Home » blog

Talking to God, Hollywood-style

By mike
November 14th, 2009
6 Comments

I discovered something important about myself this week: exactly how long I will watch an incredibly bad movie just because I find Lauren Graham pretty and charming.

Forty-two minutes, it turns out. Which, now that I think about it, is a pretty long time, especially considering how completely loathsome The Answer Man is (so loathsome, apparently, that IMDB can’t even be bothered to change its name to the right one). In my defense, though, Lauren Graham is pretty goddamn charming.

Actually, Lauren Graham was responsible for only about 30 minutes of my watching; I’ll chalk the other 12 up to Philadelphia, because The Answer Man was filmed here. So while Graham and Jeff Daniels were having their insipid conversations about God and The Meaning of Life, I could zone out and concentrate on geography. Walnut Street! City Hall!

I used to live just a couple blocks from here:

But man, this movie sure is fucking terrible.

Here’s the plot, basically: Jeff Daniels’ character, Arlen Faber, is the author of a book called Me and God, which he wrote over a decade ago and which has since become an international best-seller and has sprouted its own cottage industry: books like Understanding Me and God, audio tapes and seminars, even The Me and God Diet. Faber has become a grumpy recluse with back problems. Lauren Graham, meanwhile, is really cute and charming and plucky. She’s also a chiropractor with an office down the block from Arlen Faber’s house.

You can see where this is going, right?

I realize it’s not the most exciting premise, and it’s a premise I was fully aware of when I put the movie into my Netflix queue. So you might be thinking: what gives you the right to complain?

But here’s the thing: even as predictable schlock, this movie is uncommonly bad. This movie is so bad it makes You’ve Got Mail look like Truffaut.

There were some early warning signs: like in the very first scene, when Arlen Faber gets a bag full of fan mail and promptly throws it into a room in his house already cluttered with bags of fan mail, the door of which is affixed with one of those black plastic office-door labels that says MAIL ROOM.

This is his house, let’s recall, not an office. And while the door-labeling could perhaps be interesting — maybe he’s obsessive-compulsive, or has amnesia? — it becomes clear, quickly enough, that its only purpose in the movie is to make sure that we, the borderline-retarded audience this movie was apparently intended for, get the joke: See? He gets a lot of mail! So much mail he has a whole room for mail! In his house! He calls it the mail room!

I should have turned the damn thing off right then. But Lauren Graham! So cute! So charming!

Also, I was holding out a thin hope that the movie was going to be a satire. It seemed like it could maybe be a satire. Faber’s book, after all, seems really satire-worthy: a kind of Frequently Asked Questions manual written by God, as channeled through Arlen Faber, with questions like: Why do people do bad things? and Where do we go when we die? In the movie’s early scenes, we see Faber acting like kind of an asshole, and trying (unsuccessfully) to meditate and read various self-help books, so it seemed possible that the movie’s joke would go something like this: cynical opportunist writes idiotic book and America eats it up with a spoon, because America is fat and dumb. Maybe not the most complicated joke, sure, maybe a little too much like shooting joke fish in a joke barrel, but it’s a joke springing from a worldview I can at least comprehend, even if I find it kind of idiotic. I mean I’ve been to outlet malls two weeks before Christmas. I’ve seen the kinds of books they sell at Target.

But at a certain point it became clear we were meant to believe that Faber had actually talked to God. And so his book is, apparently, an actual work of Scripture. God, it turns out, has never met an empty cliche he didn’t like. The “answer,” for instance, to the question Why is there war? (and this is from God, let’s not forget): Because conflict is part of life; without bad things we’d never appreciate the good things.

Thank you, Hollywood. Once again, you’ve successfully tackled life’s most critical questions. Without you, and perhaps our well-worn copies of Chicken Soup for the Semi-Literate’s Soul, we would never fall asleep at night.

In the end, this movie’s not just idiotic, it’s actually offensive. In attempting to connect with “real” people with “real” faith and values — or, rather, what Hollywood thinks “real” people with “real” faith and values might be like — the movie becomes so simplistic that it’s completely patronizing. I may be a soulless, secular-humanist Blue Stater, but I know people with religious faith, and this is not how their brains work. They are not nearly this stupid, nor so easily pacified. And to add insult to injury, the movie’s version of Philadelphia is waaaaaay too clean.

