
A Few Faces Have Changed, but the Hassles are Exactly the Same
Strangers with Candy / Jeremy C. Fox
The 1999-2000 television series “Strangers with Candy” started from a simple but diabolically brilliant premise. Its creators — Amy Sedaris, Paul Dinello, Stephen Colbert, and Mitch Rouse — based their central character, Jerri Blank, on real-life junkie-whore-turned-motivational-speaker Florrie Fisher, then built every episode around themes from old “Afterschool Specials,” replacing the typical troubled teen with a middle-aged woman without a single redeeming characteristic and a desire to be socially accepted and sexually successful greater even than any adolescent. Each episode set up a new, disturbing question: How would a person with an addictive personality and no moral limits respond to peer pressure? What might a former junkie use to induce the popular kids to come to her party? How does a homely, middle-aged woman run for homecoming queen? Without fail, Jerri’s misadventures led her to exactly the wrong moral conclusion, to the delight of the show’s cult following.
I drank the Kool-Aid around three years ago, when a friend introduced me to the series on DVD, and I’ve been looking forward to the movie ever since its premiere at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival. With the same great cast and writers, a running time more than quadruple that of a single episode, and the freedom of an R-rating to really go nuts with the sexual innuendo and drug references, how could it not be wall-to-wall with good, dirty fun? Well, let me tell you. …
The film starts off promisingly, with a montage of Jerri’s dissolute life and violent prison experiences, played for bathos. The series began in medias res, with no real explanation of how Jerri came in off the streets and reenrolled as a 46-year-old freshman at Flatpoint High, so the film fills in the gaps, showing Jerri’s return home after being released from prison and her decision to pick up her old life right where she left off. Much of the series’ original cast has returned: In addition to Sedaris, Dinello, and Colbert, Greg Hollimon returns as Principal Blackman, Sarah Thyre as Coach Wolf, Dolores Duffy as Iris Puffybush, Maria Thayer as Tammi Littlenut, Deborah Rush as Sara Blank, and David Pasquesi as Stew the Meat Man. But Joseph Cross has replaced Larc Spies as Derrick Blank, Jerri’s stupid, hateful half-brother, and the character of Orlando Pinatubo (played by Orlando Pabotoy), the Filipino butt of a thousand monkey and coconut jokes from Jerri, has been entirely reimagined as the Indonesian Megawatti Sacarnaput (Carlo Alban). And as Jerri’s father, Guy Blank, Dan Hedaya has replaced Roberto Gari, and Guy’s catatonic state, never really addressed in the series, is now ascribed to a coma he slipped into shortly after Jerri’s disappearance led to her distraught mother’s death.
When Jerri returns home after her 32 years of depravity, a slight movement from Guy leads his doctor to believe that Jerri’s presence might help him recover. She decides to stick around and become the model daughter she never was or wanted to be, all in the hope that by changing her ways she can bring Guy back from the brink. For a series that never trafficked much in logic anyway, this is as reasonable a premise as any, I suppose, but by explaining her father’s condition, the film does away with the non-sequitur absurdity that made it funny in the first place.
The central cast is propped up by a series of celebrity cameos that are ultimately more distracting than amusing: There’s Ian Holm as Guy Blank’s doctor; Allison Janney and Philip Seymour Hoffman as school board members; Kristen Johnston as a physical education teacher; Justin Theroux teaching drivers’ ed; Sarah Jessica Parker as an insensitive, self-involved grief counselor; and Matthew Broderick as Roger Beekman, the nemesis of Colbert’s Chuck Noblet. The film’s central conflict arises out of the competition between Noblet and Beekman to assemble a team that can win the school’s science fair, with the students and Noblet’s spurned lover Mr. Jellineck (Dinello) pawns in their pissing contest and Jerri — the weakest link both ethically and intellectually — caught in the middle.
