The Brewhaha on..."Death at a Funeral"

Rock:  “Who is this in the coffin, ‘cuz that’s not my father.”
Kevin Hart:  “Are you sure?”
Rock:  “Are you asking me if I’m sure I know what my father looks like?”
Kevin Hart:  “Well, people make mistakes in time of grief…”
Rock:  “Look at the damn body!”
Kevin Hart:  *Looks at Asian man in the coffin*
Rock:  “You know what my father looks like.”
-The opening scene

 “The ability of many of the actors […] to build up the tempo and energy levels with their inimitable exuberance’s was muzzled by failed attempts to build serious character identities. The only scene in which the audience noticeably reacted to their efforts to extracts some belly laughs came in the depressingly derivative poo jokes, and it some of Uncle Russell’s (Danny Glover) more insulting outbursts.”
-Michael Edwards, WhatCulture.com

“Tracy Morgan's whining man-child routine, which proved too much as the lead in the recent Cop Out, works perfectly here in smaller doses. Morgan has a part in the movie's best scene [spoiler redacted] while another character looks on and screams ‘How does [redacted physical comedy] happen?’  Indeed, but it's just one example of how a quality performance ensures that even complete gross-out humour is handled with skill.”
-Alex Zane, The Sun

It was only recently that I was introduced to the 2007 film “Death at a Funeral,” a macabre but not altogether dark British comedy about death.  At a funeral.  Lots of crazy stuff happens, but they learn a bit about themselves and their family as a whole.  For an overseas affair, and especially something given to us by the British, it’s a very broad comedy, a tone which comes with its own strengths and weaknesses.

The main strength of a broad comedy such as this is that it’s something which is meant to appeal to a mainstream audience, or at the least, it has audience-friendly elements.  These same elements, however, can potentially break a film if they are in excess.  There’s some elements in both the original film and the 2010 film starring Chris Rock (which will more or less be the focus of this review) which I should have hated—the subplot where the new guy is high on acid for the whole funeral, the subplot involving the gay midget, the subplot where the put-upon brother of the family has to help the wheelchair-bound patriarch on the toilet, etc.

With these elements, though, the original version balanced this out with a very understated tone and ensemble.  The cinematography and camerawork contributes to a very “indie” feel where the camera is kept static and the plot is allowed to play out before us.  And these characters, as broken and flawed as they are, are still sympathetic; for all of their faults, they are still family.  This film is a plot-driven piece, but what we see is a realistic (if potentially doomed) funeral unfolding before our eyes, and the characters interacting the only way they know how.

This isn’t the case with the 2010 film.  Right away, you can see the differences—and not just in the computer-generated prologue.  The conversation quoted above between Chris Rock’s character (who for all intents and purposes is basically the protagonist) and Kevin Hart (of Comedy Central fame, playing the lead funeral rep) is the establishing moment for the American version.  Perhaps the British version wasn’t “subtle” per se, but by contrast the remake hits you with all the finesse of a sledgehammer.  For anyone who’s only seen the previews, I doubt this is news (and judging by that link, they give away most of the best jokes and plot points).

For me, it seems a movie like this helps me understand just what the earlier version did right (much in the same way that a trash pulp romance novel can theoretically teach you how not to write).  The remake does nothing new; instead it hits the exact same scenes, the exact same subplots, and most of the same lines (depending on whether or not the actors are ad-libbing).  At times it felt like I was watching the “Watchmen” (pun unintended) all over again, except the film version of Alan Moore’s magnum opus at least had the decency to come up with an ending that made sense.  (The fact that Chris Rock basically ends the film quipping “R. Kelly used the same car service,” did not make me feel any more secure in the movie’s ending, even though he evidently took the seldom-used tactic of trying to joke about statutory…)

As another means of showing just how irrelevant this film was, consider “Watchmen,” which was first penned in the 80’s and ended up redefining the superhero genre for a generation.  Twenty-something years later, the film came out.  Looking back, I have to admit I felt somewhat numb watching the film for the first time, because Moore and Gibbons had hit the exact same plot points and scenes that I was now watching.  It felt like a two-hour rehash, more than anything.

Still, consider that “Watchmen” was over two decades in the making; regardless of what you actually think of the movie, fans were probably anticipating it for years (or not, considering comic books graphic novels don’t necessarily translate well to film).  By contrast, the original “Death at a Funeral” isn’t even five fucking years old yet.  One wonders what the need was for a remake of a film not three years old at the time.

Oddly enough, if we look at it as a remake, it’s decent, probably a result of its blind adherence to the plot of the original film.  The characters are cartoonishly distorted beyond the originals, though, almost as if I’m reading a fanfic of the original film.  Martin Lawrence is the writer who has become estranged from his family, but because the original character may or may not have been a nice guy, Lawrence’s take becomes a pseudo-antagonist (and possibly a future felon, depending on how the ending turns out).  The mother is more or less the same character, but frankly I didn’t like the way she was played; she just had to be.  So.  God.  Damned.  Melo.  Dramatic.

Frankly, I’ve always thought the weakest subplot was the in-law who wound up accidentally taking a hit of acid and/or hallucinogen and/or a magic yellow submarine.  Yes, he provides some of the best scenes, yes, he has some of the best lines, and yes, he provides a welcome diversion (in more ways than one) during the film’s climax, but his whole subplot could have been easily averted if the fiancé had thought to spirit him out to the car and away to the nearest hospital or clinic.  Keeping him at the funeral for the sake of the plot could not have been beneficial to his long-term health.

A buddy of mine (the same buddy who recommended “Pontypool,” “Neon Genesis Evangelion,” “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” and “2 Girls, 1 Cup” “What Women Want”) argued that the weakest subplot was the fiancé’s ex trying to get her back, most likely because it was so forgettable.  I would disagree—on the “weakest,” not the “forgettable” part—at least for the original.  I like Luke Wilson’s turn as the character—it’s the same basic character, but something about a Wilson brother being willing to play a complete and utter dick after Owen tried to sell himself as the perfect “wedding crasher” for women the world over…something about it brings a sense of justice into the world.  It doth warm mine heart.

The best scene in this movie, oddly enough, was the Uncle Russell scene.  For those of you who have seen it already, you’ll know what I’m talking about.  It reeks of toilet humor, but that’s probably the best part:  even with a movie as stupid as this, the scene is so well-done it’s almost palpable.  Again, I usually don’t go for humor like that, but it’s the rare instance where the remake actually underplays something and allows the scene itself to sink in, rather than just going “lol lets do this again and again and again.”  In the original it was an okay scene, but in the remake it’s well-done by comparison with the rest of the film.  Even Tracy Morgan’s constant scene-stealing is a well-deserved course of action in this case. 

For all of the flaws in the remake, I can’t quite bring myself to totally hate it.  It’s much like the original version which had elements I should have hated.  The 2010 version adds several moments which should have been worse, but it doesn’t take itself too seriously, which is all you can ask from a movie like this.  And judging from conversations I’ve had with my relatives, there is, in fact, an audience for this.  A possibly brain-dead American audience, but an audience nonetheless.

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer who just barely missed the week-long mark.  CONGRAT-congratulations.  That's a new record.