Okay, this is weird.

Overstreet wrote:
: Okay, this is weird.

But is it as weird as this?

Oh, and just for the search engines: Ben Stiller. Robert Downey Jr. Jack Black. Tom Cruise.

UPDATE: Etan Coen is *not* Ethan Coen. (Thanks to MLeary for correcting me in the next post.)


And now there's this R-rated teaser trailer/thing which includes a clip of Robert Downey Jr. "in blackface" as an African-American soldier.

So who is this Etan?

Weird. His "alternate name" is "Ethan."

Okay, I've been duped. It *isn't* the same guy!!

You can watch the trailer here. I've watched it 3-4 times now, and it always cracks me up, especially any part with Robert Downey Jr. in it.

I watched 4-5 times, which is why I think you beat me to the post. I also gotta give props to the few bits with Nick Nolte.

Is that *really* Downey Jr.? I mean, sure, before the transformation. But... wow.

Tom Cruise, in Bit Role, Nips Studio’s Top Gun
Take that, Sumner Redstone.
At an industry screening Tuesday night of the forthcoming comedy “Tropic Thunder” from Paramount Pictures and its unit DreamWorks, Tom Cruise brought down the house with his surprise portrayal of a bald, hairy-chested, foulmouthed, dirty-dancing movie mogul of the kind who is only too happy to throw an actor to the wolves when his popularity cools. . . .
New York Times, April 3

- - -

FWIW, this is not the first collaboration between Cruise and Ben Stiller.

The red-band trailer!

"It is yet another cinematic insult to America’s military" (???)

"A ticket purchase for this movie is a vote AGAINST decency and morality."

"Progress is being made. Fewer R rated movies are being released. If that trend is to continue, however, you and your family must vote for the good. Therefore, go see THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN and KIT KITTREDGE: AN AMERICAN GIRL (June 20 and July 2)."

-says "Dr." Ted Baehr in a recent Movieguide article (http://movieguide.org/index.php?s=articles&id=266).

Now I can't wait to see this movie!!!

"Dr." Ted Baehr wrote:
: It is yet another cinematic insult to America’s military (???)

Um, are there any actual soldiers in this film? On the American side, I mean. I thought these guys were all just actors PLAYING soldier.

: Progress is being made. Fewer R rated movies are being released. If that trend is to continue, however, you and your family must vote for the good. Therefore, go see THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN and KIT KITTREDGE: AN AMERICAN GIRL (June 20 and July 2).

Right, go see more PG movies that have fans fuming that they ought to be rated PG-13.

BTW, what's with those dates? Prince Caspian came out back in May. And it hasn't been doing all that well.

If ol' Ted looked at this film correctly and saw that it is actually an insult directed at Hollywood movie makers, does anyone think that he'd come out and champion it?

I think those dates are just for Kit Kittredge, which for some reason is having a limited release in the major cities on the 20th, then expanding nationally on the 2nd

So, will the good doctor send someone to review the movie? Or will they just park in front of the theater, watch the crowd and then review it based on that, ala the most recent Harry Potter film?

I'm a little hazy on MovieGuide's mission. The Mission Statement refers to Christian world views and so forth, but I have seen on more than one occasion movies get praised or condemned based on things like whether it is pro or anti-capitalist and pro or anti-U. S. military. Does MovieGuide see these as being the same thing? Also, is it specifically the U.S. military that needs to be praised or is it the military of the country that made the movie? Would a Mexican movie be required to take a positive view of the U. S. military or would it be required to take a positive view of the Mexican military? Or both? Or neither?

I would ask there, but I would have to become a member to use their forums, and I don't think I'm convinced that it would be a good use of my funds to do so.

Yes.

Thumb up: Jeffrey Wells, Kirk Honeycutt.

Thumb down: Todd McCarthy.