At its best, an episode of the series felt like an hour’s worth of comedy crammed into 22 minutes, while the movie feels more like an hour’s worth of comedy stretched out to feature length. There are some great sick jokes and blink-and-you-miss-‘em sight gags tucked into every corner, but the film recycles so many scenes and lines from the series that it might almost be a clip show. Paradoxically, it will probably be funnier and more satisfying to those who weren’t already fans of the series; only they can have the naughty pleasure of seeing it all for the first time. Worse than the self-plagiarism, though, is the slack, inconsistent pacing — Dinello, though an asset to the show as both a writer and an actor, is directing his first feature, and the comic timing that serves him well as a performer seems to have deserted him almost entirely.
Sedaris, Colbert, and Dinello began working together back in the ’80s, in the Chicago improv troupe Second City, and their work on the series had the loose, anything-can-happen quality of improv. But the material here feels worked to death; it’s like watching a play whose cast has been in the same roles far too long and lost their vigor and spontaneity. They don’t even take advantage of the opportunity the R-rating gives them to go farther than the television series; if anything, the jokes seem tamer and less likely to offend — particularly in comparison to the gleefully amoral early episodes — though that may be due in part to the desensitization I’ve experienced after watching the full three seasons. It may also be that, as a friend suggested, after 10 seasons of “South Park,” the resurrection of “Family Guy,” the recent slew of gross-out comedies, and the real horrors of everyday life in a period of interminable war, it’s almost impossible to create the same transgressive thrills that you could a few years back. Or maybe it’s simply that the early positive buzz and the long period of anticipation just raised my hopes too much: I wanted so badly to love the film that I may have made it impossible for myself. It’s a sign of how deeply I’ve internalized the series that, when I consider my dashed hopes, I can’t help but hear a little Mr. Jellineck in my head singsonging, “If wishes and buts were clusters of nuts, we’d all have a bowl of granola.”
Jeremy C. Fox is a founding critic of Pajiba and a member of the Online Film Critics Society.You may email him at jeremycfox[at]gmail.com.![]()
You, Me and Dupree | | Interview with Patrick Creadon |
Comments
Thanks for the review, Jeremy. Even with the lukewarm review, I'll still see the film. I loved the series, so even if it is a rehashing of familiar material, at least it's material I know I'll like.
Posted by: Brie at July 17, 2006 7:35 PM
It was simply not dirty enough for me. I wanted to be shocked, and I was never shocked. The best part, at least for me, was in the beginning when she was showering in prison. That was unexpected and hilarious. Everything else I had seen before. The absence of Orlando jarred me. They had an R rating, and it was just not taken advantage of. I guess this won't be the last series to break my heart, but the movie just made me miss the series more than love the movie itself.
Posted by: Lucy at July 17, 2006 8:48 PM
Even though the review's not that great, I'm still definitely going to see it. SWC is one of my favorite shows. I love me some ex-junky whore.
Posted by: Sarah at July 17, 2006 9:24 PM
I'll still see it. I was/am a HUGE fan of the series. And Amy Sedaris? God, I love her.
Posted by: Kathy at July 17, 2006 10:28 PM
Strangers with candy was the funniest shit on t.v. If it was on t.v. today nothing could touch it, I`de put it up there with GET SMART,POLICE SQUAD,maybe the MUNSTERS!!! any comments??
Posted by: pasdenamike at July 17, 2006 11:51 PM
Here's my question: This film was shot two years ago.... so, where's it been languishing, all this time? I wonder if there were problems translating the series into a feature, and I'll bet they finally just released it to try to recoup some dough. Maybe that's why the material feels worked to death; because it is.
Posted by: BitterB at July 18, 2006 10:06 AM
I've just started listening to the audiobook: "Wigfield: The Can-Do Town That Just May Not",
written and performed by Sedaris, Dinello and Colbert.
I can recommend it, because so far (25%) it is very funny! :)
Posted by: Loob at July 18, 2006 12:51 PM
I suppose you can only go so far with the "transgressive" humor that it becomes common-place, much like the South Park episode where they said "shit" 200 times or more. There is an innate problem with making comdey shows into feature length films...you REALLY shouldn't unless you're planning to do something new. The best feature length film I've seen like that is South Park, because they decided to do more of a musical-cum-comedy, but actually utilized the same format they usually do, and it worked, maybe because they like to be trangressive. And they still are, more so than other shows. Well, the Family Guy hits it many times as well, I'll give them that much. The problem is shows can only go so far, and movies can too, unless they really want to be smacked with the NC-17 rating. That the U.S. and the FCC for you...Strangers With Candy was an awesome show, I'm sure the cult followers will enjoy it, nevertheless...
