1. Whether intentional or not Tristram Shandy seems to have beated modernism and post modernism literature to the punch. A story that pokes fun at the novel and then pokes fun at its poking of fun. Not much is to be said about the book that is succinct and to the point. A purpouful labyrinth of themes and stoylines that lead to no particular conclusion.
2. The idea of giving this movie a synopsis is hilarious. It’s very title, calling itself a ‘ Cock and Bull’ story is poking fun at the very idea of summing up Tristram Shandy in a line (Stephen Frys appearance and line delivery of this part completely made this movie for me). To different people at different times, the film means different things and themes are over ridden and diverted. The film may be a comedy, a love story, or a war film. There is no genre that can hold this story.
3. A pursuit like recreating Tristram Shandy into a movie could only result in a hilarious failure, and in that sense, this movie is well accomplished. I think ironically though Tristram Shandy as a book and film actually manage to leave a subverted theme that maybe takes some digestion to read. The theme is that of life and its many faces. Character relationships take full 180s and some aspects that take paramount importance are supplanted by others. The book is very meta in this way if this theme is intended.
A curt review that dismisses the efforts to recreate Tristram Shandy the book. The writer claims the digressions in the book were meaningful and substantial in a way and the films were just arbitrary.
The writer suggests the humor might not be for anyone. Perhaps knowledge of the book or having read it directly would be ideal since the plot of the movie about the movie itself is the source of so much comedy.
This is actually another universities class course blog about the movie and film adaptation from books.
British humor can definitely escape some people. The timing of some of the jokes in Tristram Shandy arent delivered in a punchline, the growing awkwardness in a particular builds until a boiling point that strikes you to laugh at seemlingly unpredictable moments. Person to person the experience of when you actually lose it is different. The adaptation of this movie about a movie about the book really just lays in on thick from the get go and the tension of the absurdity just grows until a histeria.
Steve Coogan does the superior Al Pacino by far! What the F*ck that was so good I was dying laughing.
The film is an interesting exercise in absurdity. There is so much purposeful disjointed material in the movie that it seems very percarious a job to keep the movie from slipping into absolute rediculousness. The humor is sort of meta-themed. There isn’t a cue for laugh track but I suppose the theme is pretty explicit in its representation. Stephen Frys story about the Cock and Bull sort of humoursly destroys any hope of finding a constant dicernable theme among readers. Also the various impressions (and dissapointments) of viewers after the films screening is a funny way to depict the impossiblity of pleasing everyone when adapting a story this daunting.
Side note: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423409/plotsummary?ref_=tt_stry_pl
how fucking hilarious is it that imdb under synopsis: has “It looks like we don’t have any Synopsis for this title yet.” I mean is there anything more to say about this adaptation?