New Film Tests Crudity’s Limits
Ben Stiller slurps gore from a human head. Robert Downey Jr. wears blackface throughout. Both milk an extended gag about Hollywood’s weakness for what they impolitely call retards.
And the film was not cheap.
“Tropic Thunder,” an R-rated movie-industry spoof set to open on Aug. 13, is shaping up as an unusual parting gift to Paramount Pictures from Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Stacey Snider. The three are expected to leave Paramount shortly over dissatisfaction with its handling of their DreamWorks unit, which the studio bought in 2005.
The movie clearly has hit potential. Directed by Mr. Stiller, it has an ensemble cast also including Jack Black, Matthew McConaughey, Steve Coogan and Nick Nolte, not to mention Tom Cruise, in a raucous cameo as a vulgar studio chief.
But Paramount executives also face the delicate task of selling what may be the raunchiest comedy yet in a summer that has seen more than its share. . . .
One of this summer’s lessons is that the audience laps up crudity, but only to a point. The PG-13-rated “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan,” with its penis jokes; the R-rated “Step Brothers,” which laid out Will Ferrell’s scrotum on a drum; and, of course, “The Love Guru,” another PG-13 movie whose plot turned partly on penis length, are all likely to end the season without having broken the $100 million mark. ( In general, rude comedies have also generally performed less well than other sorts of movies overseas.)
When R-rated comedies have broken that barrier lately, they have usually had a strong female presence. “Sex and the City,” rated R, topped $150 million at the box office this summer with four women in the lead roles; even last year’s “Superbad,” which took in $121 million, had boys chasing girls. In 2005 “Wedding Crashers,” an R-rated blockbuster, took in $209 million, thanks in no small part to a romance-driven plot line that made it a date movie. . . .
“Tropic Thunder” has about as much feminine presence as “Platoon.” . . .
New York Times, August 2

Jeffrey Wells:

The film isn't raunchy at all; it's merely extreme. And that's an appropriate tone given (a) the necessity of any comedy to push the envelope to at least some degree, and (b ) the extremities (emotional, psychedelic, whatever) that are expected from any film dealing with the Vietnam war.

Saw it last night. I have no idea how I'll approach a review of this film.

John Podhoretz is spot on.

Christian wrote:
: John Podhoretz is spot on.

I dunno, it seems to me he contributes to the "Tom Cruise is so amazingly profane like nothing you've ever seen before!!" hype in a way that will probably just continue to raise people's expectations higher than they ought to be. I'm inclined to say, in fact, that there are other characters just within THIS movie who are more profane (or at any rate, I remember their vulgarities more vividly than Cruise's efforts to yell the f-word), let alone characters in OTHER movies who have outdone the Cruise character here.

BTW, you know that scene in the trailer where Ben Stiller asks the guy beating him up if he wants to do another take because "you totally leaned into that, bro"? I don't recall seeing that scene in the actual film itself. Did I blink and miss something?

I had forgotten which character Owen Wilson was supposed to play before his hospitalization last year required the filmmakers to recast the role. But after seeing the film, I had to guess it was the Matthew McConaughey character. And sure enough, yep, it was. It is very easy to imagine how Wilson would have played this character, and it is very easy to imagine that . . . but I'd best not state an opinion on the film itself, lest I break the embargo.

Yeah, I don't think Cruise is amazingly profane, but I'm struck by how Podhoretz didn't name the actor, but YOU did -- then, in response to review published last week in a national magazine, said you don't want to offer an opinion on the film's merits, because that would "break the embargo."

Stick to your code, bro.

Here's more on the violations the studio might care about. FWIW, I sounded out a few other critics about this very topic, and their sense seemed to be that reviewers ought to err on the side of caution in revealing the name of this performer.

Christian wrote:
: Yeah, I don't think Cruise is amazingly profane, but I'm struck by how Podhoretz didn't name the actor, but YOU did . . .

Well, it's been public knowledge for months -- we first mentioned it in this thread back in March -- and it has been such a high-profile bit of public knowledge that I never even noticed that Podhoretz shied away from revealing the actor's name. I guess my mind just filled in the blank that I didn't even notice was there.

: . . . then, in response to review published last week in a national magazine, said you don't want to offer an opinion on the film's merits, because that would "break the embargo."
: Stick to your code, bro.

