Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story

[Purple Tentacle]

So who's seen this yet?  I thought it merited a thread of its own as it features Steve Coogan, Rob Brydon, Shirley Henderson, Dylan Moran, David Walliams, Benedict Wong, the lovely Naomie Harris, Kelly Macdonald, Mark Williams, Stephen Fry etc etc etc.


Went to see it last night, REALLY wanting to like it, but still found myself coming out of the cinema thinking 'that was OK.'

I don't know if I'm just turned off by excessive post-modernity, but I would really have liked it to have been a 'straight' film.  I'm obviously extremely interested in the film-making process, but as a rule I find films about film-making self-referencial and slightly cringe-inducing, and this film was not really much different. A bit like a writer who writes about a struggling writer.

Steve Coogan seemed to essentially be doing an extended version of his 'Man Who Thinks He's It' bastard persona, and Rob Brydon does a toned-down Keith Barrett.  I don't know them personally of course, and I'm sure that their real-life characters are similar to their personas, but it's still a bit frustrating.

I also think I'm at a massive disadvantage not to have read the book, which, as I gather, is shapeless and 'unfilmable', and so the film lacks narrative or coherent shape. This may be a very clever homage, but it doesn't half make me feel unsatisfied by the end.

Michael Winterbottom repeats the trick of having Coogan talk to the camera a la Tony Wilson in 24 Hour Party People, but it feels oddly redundant with a film with so many post-modern layers your head spins.

There are a good few laughs, unfortunately the biggest laugh coming during the end credits, and overall I DID enjoy it, but maybe I'm an inverted film snob and dislike the idea of people dancing around their new script and doing a little jig at how clever and post-modern they are. I had the same problem with 'Adaptation'.  

What did other people think of it?

[butnut]

I'm hoping to see the film tomorrow perhaps, so I can't comment on that now. As for the book - it is REALLY heavy going. I think I read about a third of it. I enjoyed moments of it, but I could never really get into it. I should give it another chance one day, when I can face it again.

[Ignatius_S]

One of my mates was telling me about it the other day - he didn't think it was as good as the reviews made up, but thought it pretty good and Brydon & Coogan gave pretty good performances. On his recommendation, I'm going to give it a go....

As for doing a 'straight' film, it would be impossible. For example, the title character/narrator doesn't make many (direct) appearances (he only gets born about halfway through the book); events are cheifly related in a non-chronological order and are often sidetracked in favour for seemingly unrelated digressions.

[TotalNightmare]

As for doing a 'straight' film, it would be impossible. For example, the title character/narrator doesn't make many (direct) appearances (he only gets born about halfway through the book); events are cheifly related in a non-chronological order and are often sidetracked in favour for seemingly unrelated digressions.

Sounds like one of Ronnie Corbett's Monologues!

[jutl]

I'm hoping to see the film tomorrow perhaps, so I can't comment on that now. As for the book - it is REALLY heavy going. I think I read about a third of it. I enjoyed moments of it, but I could never really get into it. I should give it another chance one day, when I can face it again.

Yeah - I would. It's wordy but flighty, and it's probably my favourite novel. If you can be arsed try reading a few pages of someone like Sterne's contemporary Smollett (say this). It makes you appreciate Sterne's extraordinary mobility of mind and his free and easy attitude to textual progression. In the meal of early C18th literature Sterne provides the delightful fruit smoothie while Smollett provides the undefrosted cake made of shit.

edit to add: Maybe try his A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy which has the same style (if a little bit calmer) but is a lot shorter. It's also quite racy, as Sterne had TB when he wrote it, and one of its side-effects is giving you the permanent horn.

[purlieu]

I'm going to see this... hmmm. Maybe at the weekend, maybe next week. It's been on my 'to see' list since it went into production ages ago, and now it's been out a couple of weeks and I've still not fucking seen it. Typical.
Still, with a pretty great lineup of comic actors (plus I'll see anything with Kelly MacDonald in it), I can't imagine it'll be awful.

[Purple Tentacle]

I could have done without seeing Steve Coogan humping Kelly MacDonald to be honest. (She plays his wife, so no big spoiler.)

[Xander]

I thought it ranged from okay to incredibly weak. I agree with your post-modernism comments, PT, but I'm not normally put off by overused post-modernity. I adored Adaptation, but this was just lacking a certain something. Like you said, I think it was the backslapping element of it all. It relied too heavily on that, and skipped the things needed for an actual comedy, such as, ooh, jokes.

