HOME / movies: Reviews of the latest films.

Good Dirty FunMe, Myself & Irene is life-affirming filth. Chicken Run is diabolically witty.

Me, Myself & Irene
Directed by Peter Farrelly and Bobby Farrelly
20th Century Fox

Chicken Run
Directed by Peter Lord and Nick Park
DreamWorks SKG

Jim Carrey in Me, Myself & IreneMental-health advocates have claimed that Peter and Bobby Farrelly's new Jim Carrey vehicle, Me, Myself & Irene, misrepresents schizophrenia and makes fun of mental illness. They're right. Clinically speaking, the picture is claptrap, and it's in the filthiest imaginable taste. Scenes feature a grown man sucking milk out of a mother's breast, a kick-boxing black midget tongue-kissing a beautiful blonde, and a chicken sticking out of a handcuffed police officer's rectum. The film is a disgusting piece of work; I still can't believe how much I loved it.

OK, maybe I can. I also loved the Farrellys' last movie, There's Something About Mary (1998), as well as their seamlessly infantile debut, Dumb & Dumber (1994). This one isn't in the same league, but it's good and raunchy and somehow even healthful. It says it's normal to have warring impulses—that our internal divisions make us human. It says the goal of a mature psyche is to integrate the extremes of our nature, not to suppress one element to the point of deforming everything else. It's says it's pretty funny seeing poultry sticking out of someone's butt.

Anyway, what's so objectionable about the id and the superego duking it out? That's the basis of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and its slapstick offspring The Nutty Professor (1963). This time, the protagonist is Charlie (Carrey), an earnest, conventionally masculine state trooper on the coast of Rhode Island who suffers a sexual trauma at the hands of his wife. (She leaves him for the aforementioned kick-boxing black midget, who's also head of the New England chapter of MENSA.) Left to care for three unmistakably African-American sons (with inner-city diction and MENSA-level IQs), Charlie represses his anger and messy emotions and, as the years pass, becomes so amiable and wilting that everyone takes advantage of him—neighbors, sundry lawbreakers, small girls with jump-ropes.

After 20 minutes or so watching Charlie get walked all over, we're ready for Mr. Hyde to show up and start busting heads. He turns out to have a name—Hank—and he's lewd and belligerent and speaks in the plangent rasp of Clint Eastwood (whose Dirty Harry Carrey played opposite in The Dead Pool [1988]). What gives the Farrellys' vision some un-Dirty Harryish complexity is that Hank is as much of a screw-up as Charlie: He often picks fights with people who beat the crap out of him. When he wakes up in pain he's Charlie again, wondering who the hell just broke his nose.

Relieved of active duty by his worried captain (Robert Forster, underused), Charlie/Hank must escort a woman named Irene (Renée Zellweger) to upstate New York on what turns out to be a trumped-up hit-and-run charge. Irene, it seems, knows too much about a real-estate scam, and her ex-boyfriend and a crooked cop (Chris Cooper) plan to buy her silence with a bullet. The plot is rather perfunctory (the script was written a decade ago and has been spruced-up for Carrey), and the Farrellys seem so bored with the bang-bang stuff that they have their drawling Texas narrator—similar to, but not as witty as, the guy in The Big Lebowski (1998)—summarize scenes that they don't feel like dramatizing.

But the shambling structure doesn't hurt the picture too much. Me, Myself & Irene is a two-for-the-road movie turned hilariously into a threesome. Hank fervently tries to sleep with Irene, while Charlie, the lovelorn loser, keeps his distance. Irene likes Charlie and, of course, loathes Hank, but guess who she'd rather have around when the bad guys get the drop? Hank pretends to be Charlie to get into Irene's pants, then claims that her subsequent outrage isn't fair: "Just this once try to look at it from my side," he argues. "I was horny." Zellweger's smudgy, rumpled sexiness brings Carrey down a notch and humanizes him, but he's our most vivacious physical comedian: When he sidles into a motel room as Hank-pretending-to-be-Charlie, his glittering eyes give the game away. He's maniacally lit-up.