I am. The studio tells me not to say anything until release date. The studio apparently tells other critics to say whatever they like, whenever they like. The inconsistency is in THEIR code, not mine.

: FWIW, I sounded out a few other critics about this very topic, and their sense seemed to be that reviewers ought to err on the side of caution in revealing the name of this performer.

I dunno, both of the major trade papers mentioned that Cruise is in this film -- though the Hollywood Reporter claimed that people might not recognize who he was playing until the final credits. (I find THAT hard to believe. Cruise is not a chameleon the way that, say, Robert Downey Jr. is, no matter HOW much make-up you put on him.)

Is he more profane than he was in Magnolia? I heard about his appearance months ago, and didn't get why this is such a big deal. Sure, it's unusual to see him in that kind of makeup, but isn't it sort of underwhelming, since this is a comedy, and he played a very, very serious offender in Magnolia?

Podhertz:



So... I wonder if Movieguide is going to retract its condemnation of Tropic Thunder as "a cinematic insult to America’s military."

No, wait... I don't wonder.

Overstreet wrote:
: Is he more profane than he was in Magnolia?

Not especially, no, I don't think so. But it's been almost a decade since I saw that film all the way through, so take that with a grain of salt.

I like to poke fun at this supposed "rule," which has never touched me, but that's more a reflection of my place in the pecking order. My Washington Area Film Critics have told me that this rule is indeed applied, and usually to the "little guys," while the big boys get a pass.

I'm of two minds about revealing the name of the performer. I knew it in advance. My friend who saw it with me knew it in advance. But when I mentioned it to another friend, she accused me of spoiling a big surprise. I argued that the actor's name appears in the credits -- although it's the end credits -- and he's not unbilled. But if the studio wants to shoot at me and scream "DANCE!," I guess I'll do a little jig.

And no, I did not find the actor's performance more profane than that previous role mentioned earlier. I also didn't find it as amusing as did Podhoretz, although I was amused by it, and particularly by what runs during the closing credits.

I see in today's NY Times that interest groups are likely to boycott the film, which strikes me as misguided. But to each his own.

Christian wrote:
: But if the studio wants to shoot at me and scream "DANCE!," I guess I'll do a little jig.

What, has the studio actually been sending out signals that it wants to keep the actor's name a secret? Even after the New York Times devoted an entire article (linked earlier in this thread) to how this actor had 'em rolling in the aisles at an industry screening back in April? Is there anything in the press kit that says "Please do not tell people that this actor is in the film; or, if you must, please do not tell people which character he is playing"?

: I see in today's NY Times that interest groups are likely to boycott the film, which strikes me as misguided.

Sigh, yeah. It's pretty clear that what the movie is mocking -- both with regard to race AND with regard to mental disability -- is the tendency of actors and filmmakers in general to exploit those sorts of things, and not the things themselves. The scene where Downey describes all the actors who played mentally challenged characters without going "full retard" is pretty brutal, on one level, but also an accurate dissection, I think, of how the industry does these things -- whether its calculations are conscious or subconscious or whatever.

I am saddened to read of the quote that “I came out feeling like I had been assaulted,” said David C. Tolleson, executive director of the Down syndrome group who saw the movie on Friday.

As a parent of a child with down syndrome this latest article is of interest... regarding the expression retard...its amazing how having a child with special needs purifies like a fire not only one's vocabulary but the way u look at the world -making all more sacred knowing that God has given u not only a gift but asked u especially to rise so. The action of calling a boycott is not misguided its just a viewpoint afforded by the grace of the shoes that we are given. Mr Tolleson is just doing his job and he has no choice but to do so.. and being a member of this particular organization he does an excellent job at that. I just disagree with "misguided" and have to protest that term, and beg patience by drawing analogy to what some might have similarly experienced and felt with the Passion, the Davinci Code or seeing the corpus and crucifix in a jar of pis.. and please no argument that Im drawing on different mediums...or genre..its similar its a matter of blood sweat and tears.. as a member of this small community by way of the grace of my son we are intensely proud of all their hard work overcoming delays...not just of our own children but especially of others for in there victories or small strides our hopes are strengthened that its all simply going to be o.k.. Much like poets parents who elect to be parents of those who have mental handicaps function on a higher decible of sensitivity than most , and fight every inch we can as advocates to a group of individuals whose exception to the vast majority living in a world is only growing ... a world fast becoming the very likes of something out of the film Gattica or a Brave New World.

