The banal life of a young man is represented by stick figures and described by a monotonous narrator. We hear about his moments of awkward social behavior, the silly ideas that occur to him, his goofy thoughts about death and dying; the stick figures and the narration make the banality funny. The audience laughs.
Then the one-joke premise overstays its welcome. We're waiting for this thing to end, barely aware that the writer and director Don Herzfeldt, through his narrator, is sneaking in some disturbing items on the list of banalities. It hits most of us that something is seriously wrong when the young man notices a trickle of urine sliding down his pants leg. Is he sick? It turns out he is, both mentally and physically; and it seems he may die. We see, and hear about, the reactions of his mother and uncle. They buy a casket for him. He loses control of his mind.
I found this animated short about illness and madness very moving. I know how I feel about it, but what did I think of it? Did Herzfeldt intend to make a short that initially appears to us as a one-gag cartoon? Whether he intended it or not, was this a mistake? Did it add to or subtract from our reaction to the second half? Did Herzfeldt intend to amuse us, then bore us, then frighten us, then sadden us? Is telling a serious story with stick figures a kind of joke? Or were the stick figures the most effective way of telling the story? Or both?
In asking these questions, I think I've come up with my own answers. I think Herzfeldt intended the effects he got, and I think they were good ideas. This film is highly recommended.