The Farrellys have cornered the market on comedies that make audiences scream louder than at splattery horror flicks, but for all their gross-out set pieces (dead-animal jokes, wanker jokes, poop jokes), their work has a loving, inclusive spirit. As usual, they've cast people with physical disabilities—more than you've ever seen in a mainstream Hollywood film. At first, these folks seem to be the butt of the gags; then they turn the tables on their "normal" oppressors. As it turns out, there's no such thing as normal: Everyone's part of the same freaky family—from an albino called Whitey (Michael Bowman) to Charlie's three huge African-American "sons" (Anthony Anderson, Mongo Brownlee, and Jerod Mixon), who are funny enough to get a movie of their own. Over the closing credits, the Farrellys affix names to all the extras, many of them old Rhode Island friends and neighbors. They have real family values.

John Waters has made the distinction between "good bad taste" and "bad bad taste," and the Farrellys belong in the former camp: They're national treasures. But a recent column by George F. Will attacks movies like There's Something About Mary, American Pie (1999), and South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999) for being products of the "new incivility." I have no problem with the notion of a new incivility, but I don't think it can be traced to a preference for gross-out comedies, which seem infinitely more benign and humanistic than the smirky sex romps of yore. After recounting some gags out of context, Will goes on to complain about poor service in restaurants, people yapping on cell phones, and other impediments to the good (Tory) life. He concludes:

A version of that idea invests gross-out movies with an aura of seriousness, even social benefaction: Such movies supposedly enlarge liberty by being "iconoclastic" toward "taboos." Hence this unified field theory of today's vulgarians: Infantilism, meaning life lived in subordination to elemental and unedited appetites, increases rapidly when prosperity puts technological sophistication at the service of a society decreasingly sophisticated about other matters, such as manners and why they matter.

But what are the taboos being flouted in the sequences Will mentions, and to what end? The joke in American Pie centers on a virgin lad who has been told by a friend what sex feels like, decides to try it out on a freshly baked apple pie, and is discovered by his dad—who then attempts, with nervous liberal heartiness, to bond with his son by confessing his own erotic mishaps. The hero of There's Something About Mary is spied through a bathroom window by his beautiful date and her mom, who mistakenly think he's masturbating. Deeply flustered and in a panic to show them he isn't, he pulls his zipper through his testes. A variation on that bit is repeated later. The adolescent, now grown up, is advised by a pal that in order to counter the embarrassing problem of overeagerness (physiological and psychological) on a date, he ought to masturbate first. He does—but, of course, his date shows up early, and in his haste he loses track of his …

Are these Molière gags? Hardly. But they're not gratuitous, either, and they don't preach infantilism. They spring from male sexual anxiety and the terror of exposure: They're worst-case scenarios of embarrassment. Any boy who has ever gone through adolescence with his textbooks held strategically in front of his lap will find them consoling, and any woman who has wondered about the sources of male shame will find them revelatory. They're good bad taste, whereas Will's is bad good taste—the taste that oppresses.

A scene from Chicken RunIt has become such a cliché to describe a certain kind of middle-class Englishwoman as a clucking hen that when the clucking hens in Chicken Run open their beaks and out come the voices of middle-class Englishwomen—well, it feels so right you'll want to cock-a-doodle-doo. The farm on which the hens live is like a German prisoner-of-war camp, and when their egg output drops, they're snatched away and roasted. The idea of remounting a Nazi prison-break movie (cf, The Great Escape [1963]) with bourgeois, complacent female poultry might not seem so promising—and this is a grim setting for a kiddie movie. But this first feature by Nick Park and Peter Lord, the team that brought you Wallace and Gromit, is a diabolically witty piece of work, a haymaker. Each chicken is a miracle of characterization, and the tour-de-force sequence—in which the heroine and the Yank hero (Mel Gibson, never funnier) fight to stay in one piece in a pie-making machine with more wheels, cogs, and pulleys than Rube Goldberg's worst nightmare—surpasses Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) for sheer kinetic marvelousness. Two wise-ass mice call the hen's pathetic attempts to fly "poultry in motion," but the movie is poetry in motion: It's eggsquisite.