To be intellectually honest and fair for i know Christian u didn't mean offense ,,,if you or anyone might find a spare minute and send me via the mail on the board a description and spoiler to elaborate what Tolleson is remarking on i would sincerely appreciate it as im sure it shall be a topic soon amidst my son's play and therapy groups.
Thanks

Jacques wrote:
: I am saddened to read of the quote that “I came out feeling like I had been assaulted,” said David C. Tolleson, executive director of the Down syndrome group who saw the movie on Friday.

There is no depiction of Down Syndrome whatsoever in this film. And there is, in a sense, no actual depiction of a mentally challenged person, either.

What there IS, is a movie-within-the-movie called Simple Jack, in which the actor played by Ben Stiller plays a "retard" named Jack who is good with animals and wins the heart of a farmgirl. The actor played by Ben Stiller -- who normally specializes in action movies -- wonders why he didn't win an award for this seemingly more "serious" role, and the other actor played by Robert Downey Jr explains to him how Dustin Hoffman, Tom Hanks and others have won Oscars for playing characters who were mentally challenged in some ways but also superhuman in others (excellent at poker, excellent at ping-pong, etc.). So the whole point of this subplot is that actors and other filmmakers tackle these kinds of subjects purely as a way of getting attention and winning acclaim, without any particular care for the realism or lack thereof in their portrayals.

It is similar to the story thread concerning the Robert Downey Jr. character and how he embodies a set of racial stereotypes, thinking it will make the African-American character he is playing more "authentic". In THAT case, the movie gives the character a black co-star who challenges him and his assumptions. If the film had treated the Simple Jack subplot as extensively as it treats the Downey Jr. character's story thread, then it might have cast a genuine mentally-handicapped person as a foil for the Stiller character -- except it would be very hard to justify casting such a character as a marine in a platoon during the Vietnam War (which is what the main movie-within-the-movie is all about), and I can't imagine what other part of the movie would have been conducive to casting such a character. Especially since Simple Jack is presented as something from the Stiller character's PAST. It's part of the back story, it's not part of the main story.

Really, boycotting the movie based on a bit of back-story like this would make about as much sense as a boycott by gay monks (because they, too, are depicted in an older movie that was made by one of these characters prior to the start of the movie proper).

At least the filmmakers probably don't have to worry about complaints from actors battling drug addictions (like the character played by Jack Black), because, um, they already have Robert Downey Jr. in the movie.

Jacques: Peter is exactly right about this. I read a jaw-dropping Op-ed in today's Washington Post from someone who runs the Special Olympics. Can't believe the serious tone of it, although given the writer's job, I can understand his concern. Still, to see the printed words of the "retard" exchange, divorced from the context of who says it to whom (one vain actor to another) and the silliness of Oscar campaigning in general -- they're discussing performances that are clearly Oscar bids -- is amazingly unfair to the movie, which wants mainly to make fun of actor excess in that scene.

I'm not saying it won't rub you, or others, the wrong way, or that it would be wrong of you to feel hurt (if you do) by the scene. But I think the target of that scene is clearly Stiller's (Tugg Speedman's) bid for Oscar glory. We all know that Oscar smiles upon performers who take on the role of mentally and physically challenged individuals.

BTW, the linked op-ed requires a warning. I regret that anyone would read the "retard" exchange on the page, divorced of its context. It's a pretty great scene, had the audience completely in stitches when I saw it. To merely read the words from the script, without seeing them recited by a white actor who's had his skin chemically treated to resemble an African American is to miss much of the point of the scene.