The performances were nothing to write home about, as you said, essentially doing things we'd seen done a thousand times before. As much as it pains me to say, the only person I would consider was trying to do something else was David Walliams in his brief cameo within the Tristram Shandy story itself. He wasn't pissing or going "eh eh ehhhh", and actually played a bland character pretty straight, which was refreshing. Dylan Moran was Dylan Moran and his acting in the film within the film was himself/ Bernard Black again. Mark Williams was pretty good as the historical battles buff, and him shouting "Shite!" did raise a smile.

There were a couple of things that saved it from being utter dross, though. Rob Brydon's teeth and bald spot, the hot chestnut and the absurdity of the giant womb were good. For the mostpart, it just seemed to be "Spot the cameo". When I saw Claire Keelan in there, I was just waiting for Richard Ayoade to jump out from behind a fern.

[debut]

Went to see this today and with such a great cast (Coogan, Brydon, Moran, Fry, the gorgeous Keeley Hawes etc) and a good director (Michael Winterbottom, 24 hour party people) i expected a lot. All the reviews i had read said it was one of the funniest brit films in years so you can probably imagine what i will post next...

THE FILM WAS AN EMPTY SHELL! Nothing going for it - No Laughs, plot, excitement, drama, maybe i just didn't 'get it' as they say. I was one of those who fell into the 'Royal Tenenbaums is shit' catagory so maybe it one of those movies you will either love or hate. Why do the press go so OTT with reviews sometimes though? They did the same with 'Shaun of The Dead', a watchable film at best with about 2 laughs. Would like to know if anyone out there found 'A Cock & Bull Story' as funny as some of the reviewers.

[Xander]

I was one of those who fell into the 'Royal Tenenbaums is shit' catagory so maybe it one of those movies you will either love or hate.

I dunno, as I said before, I love Adaptation, and even more so The Royal Tenenbaums, but I generally disliked this film. Maybe it's less to do with the post-modernism inherent in it, but the fact that it's done so badly and severely lacking in anything resembling humour. I think it's too easy to say "I hate post-modernism or self referential irony or whatever, and thus I hate this" rather than to say " The po-mo was poor and didn't work as an intellectual structure in this, the 'characters' were two-dimensional caracatures of the performers and the luvvieness of the players outweighed any possible benefit the film may have had."

Or something like that. Just not "I hate X, which is a bit similar to this in passing, so this is shit because of that".

[fakerandomdude]

just saw this...yeah, there are some funny bits but these are pretty much from jokey exchanges between Coogan and Brydon and are incidental to the po-mo deconstructed anti-structure structure. I think Winterbottom has followed up his failed "arthouse" 9 songs with a failed attempt to do a clever, "self-referential" film . And of course, if this kind of thing works (like Adaptation) it can be great, but if it fails you end up picturing those involved (like behind, behind the scenes) being a bunch of pseudy arent-we-clevers and you hate it all the more. I didn't hate it but that is only because I like the two leads (of course Coogan's the lead....).

[Lt Plonker]

I enjoyed it quite a bit. I'm a sucker for a bit of comic banter between Rob Brydon and Steve Coogan, especially over the end credits. "That's Columbo."

I really liked the riffing that they all did of the naff battle sequence. After seeing that and Director's Commentaries, I wonder if Rob Brydon has seen Mystery Science Theatre 3000?

I didn't really have any problem with it. Maybe the stuff with Coogan, the affair etc., had a kind of "Look, I'm actually a sound guy, what with me playing with the baby." feel to it, but that didn't concern me too much.  

It was a neat little film and I enjoyed it.

[Clinton Morgan]

It hit me on the bus on the way from work. As well as 'Adaptation' and 'Otto e Mezzo' there is a third movie which is about the making of itself. It has staged improvised scenes, some not-so staged scenes and as it has taken twenty odd years to make the entire thing the movie ends up being about the making of a movie that is impossible to finish. In fact the movie ends on shooting being abandoned. Not only that it ends up being abandoned fifteen odd years before it is properly finished. alan strang should know what I'm talking about.

I think I'll shall make a movie of 'A Tale of A Tub'. Shoot it on High Definition Video and call it 'A Clinton Morgan Philm'. Or being that I have Scottish blood, 'A Clinton Morgan Phillum'.

