won’t automatically decide to avoid, for whatever that’s worth.
Thanks a bunch for the link and discussion!
“Ultimately, it may be the first Sandler movie in years that I won’t automatically decide to avoid, for whatever that’s worth.”
— that comment is worth nothing to us who have chosen to read/comment here. Are there any goofy, unrealistic comedies you enjoy or do they all have to be ‘realistic’? Does every movie you see have to be realistic to be enjoyable? You and Karina must be loads of fun to be around. That’s more likely a reason why Sandler/Rogen movies succeed, because people who enjoy movies like theirs don’t share narrow minded opinions like you two.
Actually, Seth, what I do find funny is when someone who doesn’t know anything about me goes ahead and makes some kind of kooky assumption, and then doesn’t see the irony in calling me “narrow minded”.
No, silly, I don’t require movies to be realistic to be enjoyable, and neither does any true fan of film. But I do expect that the reality that the filmmakers are creating will be intriguing, will follow its own set of rules, and will pay off in an innovative, comedic and compelling way that impacts me on some level. Stories, for example, about a guy with a magic remote control or a mentally deficient waterboy, simply don’t fit those criteria for me. If they do for you or for a large audience, hey swell, but there are plenty of movie comedies that create a far better and more satisfying sense of unrealism than most of Sandler’s filmography. Apatow has created some of them, and so has Rogen, whose output I appreciate on a higher level than that of Sandler.
But then that was the original point, which I think you probably missed when you were rushing to make a disparaging comment.
This whole post is weak. Just like Kevin Smith is “supposedly” riding on Rogen’s wave, so is Karina Longworth. I found this page via yahoo and imdb. Obvious factor, she wrote about people that are relevant in comedy today. I honestly doubt anyone would read anything of Karina’s without these men as her subject.
Write about me!