Peter: Speaking of unfair, I may have been that toward you in terms of the question of whether to reveal the particular actor's name. I know only what I read in the NY Observer piece linked earlier. I had read Podhoretz's review before seeing the movie, and took his review as a cue not to reveal the name. When I asked my critic friends about it, none of them said they'd heard directly from the studio on this, but all seemed to be under the impression that the performer's appearance was supposed to be a surprise. I'm writing around it, although my wife read my review and asked, "Who's the actor?," thinking I had left out the name by accident!

Christian wrote:
: Still, to see the printed words of the "retard" exchange, divorced from the context of who says it to whom (one vain actor to another) and the silliness of Oscar campaigning in general -- they're discussing performances that are clearly Oscar bids -- is amazingly unfair to the movie, which wants mainly to make fun of actor excess in that scene.

Yes, exactly.

: I think the target of that scene is clearly Stiller's (Tugg Speedman's) bid for Oscar glory. We all know that Oscar smiles upon performers who take on the role of mentally and physically challenged individuals.

I agree that the primary target is Tugg's bid for Oscar glory. But I think the film is also targetting the broader tendency of the industry, via the Oscars, to reward actors for taking on such "stunt" roles. (Remember how Pauline Kael complained that Dustin Hoffman did nothing more than hump the same note on the piano for two hours straight in Rain Man? Her criticism may have been a bit stronger than the role warranted, but she had a point, I think -- and it didn't prevent Hoffman from winning the Oscar for that role.)

: Peter: Speaking of unfair, I may have been that toward you in terms of the question of whether to reveal the particular actor's name.

No worries. I ended up playing it safe in my review, too.

BTW, re: the film's use of a certain word for the mentally handicapped, it turns out that one of Ben Stiller's co-writers, Etan Coen, has worked a fair bit with Mike Judge (on the TV series King of the Hill and on the movie Idiocracy), and he also wrote and directed a short film called ... My Wife Is Retarded, starring Sean Astin, Leslie Bibb, Gary Cole and George Segal.

I'm famous.

EDIT: Just noticed that my name is misspelled. How humbling.

I do plan on seeing TT, but I'm curious about the thesis, that is the basis of the conversation. From the article, it appears that Sean Penn's performance in I Am Sam was compared, positively, as more authentic (thus, challenging), than, say, Dustin Hoffman or Tom Hanks, who had a special talent with their conditions.

For those who saw it (and feel free to pm me if you think it's spoiler-worthy), did Leonardo DiCaprio make the conversation? Or Cliff Robertson? Were Jack Nicholson and Angelina Jolie not included because they were not mentally handicapped enough? There's an Entertainment Weekly expose here waiting to be written...

Nick

I've read a lot of positive reviews of this movie that cite its "ruthless" satire of Hollywood culture, but I have to wonder... ruthless though it may be, is it necessarily effective or worthwhile? My first reaction was that it's simply shooting fish in a barrel. I mean, is it really a big revelation to anyone that Hollywood actors are spoiled and totally dependent on their cell phones and publicists? That some of them are addicted to drugs? The Hollywood celebrates portrayals of mentally challenged individuals? That big-time execs might care very much-- a bit too much-- about money?

It's a very funny movie, to be sure, but I'm not sure if it tells us anything we didn't already know pretty well.

There's Something About Mary uses the word in a quick line by a clueless character attempting to be attractive to Mary who works with mentally challenged kids. I'm a bit sensitive to this issue myself. My Aunt Delores had Down's Syndrome at a time when it was considered extremely debilitating. My grandmother cared for her all her life until they both went into a nursing home. The line in Mary was hilarious to my mind, depicting the transparent cluelessness of the gambit. And also considering the Farrelly Brothers' work with special needs folks of all types (and willingness to use such folks in their films, not as sport, but as part of the human comedy), they were the ones to pull off such a joke.

Considering the "spoilers" that have gone before, none of this leads me not to see the film. Not having seen the film yet, I wouldn't comment either way on the wisdom of protest/boycott.