[alan strang]

It hit me on the bus on the way from work. As well as 'Adaptation' and 'Otto e Mezzo' there is a third movie which is about the making of itself. It has staged improvised scenes, some not-so staged scenes and as it has taken twenty odd years to make the entire thing the movie ends up being about the making of a movie that is impossible to finish. In fact the movie ends on shooting being abandoned. Not only that it ends up being abandoned fifteen odd years before it is properly finished. alan strang should know what I'm talking about.

Aye - 'Herbie Goes Bananas'. Classic film.

[Clinton Morgan]

With Harvey Korman as Minnesota Tishman. Yes, that's absolutely right.

[Clinton Morgan]

has followed up his failed "arthouse" 9 songs

Plot Summary for
The Cure for Insomnia (1987)
This film is basically an experiment designed to reprogram biological clocks for insomniacs so they can sleep again. L.D. Groban reads his own poem during the span of about four days, which is interspliced with stock footage of heavy-metal videos and x-rated footage.

Music and fucking.

[Clinton Morgan]

On the subject of films within films I would love to see this one:
http://www.eurekavideo.co.uk/moc/004.htm

[Ciarán2]

Will it make people go and read "The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy"? That's a great book, but it gets slagged off for being so convoluted. That's part of the joke though isn't it? there used to be a cartoon called "Robinson Sucroe" on CBBC about a fella who pretends to have been left on a desert island and writes a lot of nonsense about his "experiences" there. It reminded me of  "Tristram Shandy".

[Dark Sky]

It hit me on the bus on the way from work. As well as 'Adaptation' and 'Otto e Mezzo' there is a third movie which is about the making of itself.

I thought that A Cock And Bull Story was about the making of a film of the Tristam Shandy novel, not the making of the film you're actually watching?  

So really it's more like the film of The French Leiutenant's Woman (which has behind the scenes stuff of them filming a straight version of the film) than, say, Adaptation, or the earlier (and much cooler!) Wes Craven's New Nightmare, where the film itself is about the making of the film you're currently watching.

Okay now my head hurts.

[Village Branson]

Spoilers spoilers spoilers (but this is a thread for those who've seen it right? well, I've said spoilers anyway)

Is there some clever stuff going on that it's hard to notice on one watching though?
Coogan talks about the Tristram's dad character being present at the birth to make him more sympathetic, and then we get coogan messing about with his kid later in life. Also they talk about the hot chestnut scene being one of the funniest, and it does turn out that way.
At best though, this just makes it a cleverer film, not a better or funnier one.

Also they criminally wasted Benedict Wong.

[butnut]

I'm hoping to see the film tomorrow perhaps, so I can't comment on that now. As for the book - it is REALLY heavy going. I think I read about a third of it. I enjoyed moments of it, but I could never really get into it. I should give it another chance one day, when I can face it again.

Yeah - I would. It's wordy but flighty, and it's probably my favourite novel. If you can be arsed try reading a few pages of someone like Sterne's contemporary Smollett (say this). It makes you appreciate Sterne's extraordinary mobility of mind and his free and easy attitude to textual progression. In the meal of early C18th literature Sterne provides the delightful fruit smoothie while Smollett provides the undefrosted cake made of shit.

edit to add: Maybe try his A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy which has the same style (if a little bit calmer) but is a lot shorter. It's also quite racy, as Sterne had TB when he wrote it, and one of its side-effects is giving you the permanent horn.

Thanks Jutl - that's not a bad idea. I'd read about A Sentimental Journey, so maybe I will try that first. And who knows - maybe seeing the film may encourage me to try again with the book.

[sam and janet evening]

It hit me on the bus on the way from work. As well as 'Adaptation' and 'Otto e Mezzo' there is a third movie which is about the making of itself...

I could be wrong ( I haven't seen it, but I'm going to order it when I have money) but isn't 'Hellzapoppin' sort of like that?

[Clinton Morgan]

Sort of. It's a movie about a movie about a movie about Hellzapoppin'. Some good 'Duck Amuck' type jokes.

Dark Sky, thanks for pointing that [see his post] out. In that case 'Adaptation' strikes a double (or even triple) whammy. A movie about the making of a movie about the making of a movie about 'The Orchid Thief'.

