'Virgin' Marks First Time for TV Veteran Apatow
Judd Apatow, who created the college comedy "Undeclared" and executive produced "Freaks and Geeks," will make his feature directorial debut on "The 40 Year-Old Virgin." Apatow co-wrote the script for the Universal Pictures project with actor Steve Carell ("Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy"), who will star in the comedy.
Hollywood Reporter, October 20

Catherine Keener Meets a 40 Year-Old Virgin
The Hollywood Reporter says Keener will play Carell's love interest in the film, which will go into production early next year. . . . He's our 40 year-old virgin. When three of his co-workers discover this about him, they make it their mission to get him laid. He reluctantly goes along with their plan, finding himself in some ridiculous situations along the way, until he meets Trish (Keener), a single mother of three, who changes everything.
ComingSoon.net, November 12

Trailer here.

Yeah, life is barely worth living unless one is sexually active...

Wow... I didn't realize the guy behind Freaks And Geeks (one of my fave television shows) was directing this! Perhaps that means this might have a little more substance than your typical sex farce. One can always hope...

Can't offer any opinions of the film itself until opening day, of course.

But in the meantime, I can note that the character rides a bicycle, and his reliance on this mode of transportation is regarded (by the other characters and/or the film) as just one sign among several -- including his virginity -- that he has never really grown up. And I saw the film with a few 40-ish bicycling enthusiasts who were "riled" to see their personal choice of lifestyle portrayed this way. So, like, I WOULD say "Now you know how *I* feel!" except I'm not a virgin any more. (The wife and I celebrate our six-month anniversary tomorrow...)

I have a feeling there was something else I wanted to say about this film, but I forget what it was.

I also can't comment too much as I haven't seen the film, but I have seen enough of the commercials to note that it's a sad state that our country has become so hyper-sexualized that chastity (willfully or unwillfully) is seen as some sort of defect. Ugh. How do those virgins live with themselves? (note the dripping sarcasm)

Although, Steve Carrell is usually pretty funny, so it does have that going. I'm looking forward to what people here have to say about it.

The chest-waxing scene is for real.

Why am I reminded of Audrey Hepburn's haircut in The Nun's Story?

FWIW, my review. Click here for links to some of those other articles to which I refer.

Pretty good review, Peter. I've got one posted here. Like you, I felt it was too long, and question the sexual worldview a bit, but you're more benevolent toward the movie on the whole than I was.

So far, most major critics are tripping over themselves to say how great this is because Steve Carell is the IT actor of the moment. They miss the flaws, and may even be going out of their way to salute certain "human" aspects of his character which just aren't all that pronounced, if there at all. Maybe it's because Hollywood has made a crazy comedy about a guy closer to their their age (as opposed to Josh Hartnett or whoever), and they are celebrating the vindication, such as it is. Who knows.

So do they make you come up with those "discussion' points that are posted after the reviews?

JiM T

FWIW, this was easily the #1 movie on Friday, and thus probably of the weekend.

Jim Tudor wrote:
: . . . you're more benevolent toward the movie on the whole than I was.

Heh. There are a number of things in this film that rang true enough, and made me happy to see them presented on screen, that I have to feel at least SOMEWHAT positive about this film. But I can't get into those things in any detail without (1) giving away spoilers and (2) revealing too much about my own self.

FWIW, I didn't think Andy was THAT hard to relate to. The character STARTS OUT as a stereotype, but as we get to know him better, we realize that he's one of the sanest characters of the bunch.

You're right about the "roadblocks", BTW -- I had forgotten that the box of porn came up after the obligatory-but-not-really-necessary "other woman" sequence.

Did you know that the drunk woman who drives off with Andy is played by the director's wife? And I am told that Carell's wife plays the counsellor at the family-planning clinic.

: So far, most major critics are tripping over themselves to say how great this is
: because Steve Carell is the IT actor of the moment. They miss the flaws . . .

Yeah, it's been strange to see just how positive the press has been. At least one critic has even praised the film for its pacing, which I thought was one of its weakest aspects.

: So do they make you come up with those "discussion' points that are posted after the
: reviews?

Does CT make me, you mean? Yup.