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
David Edelstein is Slate's film critic. You can read his reviews in "Reel Time" and in "Movies." He can be contacted at .
Stills from: Me, Myself & Irene from the Everett Collection; Chicken Run © 2000 DreamWorks. All rights reserved.
COMMENTS

Reader Response from The Fray:


"Memo"

To: David Edelstein, Slate
From:
The cultural mandarins who determine the flow of the zeitgeist
cc: film critics everywhere, but especially those with cushy culture-desk gigs at online magazines

As of today it will no longer be considered culturally subversive, or even puckishly counter-intuitive, for sophisticated film critics to defend the oeuvre of the Farrelly brothers in an effort to deflect charges of elitism and aesthetic snobbery. What was originally granted as a privilege has clearly come to be seen by entirely too many as an absolute right. It is our belief that this privilege simply cannot be sustained in light of the staggering number of critics who feel the need to alleviate their own class guilt and project an image of themselves as something other than the bunch of Thorstein Veblen-lovin', Pauline Kael-readin', Battleship Potemkin-watchin', Cineaste-subscribin' smarty-pants types that they are. The list of banned critical activities includes, but is not limited to, the following:

1) theorizing on the "eschatology of scatology" during the Farrellys' celebrated "brown period"

2) equating the Farrellys' obsession with excrement and human semen with Shakespeare's reliance on bawdy humor and sexual double-entendre to reach the audiences of his day

3) arching an eyebrow at anyone who would maintain that the Farrellys are a pair of unbelievably lucky idiots rather than a duo of taboo-shattering provocateurs.

This ban is effective immediately. And we don't want to hear you going on and on about these movies at dinner parties, either. Just give it a rest. They're perfectly vile films that are indeed coarsening the culture, and if you insist on celebrating them as some sort of triumph of the splendidly messy id over the confining restraints of the ego, well, then, we're going to force you to write long, flattering reappraisals of all those Porky's and Hardbodies and Revenge of the Nerds movies, too. Then you'll be sorry.

--Mandarin4

(To reply, click here.)


Edelstein replies: I love your memo and will put it where the sun do shine, however:

1)In '94, I drove Pauline Kael to see Dumb & Dumber in Pittsfield, Ma. and she loved it--laughed as hard as I did and even cited it in a NY'er interview that year. I think it's part of Kael's (and for that matter James Agee's and Manny Farber's) legacy that even "serious" (or, if you prefer, "cushy") critics can admit to a love of certain low comedies. When I worked with another pointy-head, Robert Brustein, at the American Repertory Theatre, the subject of so-called low genres (including farce, commedia delle'arte, and yes, even horror) was a happily shared point of reference.

2) I don't recall citing Shakespeare in my Farrelly Bros. pieces, but I'll certainly follow your advice and leave him out. Before that goes into effect, however, let's remember all the classic authors who loved bawdy humor and went as far in that direction as they dared. No, the Farrellys are not automatically good because they use bawdy humor in the tradition of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Jarry, etc. We could certainly debate about whether they fail on their own terms. (You have your opinion, I have mine.) Which brings me to...

3)Porky's stinks. So does Hardbodies and Revenge of the Nerds. They're leering, lazy, and formulaic. Are you suggesting that we can't make distinctions among gross-out comedies--that they're all by definition in the same class? That seems as easy and wrong-headed as invoking Shakespeare to say that the Farrellys are giants.

--David Edelstein

(To reply, click here.)


[A reply came zinging back:]

Let me just say that I really like David Edelstein's writing and think he's one of the sharpest critics around. I'm nevertheless compelled to continue my harangue, based on his response.

I don't think you actually made the comparison with Shakespeare, David, but I just want to get confirmation in writing. Would you ever, in a million years, link the Farrellys' cavalcade of pre-pubescent obsessions (feces, ejaculation, anal sex, the supposed "hilarity" of racial and cultural other-ness) with the strategic, self-aware bawdiness of Shakespeare and Chaucer? Wasn't one used as a leavening agent, artfully folded into much larger and far more serious works of poetry that attempted to explore the human condition, whereas the other is a parade of blunt gags, unself-conscious and unfiltered, designed to take us backwards in our psychological development to a time when "exploration of the human condition" was more or less limited to the discovery that guys get boners, girls have boobies and everybody farts?

Still, thanks for making me articulate my own ideas on the matter. I really do like your writing, lots, and find it consistently thought-provoking. Keep up the good work.

--Mandarin4

(To reply, or to read a fuller version, click here.)

(6/27)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
DOONESBURY FLASHBACK
TODAY'S VIDEO
Big bellies.78/091124_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on Thanksgiving.69/091125_TC.jpg
Nomme de me.77/091125_TD.jpg