By Chlotrudis Independent Film Society
Rating: 3 cats
Director: Paul Provenza
Country: united_states
Year: 2005
Running time: 89
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436078/combined
Michael says: “Before entering this film, I told the seven other people with me that I wasn’t a fan of stand-up comedians. Here we were about to enter a documentary featuring dozens of stand-up comedians telling and reflecting on a single, raunchy joke from the days of Vaudeville. It was a fascinating experience.
“First the film itself. I was fairly lukewarm about the film. There were parts that were very funny, and there were parts that tended to drag. Basically, the filmmakers interviewed a host of comedians about this particular joke. Many of the comedians told the joke on camera, while many others reflected on what made this particular joke work. It was pretty interesting to note which deliveries worked and which didn’t. The joke itself is nothing special; it’s all about the skill and delivery of the particular comic.
“The highlight of the film for me, was the South Park version of the joke. Unsurprisingly, George Carlin, who tells the joke first, also reached the heights of grotesquerie for me. Perhaps his telling should have come later in the film. Drew Carey’s visual addition to the joke was adorable and quite a bit of fun. Whoopi Goldberg surprised me with the humor in her partial telling of the joke, as did Jason Alexander, who truly showed how delivery makes a joke work. Other notes of interest? I had no idea Bob
Saget was known for his incredibly filthy stand-up routines. I was surprised by how hot Howie Mandel looks now. Carrie Fisher was surprisingly funny. It was so nice to see Emo Philips again after so many years. It was amazing how bad some of the comedians were, proving that it’s more about finesse and style than bludgeoning (unless you happen to be Gilbert Godfried.
“What I found very interesting was the post-film discussion where the eight of us shared our reactions and thoughts on humor and what makes things funny, shocking, or offensive. This was a great film to see with a large crowd. Ultimately, because of some of the unfunny stuff, and boring stuff, I award THE ARTISTOCRATS 3 cats.”
Shannon says: “I had a similar mixed reaction to this film. At one point, I thought my girlfriend was going to walk out–hmm, I suppose incest humor isn’t for everyone . . .
“My favorite was Sarah Silverman’s rendition of the joke, but I found all of the women’s versions of the joke to be an insightful display of gender difference, even if very subtle.
“I liked Bob Saget’s piece quite a bit, and was surprised to hear such profanity coming out of the mouth of the patriarch of ‘Full House!’ He had a great little aside about the Olsen twins in there, which was clever. And I loved seeing The Onion staff at work creating the joke! As an old Madison, WI resident and reader of the Onion for over 10 years, it was neat to see them in action.
“For me this film worked best when it was reflecting/commenting on the nature of humor, and the constantly shifting level of what is considered decent and indecent. The joke got really old after a while, and wished they would have interspersed the telling of the joke throughout the film a bit more, rather than be bludgeoned with it for what felt like 30 minutes straight.”
Scot says: “I quite loved this film. It is the very thing that supports my frequently-made argument that nothing is off-limits
in humor.
“The joke, Thom, is really beside the point. The comedians all pretty much agree that the joke itself is pretty lame. It’s just a simple surprise punch line: ‘The Aristocrats!’ It’s all in the telling of the middle part…”
Janet says: “Saw two movies yesterday to celebrate a friend’s birthday. THE ARISTOCRATS had been on my list for a while, but THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN I was going to watch as a birthday favor to my pal. I figured I could spend most of the second movie escaping into deep thoughts about the first, ruminating on things like the importance of shock in comedy, why the heck it is that people laugh anyway, and how this was all being played out in whatever smatterings of THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN I did pay attention to.
“Imagine my surprise when VIRGIN turned out to be the day’s winner. My impression going into THE ARISTOCRATS was that it was about a joke that’s been told by Comedians for decades and that we would see how a number of comedians tell the joke and make it their own. But the movie I saw was one in which the moviemakers introduced most of the comics to the joke and had
them retell it. It turns out to be more of a performance-on-demand thing than a delving into the traditions of a subculture. The nadir of the film was when the directors have the joke retold by a mime, a card-trick performer, and two jugglers. Clearly, none of these people would have used this joke in their act. At that point the film turned truly leaden and it was time to start checkin’ the ol’ left wrist.
“There are, however, a few good moments when the the comic on the screen regardless of his familiarity with the joke, gives such a good performance that you realize that this person is a genius. For me that happened with Martin Mull and with Tommy Smothers. The worst retellings, I found, were Sarah Silverman and Bob Saget. Obviously, this is highly subjective, and perhaps that is what lends interest to discussing the movie.
“Overall, I didn’t get a feeling of a sharp sensibility behind the project. The editing was not savvy. Some people went on way too long, Tommy and Dickie should not have had those distracting labels appearing on them, and Gilbert Gottfried should not have been shown at all until the end. His telling the joke twice dilutes the impact of his performance the second time. When it was over, I left the theater with with a tremendous appreciation of the funniness of . . . the friend I was seeing the movie with.
“As I recall, I was one of the few people in CSIF to see COMEDIAN. Now that’s a docu that gives you a good sense of how comics bounce jokes off one another, and how difficult it is to be good at what they do. 3 cats”