I'd say you've already pretty darn much about yourself in that review alone! Above and beyond the call of duty.



I did not know that. I've seen and read a bit of the publicity on this, and it pretty much revolves around 1) the chest-waxing scene having been real, and 2) Carell never kissed another woman on screen before (thus making him a virgin of a sort, I suppose), and didn't know how to communicate the experience to his wife. Of course, knowing how shooting goes on films, I assumed his wife was probably actually on set more often and not, and now that I know she was in the movie, that confirms that asumption to some degree.

JiM

Jim Tudor wrote:
: I'd say you've already pretty darn much about yourself in that review alone! Above
: and beyond the call of duty.

Perhaps, but given that I'd written about my "status" in previous articles (and, in one case, for one of CT's sister publications), I figured I had to do the same here.

. . . Y'know, I just wrote a couple of for-instances, but I've decided to spare you all the pain of reading them. Especially since it gets into movie-spoiler-ish material.

To some extent the tide has turned on the matter of virginity. Sosciety has sort of declared it ridiculous for some time now, such that virginity may have to be argued as plausible and not arrested development. Though I have yet to see this film, I'm not surprised that the Keener character might wonder what's up with such a cheerful avoidance of sex. This rings true from my own long singleness (I got married at 36). I remember a sexual attitude study of evangelicals from the '80's that was quoted and argued by Family Life minister serving at the church I was going to at the time that suggested, 1) that most relationships will be on the verge of consumation after six months and therefore, should turn to engagement, be closely managed, or broken off at that point!? and 2) in so many words, "Girls, if he isn't all over you all of the time after the second date, he's probably gay, or laden with issues."

I giggle wistfully at Alex's promise to "get you to the next level" prompted by The Kiss after three dates in Hitch. With Dena, I waited for the fourth date (three months between first and second date) and I had never consciously held off that long in previous relationships.

I'm not justifying the present state of affairs. I'm saying that while virginity is pushed hard in conservative and evangelical circles, it suffers from a disconnect in actual behavior including "fooling around". Virginity is a good thing. So is chastity even if virginity is gone. What is needed is virginity as a viable, maybe sexy(?) alternative, not hectoring or hard sell. The days of hardsell pressure might be gone.

I just bought Lauren Winner's latest book, Real Sex, where she makes a theological case for chastity as a virtue, and apparently some pretty cool arguments about Christianity and sex in general. I haven't read it yet, though.

Yeah, one of the things that became really clear for me while reviewing this film was the difference between virginity and chastity. And chastity is better.

I don't say that to pooh-pooh virginity, of course, but there's a scene in this film where a family-planning counsellor recommends various forms of "outercourse" (as opposed to "intercourse") that people can practise if they are not quite ready to lose their virginities, and, well, I would say that most of those practises are incompatible with chastity. There is a certain following-the-letter-of-the-law-but-not-the-spirit-of-the-law thing going on when non-married people make a point of doing everything BUT putting a penis inside a vagina.

But you could never make a film called The 40-Year-Old Chaste Person. I don't think that word is one of the better-known parts of our cultural vocabulary, and a title like that certainly wouldn't grab the eye the way that The 40-Year-Old Virgin does.

As for Lauren Winner, I have never met her, but her boldness in writing about her personal life (and a controversial life it has been!) has certainly been one of the things that has motivated my own openness about my own life when I write about this particular subject.

My review.

To summarize: I thought it was mostly funny, but sometimes a little too raunchy for my tastes, and not nearly as funny as Wedding Crashers. Also, some of the characters-- specifically, Andy's three male friends-- irritated the heck out of me.

Writing about this film was frustrating for me. I've already gone on record saying that I loved The Wedding Crashers, and while I feel pretty sure that THAT movie was not too crude and THIS movie is too crude, I can't really explain why I feel that way. I guess it just boils down to the fact that Virgin was neither as smart nor as humorous as Crashers.

I think it's fair to say that there is a sweetness to Wedding Crashers, stemming largely from Owen Wilson's crush on Rachel McAdams, that is absent from much of The 40-Year-Old Virgin, in which the central relationship doesn't really happen until about an hour into the movie. Plus, there is TONS of profanity in Virgin, plus the male (supporting) characters actively seek and encourage depraved sexual activity, whereas in Wedding Crashers, the two male protagonists -- and especially the Vince Vaughn character -- are basically the victims of OTHER people's depravity. I think things like these go a long way towards encouraging us to identify with the guys in Wedding Crashers more than the guy(s) in The 40-Year-Old Virgin.

