Chuck & Buck (2000) was one of those small US films that created a big buzz a few years back. I finally got round to seeing it on DVD and was quite impressed.
It follows in quite a long history of 'loser' cinema, the sort of film where the anti-hero is the star. I suppose you could mention many of the film noir detectives such as Kiss Me Deadly's Mike Hammer as some of the earliest examples. Penn's Bonnie and Clyde also challenged the popular conceptions of hero/antihero which continued into the 1970's with films such as Scorsese's Taxi Driver. It is still a popular genre in US cinema to this day with such films as Happiness by Todd Solondz, Zwigoff's Ghost World and Todd Louiso's Love Liza or One Hour Photo to name but a few recent examples. The challenge is inevitably how to get the audience to care and sympathies for characters which you would otherwise probably avoid at all costs; people who are otherwise repulsive, morally reprehensible or even down right sick.
Full credit to Miguel Arteta and his team for this very good film centring around two childhood friends Chuck and Buck who meet up again in adulthood. Buck, played by writer Mike White, is a mess. His mother dies in the first scene but this seems to take a back seat as soon as Buck sees his old friend at the funeral. However when Buck comes on to Chuck after the wake, the innocence of their earlier relationship and Buck's current motivations is thrown into question.
Although better known for his writing, White is actual a very good character actor (You may have recently seen him in School of Rock as Jack Black's room-mate, held captive by his dictator of a girlfriend). He's one of those actors that just look naturally pale and sickly, as if he hasn't seen the light of day for some months. This is not far from the truth as regards to the character of Buck who has been caring for his sick mother, whose ghastly coughs are among the first sounds in the film. He catches perfectly a guy verging on the mentally retarded with some severe emotional problems, but whose nervous twitches and stammering speech are also strangely endearing and charming. Chris Weitz (better known for unleashing the American Pie franchise with his brother Paul, also in this film), plays Chuck, or Charlie as he now prefers to be known, a successful LA record company executive with a pretty wife, a nice house, BMW...the works. Weitz is an interesting casting decision. His relative inexperience in acting shows, but in a good way, manifesting in the superficially charming yet wooden and impersonal mask of a young, powerful professional. His face is chiselled enough to be good looking, but his sticky-out ears and slightly ratty face give an indication that he may once have been geeky enough to hang out with a guy like Buck. Cast-wise good support all round particularly Lupe Ontiveros as Beverly, recruited by Buck to help produce and direct his play "Hank and Frank". She brings a real down to earth honesty that really strengthens the play within the film sub-plot. Paul Weitz is also terrifically wooden, naturally or not, as the actor chosen by Buck to play Frank in his play. Beth Colt is also good in the slightly underwritten role of Chuck's wife, who becomes unsettled but also genuinely intrigued by Buck and his boyhood relationship with her future husband.
The reason I think Chuck and Buck works so well is that purely by spending time with Buck and seeing him obviously distressed by being spurned by Chuck there is some degree of sympathy created. Most people know, to some extent, what it's like to meet up with close friends from the past and the various feelings which arouse from that, particularly if they've changed radically as people. Feelings of nostalgia, maybe jealousy and envy, superiority or amazement that you ever liked them at all. OK, so the whole homosexual sub-plot does complicate the experience a little but it shouldn't put people off as it is not presented in a particularly explicit manner until one final scene. Some worthwhile issues are raised particularly regarding Chuck's character. Is he repressing his real desires in order to conform, is Buck just in search of love whoever it may be from? There are a few opportunities for the film to take a whole darker twist a la Happiness which I'm glad did not happen.
Now I'm no psychologist but I'm not too sure what to make of the conclusion of the film. Spoiler - After one last sexual experience together, Buck seems to start some sort of journey to maturity signified by him throwing away his collection of toys. Could this be a final closure, enabling both characters to move on? Buck is invited to Chuck's wedding and he looks at the newly-weds with genuine happiness for them, rather than the jealousy he previously felt towards Chuck's fiancée. The film appears to end on quite an optimistic note - a fresh start for both, emphasised by a reprise of one of the earlier songs, Gwendolyn Sanford's wonderful 'Freedom of the Heart' (I've got freedom of the heart / It's a brand new start.) But can it really be that simple? Just how much can people ever change?
I want to finally highlight a couple of technical aspects. First, the music is absolutely fantastic. The music co-ordinators, including ex-Beck and REM drummer Joey Waronker, have found some wonderful songs that are childish, joyful, melancholy and creepy all at once. They really help root the viewer in Buck's retarded view of life and are also creepily ironic as they often accompany Buck in scenes verging on criminal stalking. A clever use of the power of sound/music over an audience. The other point I wanted to mention was the digital cinematography. I was undecided about this. On the one hand I appreciate that it gives lower budget films a huge advantage in terms of eliminating film stock/developing costs. It can also be used just as expressively as film and does have a particular aesthetic quality. However I thought that the image quality was particularly muddy on this film even on DVD.
A brief aside: For people who like to really read between the lines of films, one critic's review I read ( I believe either David Edelstein or J. Hobermann) made a very interesting possible interpretation of the film regarding the relationship between the independent and studio film industries. As I've mentioned previously the casting is particularly relevant here, White- the acclaimed indie writer, Weitz - the young powerful studio player. I'll leave you to ponder those sort of meta-filmic interpretations at your own leisure!
