A Pleasing ‘Wind’:
I caught a late screening of A Mighty Wind this Saturday and can’t tell you how pleased I was. For the record, I am not a big fan of Christopher Guest’s movies. Didn’t care for Waiting for Guffman, couldn’t stand Best in Show. Both of them I found only fitfully funny, a big laugh followed by a long period of uncomfortable silence. It’s exactly how I normally feel in the presence of something that could be funny if the person telling the joke wasn’t, at heart, an asshole.
In Guffman and Show, I got the sense Christopher Guest didn’t think much of his characters. Sure, he found their silly preoccupations (dog shows, community theatre) cute, comically, a good mine. Genially obsessive people can be a hoot if left to their own devices. I just wanted Guest to move the fuck out of the way and let that happan.
These characters were plenty hilarious on their own. Instead, he gives each just enough time to make an ass of themselves and then moves on the next one. The result: None of them develop enough to be funny as people, but instead are funny as cultural-types: community theatre devotees, dog show enthusiasts, small towners, the unironic. The message: People who are crazy about community theatre and dog shows are funny because their concerns are petty and stupid compared to ours.
I don’t find that funny, just mean.
The spiritual ancestor to all these films is of course,This is Spinal Tap (which was made by Rob Reiner, not Guest. Guest played the dim guitarist who insisted his speakers cold go up to 11.), made in 1984. Its hilarity (still, after about 63 viewings) eminates from how completely convinced this terrible band of heavy metal has-beens remain about their own talent and importance, how hard they work at being rock stars when they so clearly aren’t anymore. Wind pulls the same trick yet but with a lighter touch. The three 60’s folk acts who have assembled for a tribute concert in the present day still float on a raft of their own self-importance. Yet unlike the heavy-metalers who refuse to believe they’re careers have been cast out to sea (Reiner clearly thinks they are nimrods), the three folk acts either have no interest in nostolgia, know folk ain’t coming back and are a little grumpy about it, or are perfectly context to gut folk and parade around in the carcass for a few bucks. The comedy then comes from watching them poke at, bite, or run away from their own irrelevence. It’s got vulnerability and a heart, which makes me laugh even more.
There are some great jokes, and Guest and Co. earn them all (Harry Shearer and bandmates talking about how they had to add the holes to their first records is just a riot) by creating funny characters in a vaguely sad situation and then letting them be. Instead of the cheap, shooting gallery humor of Waiting for Guffman and Best in Show, A Mighty Wind works by laying it on gently rather than being nasty for its own sake.
Reader interactions
6 Replies to “A Pleasing ‘Wind’:”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nasty as Guffman is, Brooke and her parents love it. They’ve founded several community theatre groups and find a lot of it spot-on. And I can’t help breaking up every time I see the scene where Corky gets turned down for a larger budget. “You people are….bastard people.” 🙂
Nasty as Guffman is, Brooke and her parents love it. They’ve founded several community theatre groups and find a lot of it spot-on. And I can’t help breaking up every time I see the scene where Corky gets turned down for a larger budget. “You people are….bastard people.” 🙂
For anyone who’s ever participated in community theatre, Guffman is dead on. But I don’t think Guest is slamming his characters simply by dwelling upon the sordid underbelly of chronic zeal. Having witnessed this kind of obsession first-hand, I can assure you that it can be a scary thing. It does not, however, translate into a complete skewer.
I didn’t come away with the reaction that you had. While Guest’s subjects were clueless, I could believe their passion was tangible. In fact, I came across respecting it, much in the same way that I did with the subjects of the excellent documentary American Movie. These characters are certainly falling on their faces, but they’re trying nonetheless. And that is the Guest principle in a nutshell.
I’m unclear as to how focusing on a character making an ass of himself is mean-spirited. This is, after all, one of the touchstones of comedy. The greater the cluelessness of the character, the more open he is to conflict.