I'd love to know in what ways you found "Wedding Crashers" to be "smart".

I found them both to be very formulaic at their cores, "Crashers" perhaps more-so, in that it goes out of its way to present certain characters as bad in order to keep our sympathy with the protagonists, even when what they're doing would ordinarily be considered repugnant and sleezy. "Crashers" wears its heart on its sleeve while "Virgin" doesn't soften up for at least an hour, leaving the audience to wallow in a stream of gags rooted in crass (but honestly depicted) male behavior. The nonsense the wedding crashers pull is a little on the elaborate side (who's really going to go to all that trouble to get laid?) while the fellas in "Virgin" do things like talk about raunchy sex, watch porn, and play cards (closer to reality = a sleezier feeling while viewing it?)

It probably sounds like I'm touting "40 Year-Old Virgin" and trashing "Crashers", but that's not my point. (I actually ranked "Crashers" higher on my 2005 movie list. But I do maintain that "Virgin" is funnier. Only more flawed on the whole.) I just think they both follow the formula of romantic comedies almost to the tee, they just happen to be dressed up differently. (I'd go into that in detail, but it would be a lot of spoilers.) To call "Crashers" smart is interesting to me.

JiM T

FWIW, link to Wedding Crashers thread.

Oh, come on. We are talking divorce lawyers (professionals that have to be arch and creative for a living, who've seen it all. Or heard it during depositions) versus tech geeks (naturally creative and imaginative underachievers). If the male version of human experience is any indication, sex drives are relieved by whatever works and the lawyers have, until the events in the film unfold, a sure thing that is both challenging and leaving no strings....

I found the film an entertaining one that works because Steve Carrell humanizes his character and makes him believable. The plot does tend to meander, though. Interesting that it was written by Judd Apatow, since the plot has the episodic feel of a TV series. I agree that the humor was pretty raunchy and over the top at times, but the characterization of the guys Carrell works with is done well, their own sexual issues shown warts and all. The contrast between them and Carrell does make him look wise by comparison.

Going back to what Peter said about chastity versus true virginity, the filmmakers don't understand chastity, since making out in bed seems to be perfectly OK for keeping your virginity as long as you don't "do the deed". And Carrell's character seems to be an accidental virgin more than someone who chooses to be that way due to personal or religious convictions. [spoiler]The only reason he doesn't have sex with the drunk woman he drives off with and the bookstore girl are they are complete wackos, and his boss, of course, he knows that would lead to more complications than they're worth. And his and the mother's first night together is only cut short of actual intercourse when they are interrupted by her daughter. But, the film does get one thing right, in that the two principal's characters do indeed wait until their wedding night to actually have sex.[/spoiler]

But the chest waxing scene was oh so painfully funny. Talk about suffering for your art!

I just got home from a local radio station's recording booth, where I was interviewed by someone way off in NPR-land. Seems they're doing a story on adult virgins, and they saw my CT review.

It went well enough, but on the walk home my thoughts gravitated towards one or two of the not-so-impressive things I said, and I kinda kicked myself for NOT saying a couple of things (e.g., when discussing a Christian approach to raunchy humour, it simply did not occur to me to make C.S. Lewis's point about basing a sort of rudimentary theology on dirty jokes...).

Anyway, they say the finished story may be broadcast on Wednesday. Hopefully they will edit me with wisdom and compassion.

I'd like to hear how they treat this. Anybody among us NPR fans hear's this, do tell the rest of us. Besides, how often do we get to hear each other on national media?

The NPR page for the story is here, but the audio won't be up for another 2.5 hours. I assume this is to give each time zone a chance to play the story live without being scooped by the website, so people living on the east coast might have heard it already.

My brief comment on the NPR report.

Quick: name the 2005 Hollywood movie that makes a point of arranging its narrative around the idea that the title character and his intended really are better off waiting until marriage to have sex, and actually carries it through.