Share the Awesomeness:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • description
  • Print this article!
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

6 Comments »

  • dave said:

    Oh man, I ran this exact same experiment the day after the Barrelhouse Corporate Retreat. My brain and liver were experiencing some kind of alcoholic coma, and I thought, well, it’s got Lauren Graham in it, so I can at least stare at Lauren Graham and think, wow, that Lauren Graham sure is cute.

    I made it through the whole thing, but I attribute that primarily to the fact that we had been drinking for two days straight.

    It’s a terrible movie (although the Mail Room thing is explained more or less effectively, in the end). Actually, it’s worse than you think it is, because it ends in this really stupid way that’s not satisfying for any of the half-assed little threads the movie half-assedly throws out there. Really very stupid and unsatisfying.

    But man, that Lauren Graham, she sure is cute.

  • Lori said:

    I don’t normally reply to reviews, but I feel I must respond to your scathing, and unfair, in my opinion, review of The Answer Man. I’ve seen the movie five times and thoroughly enjoyed it. How can you give an accurate review after only seeing forty-two minutes of it? Had you watched the entire movie, you would have understood the reason why Arlen had labels on everything in his house. It was not just some joke for the “borderline-retarded audience” that Arlen’s mail room was labeled as such. You learn that his father, who lived with him, had Alzheimer’s and that’s why everything was labeled. I found the scene where Arlen finally comes to terms with his past and removes all the labels to be very touching.

    I also did not believe that Arlen actually talked to God. The movie was about relationships and about letting go of the past and moving on. Arlen was an angry man who didn’t want the attention his famous book bought. Instead, he spent twenty years reading self help books and meditating, all in an effort to connect to that part of himself (the spiritual side) and find answers. It wasn’t until he met both Elizabeth (the “pretty and charming” Lauren Graham), and recovering alcoholic, Chris (the amazingly talented Lou Taylor Pucci) that Arlen learns to let go of his anger over his father’s death and begin to heal inside. Graham and Pucci both give realistic and moving portrayals of flawed people searching for answers of their own.

    Had you watched the entire movie, you would have seen how the characters grow as they learn to open up to love and life. Arlen admits that his book was written after the death of his father when he was looking for answers. So he asked the questions and wrote down the answers that intuitively came to him. THAT is connecting to God in spirit. The movie ends with Arlen speaking at the twentieth anniversary book signing of his book “Me and God”. He professes that he doesn’t have all the answers, that he is just a man who wrote a book. He then leaves and goes on with his life, opening up to Elizabeth and finding joy in life.

    I did not find the movie offensive or patronizing at all. I thought it was funny, warm, and full of great performances. I thought it had heart. Oh, and I am a spiritual and intelligent person. The next time you review a movie, you might want to watch the entire movie before passing judgment.

  • aaron said:

    Lori, you’re willingess to deeply understand this movie is admirable. Mike was not writing a review, but rather a dismissal, one that I fully agree with, having only seen the 30 second OnDemand preview–which, by the way, unfortunately makes Lauren Graham’s character sound like she has a mental disabilty.

    Without going into an aesthetic analysis of the movie, i.e., the plot is extremely predictable in romantic comedy terms, surely you understand why a bunch of guys might not share your deep appreciation of this movie?

  • Mike said:

    I’m not really in the habit of finishing things that are terrible. I suppose it’s possible that the second half of the movie is completely different than the first — characters with realistic human emotions and non-idiotic things coming out of their mouths — but I wouldn’t bet on it.

    I guess I might have to revise my review of humanity, though.

  • mike (author) said:

    Also, I would like to point out that I could have substituted several other really lazy moments for that door-labeling thing, which apparently gets explained later in the movie. Like we know Lauren Graham’s character is “uptight/worried” because she serves her elementary-school-aged child vegan bacon and egg whites, then straps him into an elaborate child seat that looks like something out of a sci fi movie (another moment in which I thought: a ha! satire! but which the movie didn’t seem to recognize as satire?) but then after he’s out of the car she lights up a cigarette, which I guess is meant to tell us she’s complicated?

    Every character in the movie is basically a collection of Hollywood short-hand cliches. And, yes, I find the act of portraying human beings as collections of Hollywood short-hand cliches to be deeply offensive to humanity.

  • mahendra waghela said:

    I would go one step further and add a few things without the benefit of having seen five seconds of the movie. Any patronizing of the movie based on the star’s presence is a dead give away for a sure fire dead beat sucker. Happy watching!

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.