MOVIES ARE MAGIC

Film Commentary

Bridesmaids

It’s just so great to see comedic genius being given a chance to shine. It doesn’t feel like it happens that often. Recently, it’s happened for Zach Galifianakis in The Hangover, and Rob Corddray in Hot Tub Time Machine. It’s happening for Louie CK on his FX show “Louie”. It happened for Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld on their show(s) (though sometimes Larry just copies himself without much reinvention). And of course, there’s Annie Hall, The Jerk, Trading Places, Wayne’s World, Wet Hot American Summer, and many others. But most of the time, comedic voices are held down by institutionalized mediocrity, as has been the case with Kristen Wiig, who is entertaining on SNL probably, but never genius. Film and television are capitalist industries, guided shrewdly (for profit, with curtailed risk) by business types. Rarely are exciting jokes and stories let alone - more often, they’re negotiated, edited, or phoned in. Every terrible SNL movie was probably at some point a brilliant comedy. 

Bridesmaids feels left alone to the people that should be making funny movies. There’s honesty, integrity, laughs across the board, and pieces of our collective experiences worth mocking, considering, cherishing. It doesn’t feel compromised. It doesn’t feel like Kristen Wiig just wanted to star in some big movie - it feels like her passion project, which makes me feel passionate as part of the audience. She’s great. Melissa McCarthy is also great. I thought she was some under-the-radar secret talent, but I guess she has a show on network TV. I’m sure it’s not nearly as funny. Here, she really goes off, and it’s awesome. Rose Byrne is terrific too as Wiig’s foil.

My only slight complaint is that there is no male presence in this film. Of course, it’s a bullshit complaint, because there’s no shortage of male presence in film generally, but nonetheless, I thought I’d mention it. I’m referring here to the Bechdel Test, which was derived to point out the systemic marginalization of women from mainstream film. That test posits three questions: are there at least two women in a movie? Do they talk to each other? Do they talk about something besides men? Most films fail this test. That’s not to say most films are anti-feminist, nor is this film anti-male. But it’s interesting to consider. Surely, men should see this film (ideally with women). And it’s nice to see Judd Apatow produce something female-driven, but with the same mix of raunchy humor and sweetness. 

More about the film: my additional complaint is that not enough screen time was given to the other bridesmaids. The airplane scene is so much fun, and it was sad not to see them actually continue in that vein. Instead, we get more scenes with Wiig’s dumb roommates, who take up too much screen time. Ellie Kemper and Wendy McClendon-Covey feel underused here. I wish they were around more. Also, great to see Tim Heidecker smiling, but too bad he does absolutely nothing else. The two men that do speak are great, particularly Jon Hamm. His relationship to Wiig is really ripe with comedic possibilities, and together, they both really go for it. The cop is a good guy, clearly. I’m glad he’s in the film, but it’s the most conventional plot line, and therefore the least interesting. 

I’d like to end here by speaking more to weddings in general, not as filmic devices, but as social constructs. Why are they so dramatic? Why are friendships staked to them? Why must they be such a big deal? This movie is built on the outlandish traditions that we accept, and how such traditions further mock the ordinariness of our single lives. The characters played by Wiig and Maya Rudolph are best friends forever. And here comes Tim Heidecker to swoop Maya off her feet. There is something intrinsically missing to this scenario that I fail to grasp: the profundity of such a commitment in regard to birthing and raising children. I suppose, as a young man, this is lost on me. Having said that, I remain confused as to why weddings must be so expensive, why the relationships all around the bride and groom are evaluated and possibly changed, why taxes favor married couples, why we still ascribe to this idea of ownership - how a father gives his daughter to another man, how a ring must cost this much… originally, wedding rings were given as an actual thing of value, so that if the husband were to die or run off, the woman would have a sort of life insurance, assuming she had no means herself, which was generally true. 

My female friends speak quite negatively of bridal showers, of registries, of feigning excitement over silverware and pillows. They speak of how their engaged friends seem to change: how a reasonable, educated, liberal person could become obsessed with gifts from Pottery Barn. Weddings seem to epitomize the disgusting nature of our fervently capitalist society; they seem to cement the stereotype that women love shopping. Men don’t seem to have the same issues, but they do have issues. Bachelor parties are often excuses to indulge in the excesses of bachelorhood - namely unaccountability and irresponsibility, usually in the form of heavy drinking, with or without sex and drugs. Surely there is something wrong with a future that seems to banish such behavior. Does hanging out with your friends really end when you promise yourself to an intimate partner? Married life has a bad rap. I blame the weddings.

  1. moviesaremagic posted this