Skip to main content

I actually am a terrorist. I just do standup on the side to keep a low profile.

The Big Sick
(2017)

(SPOILERS) The Big Sick wasn’t the big hit many expected. Tipped as a summer sleeper, it merely performed respectably (on a low budget, so that was okay). But then, with a title suggesting the worst excesses of now passé gross-out comedy, what did Amazon and Lionsgate (who picked it up following Sundance) expect? It isn’t that at all – by which I mean, vomit-related –  of course, and is in fact a rather sweet culture-clash comedy with a you-couldn’t make it up coma thrown in – the actual big sick –  based on the experiences of comedian Kumail Nanjiani in dating his wife to be (Emily V Gordon).


When I say it’s sweet, though, I mean The Big Sick’s inoffensive (even when dealing with racism aimed at Kumail, playing himself), and amiable, likeable and unassuming. It entirely reflects Nanjiani’s personality, basically, which doesn’t make for the most vital or responsive viewing experience. Nanjiani is dating Emily (Zoe Kazan), but they break up when she discovers he hasn’t told his unreceptive family he’s dating a white girl, and that he can’t see a long-term prospect for them for this reason. Despite this, when she becomes seriously ill a few weeks later (eventually diagnosed as a complication resulting from Still’s Disease), he ends up signing the permission form to induce a coma and it’s at the hospital that he meets her parents Beth (Holly Hunter) and Terry (Ray Romano). As a consequence, much of the movie doesn’t even feature Kazan, revolving instead around the growing bond through trauma between those closest to her.


On that level, the movie works; the setup is sufficiently different that you’re intrigued to see how this unfolds, and Hunter and Romano make for an effective chalk-and-cheese pairing, she fiery and outspoken, he weary and reserved. Where the movie stumbles is in averring to the Judd Apatow formula, minus his trademark gross-out – he’s a producer, although how he finds the time between self-righteous tweets is beyond me – right down to an unnecessarily excessive running time (two hours is not the ideal for a comedy, but his pictures are often well over that limit).


Apatow frequently favours the autobiographical, something that has rarely paid dividends creatively – Funny People, This is 40 – inevitably involving depicting comedians as comedians, which again, unless you’re Jerry Seinfeld, isn’t always such a good idea, nursing the danger of coming across as hubristic (it may work for Stephen King or – once upon a time, when he was both acting in his pictures and less controversial – Woody Allen to give their protagonists the skillset they have, but it can be overly inclusive and off-putting to an audience, as if everything revolves around them. As such, the stand-up element of The Big Sick is merely okay.


Nanjiani is a reactive personality, which suits the story, but in terms of range he isn’t so effective when called upon to emote (for example, becoming enraged at the burger joint, or pleading with Emily’s parents not to move her to another hospital). That’s fine – a lot of comedians aren’t – but it does mean that the romance side is also very low key. The interactions with his family, though, while familiar from other wry depictions of traditional Muslim parenting, consistently spark thanks to the performances of Anupam Kher (as his father Azmat), Zenobia Shroff (mother Sharmeen) and Adeel Akhtar (brother Naveed).


Hunter scores for a scene where she launches into a racist heckler, as Nanjiani attempts to carry on with his act regardless, while Romano’s deadpan (“If you feel a coma coming on, just call us”) has an authenticity that Nanjiani, peppering his dialogue with “bits” doesn’t quite grasp yet. Kazan’s very likeable, when she’s actually conscious. But that’s The Big Sick. It’s likeable, good-natured and pleasant, but nothing more than that. You wouldn’t instantly deduce it as a contender for Best Original Screenplay Oscar.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?