One reviewer also mentioned 'The French Lieutenant's Women' adapted by Harold Pinter and directed by Karel Reisz. I quite like to see that one.

[Dark Sky]

In that case 'Adaptation' strikes a double (or even triple) whammy. A movie about the making of a movie about the making of a movie about 'The Orchid Thief'.

Well I don't think it's as headachey as you're making it out to be!  More simply, the movie is about the making of itself...  As in, the movie they're making is the one you're actually watching.

I almost think there's something rather self indulgent about Adaptation, though...  Wes Craven's post modernist New Nightmare feels a little less forced, maybe...  I dunno.  Craven had a task to try to make another Elm Street film which brought back the supposedly dead Freddy Krueger, but which also turned the character back into a proper serious deadly foe, as opposed to the campy joke he became throughout the (non-Craven made) sequels.  The 'real world' setting of New Nightmare allowed him to do something which didn't have to follow on from the previous films.  It also allowed him to mock the cheesy sequels and contrast Freddy-the-villain-which-all-the-kiddies-love with a new 'real world' demon which has taken on the same form, and thus bring the horror 'closer' to the viewer by faking a bridge over the chasm between real-life and cinema.
Whereas Adaptation was Charlie Kaufman stuck on a screenplay and how he decided to make the screenplay about him being stuck on a screenplay.  He basically turned his writer's block into a film, whereas Craven had various good reasons for the path he chose.

Adaptation is the better film though, I mean, no question about that.  The way the entire style and tone of the film changes when another character takes over writing it is very inspired.  Although there are lots of little moments in New Nightmare I do particularly love...  Especially the way all the 'character's play themselves (which they don't in Adaptation)...even Wes Craven gives himself a couple of scenes (but only a couple...he must realise he's not the greatest actor!)  Plus there's that wonderful moment where Heather is reading a page of the script for the film which you can freeze frame and read what's about to happen!

That format is a higher class of post-modernism, I think.  The film you're watching is the actual film they're apparently making in the film.  It just goes around in circles.
A Cock and Bull Story isn't itself the film that they're making in the film (as far as I know?). Really the whole thing is more of a mockumentary. surely?  It's a film about filmmaking more in the vein of...say...King Kong, which was made back in 1933.  Except that in Cock and Bull the actors are playing themselves.  But is that really any more postmodern than...say...a scripted sketch involving a guest star in...I dunno...the Muppet Show?

[butnut]

One reviewer also mentioned 'The French Lieutenant's Women' adapted by Harold Pinter and directed by Karel Reisz. I quite like to see that one.

Please read the book first. It's about a thousand times better.

[Ignatius_S]

Please read the book first. It's about a thousand times better.

Wisely stated.

Going back to films within films, Mike Figgis' Hotel involves a film crew making a dogme version of The Duchess of Malfi and a behind-the-scenes documentary.

[Al Tha Funkee Homosapien]

One reviewer also mentioned 'The French Lieutenant's Women' adapted by Harold Pinter and directed by Karel Reisz. I quite like to see that one.

Please read the book first. It's about a thousand times better.

Isn't that usually the case? In pretty much every case the book is better than the film made from it. In fact the only good films made from books tend to be books that are actually a bit trashy and shit; i.e. The Godfather, The Exorcist

[butnut]

Welll yes, but I think it's especially true in this case. The film makes a decent stab at doing what the book does, but ultimately it is a weak reflection of a great book. It's another book I must reread sometime. There's too many of the bastards out there.

[Dark Sky]

...Psycho...Fight Club...the films of both surpass their original novellas, I think.

I can't read the French Lieutenant's Woman.  And God knows I've tried many times.  It's one of the two or three or so books I've encountered in my lifetime where for no explainable reason I cannot focus for more than sentence before my mind just drifts off.  (Another one being Wuthering Heights...)

My old English supervisor once went around to John Fowle's house unannounced and his wife refused to let her in.  But she kept banging on the door and the windows and eventually she got to talk to the author, who apparently couldn't remember anything about French Lieutenant's Woman.  I remember after he died reading a comment by him in his final interview about how he hated it when fans of his books kept going to great lengths to try to talk to him about them.  That amused me.

[Clinton Morgan]

Please read the book first. It's about a thousand times better.

Wrote a very long post that fucking disappeared because the cunting computer said 'Page Has Expired'. Fucking! Fucking! Fucking!