American Splendor

[Adam!]

Spoiler Warning

I watched this last night, and I found it an interesting idea but a disappointing film. It’s about Harvey Pekar, who was the author (but not the illustrator) of the American Splendor comic books. It’s a very surreal movie to watch; if you though Adaptation was postmodern you haven’t seen anything. The movie is narrated by the actual Harvey Pekar, and occasionally the viewer is treated to footage of him recording the narration. At one point the main character is on David Letterman, and as soon as he steps on set the movie switches to 20+ year old footage of the real interview. There is a scene where the main character walks out of the frame, and the camera follows him off-set where he mingles with the director, the real Harvey, and the other actors. The camera then shifts focus to the real Harvey Pekar, and we watch him debate with one of the characters about Jelly Beans. These “realâ€

[Hoblit]

One should also note that this is Paul Giomatti in the leading role. Good actor. (Did excellent in a small roll in Saving Private Ryan as well as another leading role in Sideways etc...)

I agree, this movie took too long. However I really enjoyed it. The opening DVD loop is THE SINGLE BEST DVD LOOP EVER. This movie is based on a true story so all of the charactors, and all of their baggage, are part of the real story.

<font color="red">SPOILER ALERT:</font>
I particuraly liked the 'meeting' those two had. Earlier in the movie she exclaims in a rhetorical question "why does everything in my life have to be a complete disaster?". (perhaps a paraphrased line) Their first date goes terribly wrong right down to the kiss. She realizes that this must be right and marries him.

Anyways, Puce is right, this can be a long boring movie if you don't buy into it. I would recomend it though. It's pretty cool in a lot of ways. Have a drink or two to help you pass through it. Perhaps keep the internet handy for quick trivia. It's a good story that might have been edited better.

[erik]

None of the characters really change or grow. By the end of the movie you realize that Harvey isn’t a talented author with a sardonic wit and a biting sense of irony, but instead just a social reject who writes what he sees.C+

Well, that's the exact reason I loved it. I think I first saw Pekar on Letterman back in the 80s, and he struck me as horrible and awesome at the same time. You have to either like him in spite of himself, or just completely hate him. I mean he would go on Letterman and not shave, or dress up, or even pimp his own work. He'd go on and in earnest badmouth a book that he was trying to sell, saying that it wasn't all that much different from the last book he made. That's very punkrock, and (especially now some 20 years later) very refreshing, an disembracing of the cult of celebrity. I mean, there is something very pure about the complete lack of irony in his work, his inability or lack of desire to really sell his work beyond a cult following, and his drive to keep working at it despite any lack of real success.

This was one of my favorite movies from whatever year it came out.

[Lunkhead]

I really enjoyed this movie when it came out. (I saw it in Cleveland, maybe the influenced me.) I think the Seinfeld comparison is a little unfair considering how Pekar's comic predates that show by a long way. Plus I think it was a little more unusual to bring that style of mundane, autobiographical humor to a medium that was mostly dominated by superheroes than to a medium that had already been saturated with sitcoms for decades. As for him "just" writing what he sees, I think that doesn't necessarily mean he's not witty or talented. Not everybody actually sees what's going on around them at all, let alone in any way that they can communicate to people in a compelling way. At the same time he's totally human, and unlikable in some ways, but on the whole I think he came across to me as a decent guy. The autobiographical aspect could seem narcissistic but I never felt like he was putting on airs, or making himself out to be more important to other people than he was. All the events were important to him because that was his life, and he wrote about it because that was his art. Anyway, I'm not in love with the guy, but Puce I think your review is too harsh.

[Adam!]

I think the Seinfeld comparison is a little unfair considering how Pekar's comic predates that show by a long way.

No comparison intended. I was using 'Seinfeldian' to categorize the movie as being "mundane, autobiographical humor". 'Emptiness' has some negative connotations I didn't intend; I just ment that it is a movie about nothing (or, more accurately, is a movie about a comic about nothing).

As for him "just" writing what he sees, I think that doesn't necessarily mean he's not witty or talented.

I considered leaving this out of my review, because A) I haven't read any of his work, and B) I knew someone would call me on it. But after I finished watching the movie that's the impression of him I was left with. Like he's just some average, somewhat cranky guy whose comics [and, for that matter, the movie itself] were made only because he was in the right place at the right time. Maybe that's unfair, but the movie spent so little time talking about the comics themselves that I never got the impression he was particularly talented.

Puce I think your review is too harsh.

Maybe. I think I just got bored with this movie. I was totally in love with it (like, thinking it was going to be an instant favorite) for the first 30 minutes, because I'm interested in the subject matter and because it's put together in such an intelligent way. Then for about 15 minutes I felt kind of iffy about it, like I was watching a big reel of stuff that was cut from a very good movie. And for the last hour I felt genuinely bored, at which point I stopped caring about any of the characters and started thinking about pizza. Mmm, pizza.

Also, I had very, very high expectations of it.