FWIW, I can appreciate why some people are sensitive to the Simple Jack jokes. It's kind of like how Hamlet 2 (another movie starring Steve Coogan as a blasphemer, hmmm) uses a musical number called 'Rock Me Sexy Jesus' to "mock" the badness of the high-school play. But are we, in the audience, truly laughing at the characters' tacky lack of inspiration? Or are we laughing at the "sexy Jesus" himself, and indulging in the tacky uninspired humour ourselves?

So it's a thin line, and I can appreciate why some people find themselves on one side of that line and not the other.

That said, I do think these things need to be seen in context, at least, before anyone mounts detailed complaints or protests over them. And even then, I think it is entirely possible for some of the complaints to be way off-base. (Don't let Spike Lee near this film. Please, don't.)

BTW, apparently Tom Cruise is actually DOING PRESS for this film. Spoiler? I think not!

- - -

Tom Cruise credits Ben Stiller for Tropic Thunder role
Cruise, who worked with Stiller on 2000 mockumentary Mission: Improbable, has also revealed he didn’t hesitate at the chance to team up with him again after Stiller described the movie as his “dream project”.
The 46-year-old Top Gun star added to Men’s Vogue magazine: "To make a long story short, I read it, I loved it, and we started working on it."
Herald Sun, August 8

Ebert gives it 3 1/2 stars (but doesn't he give EVERY movie 3 1/2 stars these days? The ol' softie!)

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...VIEWS/593221592

Interestingly, he takes the approach that you-know-who's cameo is indeed a spoiler.

Ebert's review has what I consider to be about the significance of Simple Jack to the plot, but it's not exactly ruinous. However, had I known about it before seeing the film, it would've ruined a surprising moment of humor.

morgan1098 wrote:
: Ebert gives it 3 1/2 stars (but doesn't he give EVERY movie 3 1/2 stars these days? The ol' softie!)

Yeah, I don't know if I can trust his reviews any more. After all his medical mishaps, I sometimes think he's just so darn glad to be alive that he's thankful for every movie he sees, he's thankful that he's lived long enough to see THIS one, and THIS one, and THIS one, and... Of course, it doesn't have to be this way. He COULD respond to his medical mishaps by regarding every moment he has left on this Earth as someone precious and sacred, and thus he could be more inclined to slam movies that are wastes of his time. But that's not the way Ebert rolls. (Back when Siskel was alive, Harper's Index reported that, for every 4 thumbs-up that Siskel gave, Ebert gave 5. So he was always the more lenient of the two critics.)

Meanwhile, other reviews of this film are trickling in. David Poland:

Somehow, the guy who has become famous for getting his balls stuck in a zipper and other such subtle gems feels good about mocking Eddie Murphy’s complex work in make-up as nothing more than a bunch of fart jokes, mocking fat people in a similar way to the way he did in the end of Dodgeball. I thought it was very funny in Dodgeball. But I didn’t think of it being him mocking fat people in general, but that his muscle man character had been reduced to his least wished for image of himself.

But that is how it works for Stiller with me. When he is the butt of the joke, it works. As soon as he starts to point the finger at others, he becomes a nasty little turd of a man.

Glenn Kenny:

In The Clothes Have No Emperor, Paul Slansky’s invaluable compendium of the political and cultural foibles of the 1980s, Tom Cruise is cited giving the following quote while promoting his film Top Gun: “A Top Gun instructor once told me there are only four occupations worthy of a man: actor, rock star, jet fighter pilot, or President of the United States.” The quote really is a gift that keeps on giving.

First, one envisions the reaction of cops and firemen the world over, having finally been exposed for the cringing femme pussies they really are. Then one marvels at just how accommodating a guy that Top Gun instructor was. “Actor”! Jeez, somebody shoulda passed this quote on to Mickey Rourke before he went and got mixed up in that boxing mishegas—coulda saved him some trouble. “Rock star”! Wow, I bet David Bowie musta been chuffed to hear that. Although it’s more likely that the Top Gun instructor had Ted Nugent in mind. The phrase “rock star” cuts a pretty wide swath; maybe the instructor should have been more specific. But there you have it.

