Skip to main content

Soulful Comedy and The King of Staten Island


There’s been a shift in the last decade in American comedies. Where once it was the big, brash, and outrageous studio hits like There’s Something About Mary, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, and Superbad that dominated the genre, the 2010s saw an increasing move away from the broad sensibilities that had characterized the mainstream output of the genre during the Bush years, and more an inclination towards softer humble dramedies, with more focus on writing and character than catchphrases and absurdism. Comedy superstars were no longer being made by films like Zoolander and Old School, but by subtler fare like The Big Sick and Booksmart that paired comic tastes with a sincere heart in a way reminiscent of James L. Brooks, Penny Marshall, or Woody Allen.
And nowhere is this more apparent than in the career trajectory of arguably the biggest name in movie comedy of the twenty-first century, Judd Apatow. His latest film, The King of Staten Island, is a far cry tonally from the likes of Knocked Up and The 40 Year Old Virgin. It, like many a recent comedy movie is fused with elements of autobiography of its lead star and co-writer, SNL wunderkind Pete Davidson -who plays a stoner slacker in his mid-twenties looking for some direction in his life while still dealing with the trauma of the death of his firefighter father when he was a child. Davidsons’ own dad perished in service on 9/11 and his character, Scott is named after him.
There is nothing particularly unique about the premise of this movie, or its’ plot, which heavily concerns Scott’s mother (Marisa Tomei) dating another firefighter (Bill Burr) whom Scott takes an instant dislike to. Even the novelty of Scott being an adult himself with a childlike pettiness towards his mums’ new love interest isn’t as fresh as the movie would like it to be. His character journey independent of that, with his arrested development, lethargy, and commitment issues towards his girlfriend Kelsey (Bel Powley) are well-trodden character traits as well. However nuance is something that makes all the difference. Unlike say the pathetic man-children of Step Brothers, you legitimately connect with Scott and empathize with him, as obnoxious and careless as he sometimes is. Part of this is due to the tragic backstory, but the film doesn’t really use that as a crutch, or an excuse. More it’s the writing, which is certainly a degree more natural in the dialogue than previous Apatow efforts, and a strong sense of place and situation. The film loves Staten Island, minor league baseball team and all, and has a strong sympathy for its lower-middle class people, not always represented in media about New York where you rarely see suburbs and non-cosmopolitan characters. A perfect image of the so-called “forgotten borough.”
Scott does have ambitions too, which separates him from many a banal basement dweller archetype. As dumb as it is, he feels strongly about his tattoo parlour-restaurant, inking being one of his few demonstrated talents and passions. And though his character development is terribly cliché (even beginning with his bonding with the children of Burr’s Ray), it’s shot and scripted in a way that comes across honestly. Though The King of Staten Island is a Universal picture, it’s taking its’ cues from indies, and particularly filmmakers like Richard Linklater, Noah Baumbach, and the Duplass Brothers -another trait it shares with a lot of comedies of late.
Though the primary purpose of the movie seems to be as a love letter to the firefighting profession generally and the New York Fire Department specifically. The best parts are the scenes of Scott interacting with firefighters, whether he’s insulting Ray’s co-workers, or bonding with them after a step too far in his mothers’ patience has him kicked out of her house. Maybe the essential choice that makes these scenes work and feel less like propaganda, is the legitimacy they’re given by the inclusion of a firehouse veteran played by Steve Buscemi. By now everyone knows that Buscemi was a New York City firefighter before beginning his acting career, and moreover that he rejoined his old unit in the aftermath of 9/11 to assist in the clean-up of the World Trade Center debris. As such, his appearance in this movie is as warming as it is obvious. Davidsons’ personal history and the subject matter I imagine meant a lot to him.
It’s not just Buscemi though. You can feel how sincerely everyone involved in the film is dedicated to it. Apatow maintains some of his usual energy and trademarks -the “dopey group of friends” that in his past films helped launch Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Jonah Hill, and Jay Baruchel to fame are here too, though in less wacky terms; and there are a couple bizarre hijinks, as coated in a realistic atmosphere as they may be. The filmmaking is more mature though, and dynamic in a way I don’t think I’ve seen from Apatow -it’s shot by Paul Thomas Andersons’ regular cinematographer Robert Elswit, so that might be why. Still, as little as it has in common with the directors’ previous filmography, there’s no deficit of soul to it (especially next to the simultaneous Artemis Fowl). On the contrary, Apatow has embraced this modern variant on the comedy movie, dignifying it and making the argument for why it should endure -to which I would offer no rebuttal; I’m quite fond of it myself. The earnest evolution of Scott and his late coming-of-age, which for as standard as it is, shuns some of the crucial beats, preferring the small personal victories over major shifts, is the central and endearing engine of The King of Staten Island -simple yet fully effective. By the end of the movie, he’s stepping (somewhat literally) into a new world and new opportunities. And the audience has faith he will make good of them. 

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more