A movie that interestingly works 'despite itself' ...

Rating: 7/10 (26 September 2011)

When it comes to misunderstood geniuses or irreverent entertainers, Milos Forman is not the least interesting director for the biopic genre. So, when he's the one who handles the film relating the life and death of one of the most brilliant and misunderstood comedians of his generation: Andy Kauffman, portrayed by THE greatest comic star of his generation : Jim Carrey, it can't get more promising than that. The result turns out to be a very good film, with a little something that could have made it better.
I think that "little something" is easily diagnosable and is to blame on the director, because basically, the movie lacked a direction. It's interesting that Milos Forman, an international film-maker -well, at least in his sensitivity- decided to make a film about an American TV and stage icon, someone whom a majority of people, even American, wouldn't be automatically familiar with. Think about this, Mozart was an artist with an undeniable universal appeal, and even to those who didn't necessarily love classical music, "Amadeus" worked as an extraordinary depiction of the poisoning effect of jealousy in the envious mind. "The People vs Larry Flynt" involves a universe even more marginal but despite its sleaziest undertones, the films worked as an inspired pamphlet against censorship and any form of closed-minded bigotry.
And this is how a biopic should work, in my humble opinion, you don't necessarily need a famous character, but you cleverly use his life, his personality as an excuse to speak much larger statement about human nature, I mentioned "Larry Flynt" when I could have evoked "Chariots of Fire" or "Gandhi". OR the movie should plunge us in the darkest depths of human nature, and enlighten us on the soul's mechanism that can inspire a particular behavior that would influence a certain field, "Amadeus" is one of them, but also "Ed Wood". And there is a virtuous effect on these two distinct approaches: when you transcend your character, you invite the viewer to question his own sensitivity and when you dig into your character's sensitivity, you invite the viewer to transcend his own perception of life. These are the two directions of a good biopic, higher or deeper. I'm afraid the direction of "Man of the Moon" is too 'linear'.
Exactly what is Andy Kaufman's appeal for someone who's never heard of him or never seen any of his skits even knowing his name? In its essence, "Man on the Moon" is trapped in its own concept. I didn't watch the film as a fan of Kaufman, which I can't be, because I've never seen any of his acts, not even as a fan of Carrey, but as a fan of Forman whom I was sure, was going to make either a great film about the inner mechanisms of humor or a much greater depiction of the world of entertainment, like Bob Fosse's masterpiece "Lenny" who was also about a comedian I wasn't familiar with. But it turned out to really be about Kaufman, well, I wasn't cheated but I felt a little deceived. The film is still good, but could it have really been bad since it recreates a succession of life's episodes that are funny or intriguing indeed, with a documentary-like realism? Hence the question, what did I learn exactly that I couldn't have learned from a documentary?
I feel guilty by writing these lines because overall, I enjoyed the film, hell, I can't even get the great drums moment and the catchy 'Abudabi' song off my head, the film needed more moments like the one in the Carnegie Hall, if not more intellectual, something more entertaining or appealing. But it seemed like it only tried to please people who knew about Kaufman and wanted to revive his short but brilliant career, a sort of sympathetic tribute from the buddies. Okay, but the material had so much potential, Jim Carrey's performance was full of energy and poignant vulnerability and I appreciated Danny De Vito as Shapiro, his manager, and Paul Giamatti as his buddy and co-writer. The style, if we could even speak of style, of Andy Kaufman was an excellent demonstration of the power of humor, and how you can develop some comic avant-guardism out of it. And the more I got used to the awkwardness of Kaufman, the more I expected hints if not answers, why did he do that? Why did people relate or not to that form of humor?
Maybe the film's alibi is that it tried to play as a self-reflexive portrayal of Kaufman's style. Why should I expect some deep meaning from a film about a comic who didn't even expect laughs. Sure. But Kaufman, from what I understood, loathed indifference, and wanted to be either loved or hated, at least inspire a specific reaction from his audience, "boos" or "cheers" but never silence or "meh?". And what made the character so interesting is the way he seemed to be also insecure with compliments and cheers, as if he felt that the path to reach the comedic talent, never passed by cheap laughs, or classic styles, another reason why he detested sitcoms, with its prefabricated laughs. He was indeed ahead of his time.
Buy why was he like this? We'll never know, and we all have to take his personality for granted. I'm not quite sure about the self-reflexive approach, because the film is not that subtle, I wouldn't have minded if it was longer enough to avoid the brutal ellipse from his childhood to his first act on stage, or show how Courtney fell in Love with him. Nor would I have minded if the film avoided some unnecessary gory parts that really didn't belong to the film.
The strength of "Man on the Moon" is that there is an inner fascinating charisma inhabiting the main character, and in a way the movie succeeded thanks to Kaufman's aura and despite the direction.