Cruise’s noxious pronouncement came to mind while I was watching the new comedy Tropic Thunder for two reasons. First, because it’s exactly the kind of fatuous twaddle one might expect to be spewed by any of its main characters, all of whom are Hollywood actors. . . .

The second reason the quote came to mind is—of course—that Mr. Tom Cruise himself is in the movie, practically unrecognizable under grotesque makeup for his role as Lev Grossman, a vile studio executive who likes to abuse his minions in terms that recall “my foot soldiers who go up and down Wilshire Boulevard each day will blow your brains out”-era Mike Ovitz (only with more profanity), and who also enjoys dancing—ridiculously, of course—at random moments to one of the more overtly macho tunes in Ludacris’ catalog.

For all Grossman’s awfulness, it’s manifestly clear that he’s the real deal, which tells you all you need to know about the film’s philosophy. Many have described Cruise’s turn as a form of revenge against Viacom head Sumner Redstone, who publicly criticized Cruise’s “bizarre” behavior in 2006. But Grossman is hardly an analog for Redstone, whose vulgarity is far more, shall we say, homespun than the Tropic Thunder’s character, for one thing. Nonetheless, there is an aspect of Cruise’s performance here that says, “I’m going to show you a far bigger freak than the guy who jumped on Oprah’s couch.” All the brouhaha over Downey’s putative blackface schtick (not to mention the “concern” evinced by certain representatives of the disabled, who, truth to tell, are missing a certain point but will nonetheless be vilified Thunder’s admirers for the far less nuanced reason that they’re just not hip enough to get the movie’s awesomeness—indeed, pretty much as I write this one Hollywood observer is sniffily referring to an anti-Thunder editorial by an activist for the disabled as “not-very-hip”) has helped cover the fact that Cruise’s Grossman, with his simian posture, scraggly beard, unsightly tufts of chest hair, pouchlike paunch, and overall vileness, is a fairly vicious anti-semitic caricature. But doubtlessly one worthy of a man.

This is not to say that much of Tropic Thunder isn’t funny—these guys are, after all, professionals—nor that a few of its points aren’t well taken. For all that, the film is so broad and sometimes more than borderline hateful that one wonders just what it’s trying to, um, say. Is it that the idea of artistic integrity as engendered by the Hollywood system is nothing more than a grim joke…or just that the idea of artistic integrity, period, is nothing more than a grim joke? And who precisely is the joke on, anyway? Here we get into an area wherein the teller, or tellers, could in fact be as, if not more, important than the tale. . . .

Interestingly, Kenny takes a shot at the review by Eric Kohn, which appears at Premiere.com ... which used to be where KENNY'S reviews appeared until he got the shaft a few months ago. Hmmm.

Those are well written reviews, Peter, but when I checked RT earlier today, "Tropic Thunder" stood at 70% Fresh, including a few "cream of the crop" types. I guess you're picking from the 30%. It'll be interesting to see where the film's rating stands this time tomorrow.

I don't have much more to say about the movie than I've already said, but I'm looking forward to tracking the reactions.

And Jeffrey Wells.

Christian wrote:
: I guess you're picking from the 30%.

Well, I wasn't paying attention to RT at all. Just noticing a couple of reviews that popped up in my news feed.

I'm not sure what to make of Kenny's accusation of anti-Semitic caricature. I mean, c'mon, Ben Stiller is Jewish, right? And so is at least one of his co-writers, I would assume (what with a name like Etan Cohen). And so is Eric Kohn, the critic that Kenny takes aim at. (Kohn interviewed me for an article in Heeb magazine a few months ago. Make of that what you will.) Tom Cruise himself might not be Jewish, but if his character IS a Jewish stereotype, then it would seem some Jews, at least, can laugh at themselves (or at least at their fellow Jews). Oh, and I have no idea what Kenny's ethnicity might be. With a name like that, you might assume he'd be a Gentile, but then, with a name like Chattaway, you'd never guess I was a Mennonite, so who knows.