In Guest’s case, I think he’s achieved a remarkable thing. He’s simultaneously celebrating and mocking the excitement of his subjects, which, in addition to the improvisation that hallmarks his films, makes his contributions all the more masterful. His films function as satires with a modest dark streak, but always end with pleasant irony resembling a Moliere play. The circumstances for the characters are pleasant enough for them (particularly in epilogue), but questionable for us. Not exactly a clear-cut comedic solution, but a devilishly funny one for those who are in on the game.
I think the thing that might be putting you off is the documentary feel of Guest’s films, a factor that is, rather surprisingly, little discussed. In contextualizing his comedy in these “real” terms, he applies some legitimacy to his oddball subjects. It’s a form of irony that works with some people, but hits too close to home for others. When I saw A Mighty Wind, I was surprised that a handful of people actually thought the film was a real documentary. That says more to me about how much we are willing to believe in the kind of meticulously researched lies that Guest provides.
And the REAL satirical ancestor for this is “The Rutles,” which predates “This is Spinal Tap” by 10 years. 🙂 Idle and Innes implied the same principles: convincing replica of subjects, slightly off in deadpan tone for repeated hilarity.
For anyone who’s ever participated in community theatre, Guffman is dead on. But I don’t think Guest is slamming his characters simply by dwelling upon the sordid underbelly of chronic zeal. Having witnessed this kind of obsession first-hand, I can assure you that it can be a scary thing. It does not, however, translate into a complete skewer.
I didn’t come away with the reaction that you had. While Guest’s subjects were clueless, I could believe their passion was tangible. In fact, I came across respecting it, much in the same way that I did with the subjects of the excellent documentary American Movie. These characters are certainly falling on their faces, but they’re trying nonetheless. And that is the Guest principle in a nutshell.
I’m unclear as to how focusing on a character making an ass of himself is mean-spirited. This is, after all, one of the touchstones of comedy. The greater the cluelessness of the character, the more open he is to conflict.
In Guest’s case, I think he’s achieved a remarkable thing. He’s simultaneously celebrating and mocking the excitement of his subjects, which, in addition to the improvisation that hallmarks his films, makes his contributions all the more masterful. His films function as satires with a modest dark streak, but always end with pleasant irony resembling a Moliere play. The circumstances for the characters are pleasant enough for them (particularly in epilogue), but questionable for us. Not exactly a clear-cut comedic solution, but a devilishly funny one for those who are in on the game.
I think the thing that might be putting you off is the documentary feel of Guest’s films, a factor that is, rather surprisingly, little discussed. In contextualizing his comedy in these “real” terms, he applies some legitimacy to his oddball subjects. It’s a form of irony that works with some people, but hits too close to home for others. When I saw A Mighty Wind, I was surprised that a handful of people actually thought the film was a real documentary. That says more to me about how much we are willing to believe in the kind of meticulously researched lies that Guest provides.
And the REAL satirical ancestor for this is “The Rutles,” which predates “This is Spinal Tap” by 10 years. 🙂 Idle and Innes implied the same principles: convincing replica of subjects, slightly off in deadpan tone for repeated hilarity.
… another thing to remember about the Guest films is that they are almost completely improvised. Guest & Levy come up with a story and everyone just makes up their lines as they go. This may account for the perceived lack of character development.
Both Guffman and Best in Show were nominated for several screenplay awards, and Guest wanted the entire ensemble credited for writing each time. Rolling Stone had a great interview with him a few weeks back. (since html is not enabled, here is the url for the interview: http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1621 )
… another thing to remember about the Guest films is that they are almost completely improvised. Guest & Levy come up with a story and everyone just makes up their lines as they go. This may account for the perceived lack of character development.
Both Guffman and Best in Show were nominated for several screenplay awards, and Guest wanted the entire ensemble credited for writing each time. Rolling Stone had a great interview with him a few weeks back. (since html is not enabled, here is the url for the interview: http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1621 )