8/10
It follows in quite a long history of 'loser' cinema, the sort of film where the anti-hero is the star. I suppose you could mention many of the film noir detectives such as Kiss Me Deadly's Mike Hammer as some of the earliest examples. Penn's Bonnie and Clyde also challenged the popular conceptions of hero/antihero which continued into the 1970's with films such as Scorsese's Taxi Driver. It is still a popular genre in US cinema to this day with such films as Happiness by Todd Solondz, Zwigoff's Ghost World and Todd Louiso's Love Liza or One Hour Photo to name but a few recent examples. The challenge is inevitably how to get the audience to care and sympathies for characters which you would otherwise probably avoid at all costs; people who are otherwise repulsive, morally reprehensible or even down right sick.
Full credit to Miguel Arteta and his team for this very good film centring around two childhood friends Chuck and Buck who meet up again in adulthood. Buck, played by writer Mike White, is a mess. His mother dies in the first scene but this seems to take a back seat as soon as Buck sees his old friend at the funeral. However when Buck comes on to Chuck after the wake, the innocence of their earlier relationship and Buck's current motivations is thrown into question.
Although better known for his writing, White is actual a very good character actor (You may have recently seen him in School of Rock as Jack Black's room-mate, held captive by his dictator of a girlfriend). He's one of those actors that just look naturally pale and sickly, as if he hasn't seen the light of day for some months. This is not far from the truth as regards to the character of Buck who has been caring for his sick mother, whose ghastly coughs are among the first sounds in the film. He catches perfectly a guy verging on the mentally retarded with some severe emotional problems, but whose nervous twitches and stammering speech are also strangely endearing and charming. Chris Weitz (better known for unleashing the American Pie franchise with his brother Paul, also in this film), plays Chuck, or Charlie as he now prefers to be known, a successful LA record company executive with a pretty wife, a nice house, BMW...the works. Weitz is an interesting casting decision. His relative inexperience in acting shows, but in a good way, manifesting in the superficially charming yet wooden and impersonal mask of a young, powerful professional. His face is chiselled enough to be good looking, but his sticky-out ears and slightly ratty face give an indication that he may once have been geeky enough to hang out with a guy like Buck. Cast-wise good support all round particularly Lupe Ontiveros as Beverly, recruited by Buck to help produce and direct his play "Hank and Frank". She brings a real down to earth honesty that really strengthens the play within the film sub-plot. Paul Weitz is also terrifically wooden, naturally or not, as the actor chosen by Buck to play Frank in his play. Beth Colt is also good in the slightly underwritten role of Chuck's wife, who becomes unsettled but also genuinely intrigued by Buck and his boyhood relationship with her future husband.
The reason I think Chuck and Buck works so well is that purely by spending time with Buck and seeing him obviously distressed by being spurned by Chuck there is some degree of sympathy created. Most people know, to some extent, what it's like to meet up with close friends from the past and the various feelings which arouse from that, particularly if they've changed radically as people. Feelings of nostalgia, maybe jealousy and envy, superiority or amazement that you ever liked them at all. OK, so the whole homosexual sub-plot does complicate the experience a little but it shouldn't put people off as it is not presented in a particularly explicit manner until one final scene. Some worthwhile issues are raised particularly regarding Chuck's character. Is he repressing his real desires in order to conform, is Buck just in search of love whoever it may be from? There are a few opportunities for the film to take a whole darker twist a la Happiness which I'm glad did not happen.
Now I'm no psychologist but I'm not too sure what to make of the conclusion of the film. Spoiler - After one last sexual experience together, Buck seems to start some sort of journey to maturity signified by him throwing away his collection of toys. Could this be a final closure, enabling both characters to move on? Buck is invited to Chuck's wedding and he looks at the newly-weds with genuine happiness for them, rather than the jealousy he previously felt towards Chuck's fiancée. The film appears to end on quite an optimistic note - a fresh start for both, emphasised by a reprise of one of the earlier songs, Gwendolyn Sanford's wonderful 'Freedom of the Heart' (I've got freedom of the heart / It's a brand new start.) But can it really be that simple? Just how much can people ever change?
I want to finally highlight a couple of technical aspects. First, the music is absolutely fantastic. The music co-ordinators, including ex-Beck and REM drummer Joey Waronker, have found some wonderful songs that are childish, joyful, melancholy and creepy all at once. They really help root the viewer in Buck's retarded view of life and are also creepily ironic as they often accompany Buck in scenes verging on criminal stalking. A clever use of the power of sound/music over an audience. The other point I wanted to mention was the digital cinematography. I was undecided about this. On the one hand I appreciate that it gives lower budget films a huge advantage in terms of eliminating film stock/developing costs. It can also be used just as expressively as film and does have a particular aesthetic quality. However I thought that the image quality was particularly muddy on this film even on DVD.
A brief aside: For people who like to really read between the lines of films, one critic's review I read ( I believe either David Edelstein or J. Hobermann) made a very interesting possible interpretation of the film regarding the relationship between the independent and studio film industries. As I've mentioned previously the casting is particularly relevant here, White- the acclaimed indie writer, Weitz - the young powerful studio player. I'll leave you to ponder those sort of meta-filmic interpretations at your own leisure!
8/10