Posted by: Gina at July 18, 2006 1:54 PM
Thanks for the review, Jeremy; well written, as usual. I get the feeling that you're one of only a few reviewers who will take the time to write an honest and thoughtful review of a movie such as this.
I plan to see the movie, but I'll try to keep my expectations low in hopes of actually being pleasantly surprised.
Thanks for mentioning the audiobook, Loob, I had no idea it was voiced by the three of them! Wigfield has been on my to-read list for some time now, but I might just have to go ahead and get the talkin' book instead.
Posted by: Lisa at July 18, 2006 3:41 PM
For all of us keeping track on the "Gina-Matic 2000", today's episode brings us 3 spelling mistakes, and as always, the utterly pointless and self-congratulatory babble we have come to know and loathe..."Ooooh, look at me, I used "transgressive" twice in one post, even though I incorrectly spelled it once, and likely have no idea what it means".
Posted by: Scott at July 18, 2006 10:34 PM
Plus, Lisa, it's on discount at Amazon.com! ;)
37% off! heh
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565117727/sr=8-2/qid=1153282987/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-0149889-9916154?ie=UTF8
Posted by: Loob at July 19, 2006 12:24 AM
Hey -- hate to send anyone of you brilliant, insightful people hurtling back to the truth, but ANYONE who bothers to write "comments" on some stupid entertainment blog is a loser. Nobody with a real life reads this shit, let alone bothers to craft oh-so-witty put-downs of fellow commenters. You wouldn't bother if you didn't have too much time on your hands. Every post I've ever read here was "utterly pointless and self-congratulatory babble." That's what it's all about. Chill out on Gina.
Posted by: Soulonice at July 19, 2006 10:04 AM
A friend and I drove two hours on Monday to see this movie and, although it wasn't as fulfilling as the series, It felt like running into an old highschool friend - comfortable.
Posted by: hayley at July 19, 2006 12:15 PM
Soulonice, you're a moron. Quit projecting, you know the people who comment here are all pseudo-genuises...
Posted by: mutterhals at July 19, 2006 2:02 PM
If an alchamist somehow transformed crack into a TV show, the result would have been "Strangers With Candy," so bad but yet so good. Hmmm...that's probably a bad metaphor there. The show was so deliciously deviant. I'll see the movie, but in my mind, the TV show remains the same.
Posted by: Gigi Worthington at July 19, 2006 6:18 PM
Soulonice has multiple personality disorder, I surmise, or *they* would see the irony of commenting that commenters are losers.
My guess is *it* suddenly woke up in front of the computer, but has no idea how it got there. ;)
I find people like them hilarious, because I also picture them storming up to people at a party and ranting; "What are you all talking about? All you people standing here chatting are losers! ...And so are them crudites and piginablankies!"
Posted by: Loob at July 20, 2006 11:00 AM
For some reason I comment on here once a week, someone always has something shitty to say about something I've written, I make a singlar comment on the word ejaculate on Little Man review, then someone has to say something about it on here. As I said before, get a life, I didn't say anything bad about the review, this is the "comments" page, I was making a "comment"...HELLO?!?!
Posted by: Gina at July 20, 2006 1:38 PM
Thanks for another great review. I am excited about seeing the movie, as I never got to see the original series (being too poor/cheap for cable). I also adore the work of Sedaris's brother David, so I'm hoping that comedy is somehow genetically linked.
Posted by: mbbored at July 20, 2006 3:07 PM
Is that the same Gina who constantly tells reviewers they are *wrong* and *pointless*?
If so, somehow we should try to explain that reviews are simply opinions,
and that's why it's great that there are many different reviewERS with many different opinions.
How can someone not understand that?
Posted by: Loob at July 20, 2006 10:26 PM
Ummmm ...........my only question is WHY??
Posted by: shoogie at July 27, 2006 2:39 PM