FWIW, as of 9:40 a.m., it's at 81% Fresh.

Manohla Dargis:

What’s most notable about the film’s use of blackface is how much softer it is compared with the rather more vulgar and far less loving exploitation of what you might call Jewface. Hands down the most noxious character in “Tropic Thunder” is Les Grossman, the producer of the movie-within-a-movie, who’s played by an almost unrecognizable Tom Cruise under a thick scum of makeup and latex. Heavily and heavy-handedly coded as Jewish, the character is murderous, repellent and fascinating, a grotesque from his swollen fingers to the heavy gold dollar sign nestled on his yeti-furred chest. At one time Mr. Stiller wanted to adapt Budd Schulberg’s brutal satire about a Hollywood hustler, “What Makes Sammy Run?,” to the screen, a long dormant and now perhaps lost project that haunts this otherwise safe film like a wrathful ghost.

The Los Angeles Times talks to Ben Stiller about the origin of the character:

Q: Did you write the part of the studio boss with Tom Cruise in mind?

A: I had shown him a draft before the character existed and he really responded. Then I was talking to him about doing the agent [a character played by Matthew McConaughey]. But at the same time, I had another issue I was trying to figure out. Three days later at 10 at night I get a phone call from Tom. He had this story idea that had nothing to do with his character. The guy cares about movies and story and has a great mind for that stuff. He said, “It’s really funny but where’s the studio head? It would be really funny to see a studio head in this.” For me, that triggered something.... So then Justin [Theroux] and I wrote up those scenes. For me, it made the movie work better. Tom didn’t have any input in the actual writing, so I didn’t know how he’d respond. But he was committed to developing this character. His only thought was he wanted to have big hands.

Q: Why big hands?

A: No idea. We were sitting there and he’s like, “I want the guy to have big hands.” We did four full-on makeup tests. I really wanted him to be bald. He has these piercing eyes and the Tom Cruise energy. I just thought it would be great to take away the strength of the Tom Cruise hairline. So we do a screen test and he says, “I just feel like I want to move.” So he starts doing this weird hip-hop dance and I was like, “Yeah! Keep doing that!” Full on dancing, no music. We went back and I was with the music supervisor George Drakoulias and he said, “You should put ‘Get Back,’ that Ludacris song.” So we put that up next to it and weirdly he was dancing in perfect rhythm to music that didn’t exist. I’m putting it on the DVD.

I'd like to hear what Stiller has to say about these accusations of anti-Semitism and the character being "coded" as Jewish, which suggests not just a subconscious subtext but some sort of intentionality on the part of the filmmakers. I find them kind of bizarre, but what do I know.

Headline on the front page of The Seattle Times today:

"Tropical Thunder": Baffoon Platoon Fights For Laughs

Wow. Two mistakes in one headline! Bad night at the office last night?

After seeing this, I feel that it did not contribute in any way to my growth and development as a human being. It was funny to see Hollywood skewered to such a degree, but I really didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. When it comes to "egotistical actors who think they're in a movie but are actually in the real world" films, I much prefer the kinder, gentler Three Amigos.

A few other observations:
1) There was lots of footage in the trailers that did not appear in the final cut... most notably the "you totally leaned into that, bro" line that Peter mentioned earlier in the thread.

2) Relatedly, there's a scene in the Tropic Thunder trailer in which Ben Stiller's character--playing an action hero in another film--looks at the camera and says "Who left the fridge open?" While saying this line in the Tropic Thunder trailer, there are two little arctic seals or some such creatures looking out from underneath his parka. However, in the movie I saw yesterday, the arctic seals were digitally replaced by human children. Ummm, WHY?

3) I knew going in that Tom Cruise played the studio exec. But still, how could anyone NOT recognize that as Tom Cruise? I'm baffled by the critics that have said "You won't even recognize him until you see his name in the credits." I was expecting him to be more "disguised," I guess.

4) Robert Downey Jr.=Awesome