HUMAN NATURE (Michel Gondry, 2002) R

Reviewed: April 12th, 2002

I had my opening sentence all planned out. It was to read as follows: "There is something fundamentally right about a world which continues to allow Charlie Kaufman's screenplays to be produced."

But fuck that. I'm too angry for that nonsense now. I've just read several reviews of Human Nature and most, in their own ways, demonstrate some of the absolute most reprehensible qualities of movie criticism. I think Human Nature is already one of the most misunderstood and unfairly maligned films in ages. I am thoroughly repulsed by what I've read. So now I have to make up for other critics' sins by trying my damnedest to convince people to see this phenomenal movie. I have to convince everyone why the majority of the critics are DEAD WRONG this time. I have to force people to support Human Nature at all costs.

Let me try and lay my thoughts out...

Charlie Kaufman's first produced screenplay was Being John Malkovich. In theory, it's an almost impossible act to follow, like Tarantino trying to follow up Pulp Fiction. The critics have made this abundantly clear in their reviews of Human Nature (Kaufman's second produced screenplay). Almost no one hesitates to point out that Human Nature is not as good a film as Being John Malkovich. This pisses me off to no end. Who the fuck cares if these critics prefer Malkovich to Nature? A movie should be judged on its own terms. Yes expectations factor into a moviegoing experience... but as professional movie critics, I believe it is their responsibility to put such expectations behind them when trying to influence public opinion. And frankly it's ridiculous to expect any film to be as good as Malkovich, easily one of the best films of the previous decade. Critics should learn to take brilliant careers in stride-- I guarantee you if Human Nature was written by the guy who wrote Head Over Heels a lot of critics would be changing their tune. Instead they're all acting like Human Nature not being as good as Malkovich is a flaw to be recognized and held against it... which is ludicrous. They are very different films about very different ideas simply written by the same man.

A classic example of this deadly comparison syndrome could be found during the release of 1999's Bringing Out the Dead. Many many critics complained it was too similar to past Scorsese works (totally wrong, but that's besides the point). Meanwhile I guarantee you, I mean I absolutely positively guarantee you that if anyone besides Martin Scorsese made Bringing Out the Dead, almost every review would have been glowing. They would have said a remarkable new filmmaking talent has emerged, producing a near masterpiece. Dear movie critics: yes, it is often important to note the context of a film in a career... but why the constant comparisons as if every film in someone's career has to be of equal quality or about utterly different subject matter. Again I stress, judge the film on its own merits. I swear to God if I read another review that says Human Nature is not as good as Malkovich I'm gonna vomit. GET PAST IT. It's irrelevant.

Unfortunately the Malkovich follow-up issue is just one of my lesser complaints. My primary complaint with the fucking critics is many of them are whining Human Nature's plot is underdeveloped and the film bites off more than it can chew. That it doesn't fully explore what each critic seems to think Human Nature's themes are. Well... a couple of responses. One is I find it infuriating that instead of complimenting Human Nature for being the only comedy since, well, Being John Malkovich to truly be about something, it's only condemned for not saying even more. Meanwhile, what all these critics fail to realize is that Human Nature is purposely far more interested in asking questions than answering them (as I wish all films were, and as all films ideally should be). Dig this quote from Charlie Kaufman in an interview: "I really don't have any solutions and I don't like movies that do," said Kaufman. "I want to create situations that give people something to think about. I hate a movie that will end by telling you that the first thing you should do is learn to love yourself. That is so insulting and condescending, and so meaningless. My characters don't learn to love each other or themselves."

But now look at this quote from Reel.com's movie critic: "The movie's ultimate point--that everyone should be themselves--is trite, but the screenwriter and director Michel Gondry restate it to the point of ridiculousness."

As far as I'm concerned the juxtaposition of these two quotes proves beyond a reasonable doubt that movie critics often have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. Reel.com's critic has taken it upon himself to state as fact that Human Nature's point is everyone should be themselves, when meanwhile, THE WRITER OF THE FILM HIMSELF is telling us his films have no specific "points."
Hmmm... who do you trust?

If you're wondering how this could happen, what's the root of this discrepancy, I have the answer: if that "message" is the only thing Mr. Reel.com took from Human Nature then he simply missed the majority of the film. Maybe he fell asleep. If not I pity him very much... because he is superficial and shallow and has no idea how to analyze or read a film. But worst of all he's incredibly presumptuous to decide that his personal reading of a film is automatically the film's only "point." Human Nature's not trite... Mr. Reel.com is.

Moreover, I will note that no less than Roger Ebert, the Village Voice, Newsday, Rolling Stone, the Los Angeles Times and Salon.com's reviews all quote the same line in Human Nature during their efforts to illustrate what they each think the film is about. That line is as follows: "When in doubt, don't ever do what you really want to do." It is spoken by Tim Robbins's scientist to Rhys Ifan's ape/man-in-training. (Note: Salon.com misattributes the quotes to the wrong characters. Shameful. Did they even see the film?) All of these critics' point is that Human Nature is about, as Roger Ebert writes, "...if there is a happy medium between natural impulses and the inhibitions of civilization."

Well yes, I do think that's one of the things Human Nature is about. But I also think there's a lot more stewing beneath this film's surface that not a single critic (with perhaps the exception of the New York Times) picked up on. Sad. A part of me doesn't wanna practice what I'm preaching against by passing on any of my own theories to you... but let me just say that particularly I found themes of self-deception and artificiality to be very prevalent and thought-provoking.

The person I saw Human Nature with complained a lot about the film's ending (note: no, I will not subsequently spoil the ending). Complained how it seemed to contradict a lot of the rest of the film, how it seemed to too easily answer the questions that the film worked so hard to ask. I argued the opposite, that the ending worked beautifully because it didn't answer anything but simply asked an additional, last question and added a final layer to be puzzled over. This all comes back to Charlie Kaufman's quote. "I really don't have any solutions." Neither does Human Nature.

But neither does Taxi Driver. Neither does A Clockwork Orange. Neither does Fight Club. Neither does... well you get the point. The Great Films leave it up to the audience to draw their own conclusions.

I'll just add a few final generalities: Human Nature is a hilarious, incredibly enjoyable, daring film--the second best overall of the year right now (next to The Last Man which was released in a total of two theaters nationwide). It's directed by a former music video director with (amazingly) patience. No fast cutting. No fancy shots. Just... beauty. Director Michel Gondry has a remarkable sense of composition--striking images abound. But most importantly... he puts each and every pretty shot to use within the context of the film. This is definitely not a case of style over substance. I can't figure out why critics keep wanting to point out that the alleged visual bravado and talent Spike Jonze brought to Being John Malkovich is nowhere to be found in Human Nature. I believe it's quite the opposite, and as brilliantly directed as Being John Malkovich is, Human Nature is even nicer to look at.

It's so fucking sickening that some of the same big-name critics who are recommending throwaway, mindless comedy like Big Trouble right now -- because it's mildly diverting for an hour and a half and doesn't set its sights higher -- are not recommending Human Nature on the grounds it tries to be too much.

And we wonder why so few filmmakers go for broke anymore.

Return home.