I dunno. I don't think that slamming your movie full of cheap shots and lame jokes (trust me - I've seen many a subversive comedy, from "Sunset Blvd." to "Annie Hall" to "Life of Brian") makes it immediately subversive.
It's painfully obvious that Yahoo is making a satire. The reason why most good satires work is that they're subtle in their delivery. Yahoo, on the other hand, is slamming you on the head with a frying pan, screaming out what he's satirizing and why he thinks he's so clever for satirizing that.
I know what he's satirizing in all three of his films:
Young Einstein - historically-incorrect biopics
Reckless Kelly - Hollywood's holier-than-thou attitude (or Hollywood in general)
Mr. Accident - corporations running the world; Capra-esque storytelling
All of those things have to be satirized. In a way, he's like Tim and Eric in that they all like to satirize "unimportant" topics. At the same time, he's more obvious than Tim and Eric. His intentions are spelled out by means of expository dialogue. His comedy feels more like a standard '90s comedy film than it does try to make itself consecrated from the rest of Hollywood. Yahoo is more like a Hollywood cash-in on Tim and Eric than an actual unique talent.
Tim and Eric are cohesive. Tim and Eric hide their intentions by means of sticking to formula filmmaking (while making fun of it). Tim and Eric make their own reality, where anything can happen (hello, Cinco!)
And same goes for Yahoo vs. Tom Green. Yahoo is painfully obvious in an obnoxious way. Tom Green pulls out every stop to make you laugh. Tom knows that satire isn't exactly a kid's favorite thing to watch, so he made a satire for older audiences. Older, sarcastic, Internet-savvy audiences. Yahoo made satire for the mainstream. Yahoo's doing it for the money. Heidecker, Wareheim, and Green all do it to make people laugh.
Also, granted that he filmed "Young Einstein" in terms of filming several short films over the course of three years rather than writing a cohesive script (with all of his satire intact), it doesn't help his case. He made all of those short films to earn more money for his short films. He calls it "innovative." I call it stupid because he's not in a Peter Jackson position where he has made a product so unique that people aren't willing to fund it, but that he's just made something way too run of the mill while promising many people that it will change the world forever.
I do wish the best of luck to Yahoo and his new movie, if he ever finishes it.
reply
share