Maybe it’s because I’m from
New Jersey and have grown weary of the stereotypical Jersey boys and girls sold
to America in mobster TV and movies, on MTV and reality television fare across
the dial. Maybe it’s because I’ve grown weary of paper thin character
development and screenwriters too lazy to make charming men and women actually
charming. Or maybe it’s because I’ve grown weary of Joseph Gordon Levitt’s
continued success in spite of the fact I believe he is an overrated, overacting
star who tends to make the movies he’s in worse for his inclusion (I liked (500) Days of Summer and Dark Knight Rising in spite of him,
liked Inception less because of him
and generally find it even more baffling that he is sold as a heartthrob than
Toby McGuire, who was at least likeable).
Before seeing the film
Saturday night, I had read Manola Darghis’ review and thought this was a film
worth seeing. But I wasn’t overly surprised to be at odds with the New York Times reviewer yet again. She
is to be commended for taking popular films seriously, for not touting her
intelligence more than the films she sees (like Anthony Lane often does) and
for not selling the public dull films that are popular with critics mainly
because average audiences would never like them. But I find her taste off the
mark often and never more so than in this facile, steeped in stereotypes film
that could have used a real screenwriter to bring a decent topic to life with
more than crass humor,
Don Jon is a simple guy with
simple tastes – girls, family, church, his cheesy car, his “boys” and porn. And
that’s about it. We know nothing of his deeper ambitions, don’t even find out
he is a bartender until near the end of the film, no nothing of his
shortcomings (beyond being a narcissist, womanizer and, given his taste in porn
and treatment of women, misogynist). He is the MTV-constructed mook taken to
the extreme, with an infuriating accent and clothes that would make anybody not
from the trashier parts of New Jersey cringe with embarrassment. Our hero, if
we can call him that, does have one problem though – he is addicted to porn,
and even spanks the monkey after sex (admitting he likes porn more than sex
with actual women). Jon, of course, meets a girl named Barbara (played by
Scarlett Johansson with the worst attempt at a Jersey accent I’ve ever heard
(more like 70s Long Island to my East Coast ears)), who changes him almost
overnight – though we have no foundation for this attraction. Even in his
rather wooden performance in (500) Days,
we can understand why he fell for Summer, and even why she ditched him in the
end, but here there is no foundation for the ensuing romance and
self-actualization other than the fact that she’s pretty and withholds sex for
a while. As their relationship develops, and Don ditches his friends and former
shallow life, we can sense that all is not rosy, as Barbara plays out the sort
of controlling, overdosed on romcoms as a child girl that no one could really
put up with for very long. And a fight eventually ensues, as she is horrified
to learn that he likes to clean and then catches him lying about continued porn
viewing.
From here emerges a bizarre
character, played by Julianne Moore, who teaches Jon the essence of his problem
– essentially that he is a narcissist who doesn’t give anything in bed. They
start an unlikely romance and the film settles here after a final scene to
remind us just how bad Barbara really is – for wanting love on her terms, in
appears. Tony Danza as Jon Sr. and Glenne Headly do funny turns as the quintessentially
Italian couple basking in overtly stereotypical roles. And the film certainly
has its moments, both humorous and genuine. But the storyline is too muddled by
the lack of character development, the characters themselves too uninteresting
and the attempt to create a likable mook stretched beyond my capacity to enjoy
silly films.
There is something
interesting bubbling under the surface though, including questions of the place
of porn in our culture and its relationship to sex and relationships (arguably undermining
both), the problem of masculinity (a recurrent theme in almost every film I see
these days, but going back at least as far as the Noir of the 40s) and the
tripe sold to us in most romantic comedies (a worthy theme for a film that
teeters on the edge of a rom com) – the place where the script is the most
nuanced and interesting. Yet the unlikable characters, apart from Jon’s friends
and parents, makes the ideas secondary to a plot revolving around a character I
felt completely uncompelled to root for. Even in the end, it appears he merely learned
that sex involves actually caring about your partner and that friendship is
more than a competition to see who can score the most “pussy”, a good message
for many men I guess. But our hero but doesn’t find love and instead ends up in
a relationship more about pleasure and a broken woman finding some relief from
the pain of losing her husband and child (another cheap trick used by
screenwriters far too often for my tastes – sure it builds sympathy, but I can’t
be the only one getting numb to this theme). Again, one might find the ending
better than the more sanguine and maudlin ones we are used to in romantic
comedies, but it simply left me cold. The irony is Don Jon has been getting good reviews in many circles and the
friend I saw it with actually liked it. But I for one would rather watch Yes Man for the 10th time
then have wasted $12 on this admirable but underwhelming debut for the actor. C-
No comments:
Post a Comment