Human Nature

"Human Nature" is just one example of what happens when you combine a script written by Charlie Kaufman, the directorial talents of Michel Gondry, and a stellar cast featuring Tim Robbins, Patricia Arquette, and Rhys Ifans.

The movie may not be up to par with Kaufman's other works such as "Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind," but it does great at utilizing the usual elements that make a great Kaufman script: Eccentricity, great dialogue, and sometimes dark humor.

This film also happens to be director Michel Gondry's first directorial effort. While the film does lack some of the trademarks that Gondry would use in the other films of his career, (specifically his manipulation of the mise en scene) this film is, after all, his first directorial effort. Sometimes directors don't immediately find out what their main style is on their debut films.

Then you have the performances of the cast. Tim Robbins and Patricia Arquette shine in their respectful places as the male and female leads, but I believe Rhys Ifans deserves a bit more love. His performance as Puff is one that I feel is wildly underrated.

Overall, "Human Nature" is worth a go, especially if you like anything with Charlie Kaufman or Tim Robbins or Patricia Arquette written on it.

I loved this film. Everyone in it was sharp. It may be slow to build up in laughs, but I didn't mind one bit. The always great Arquette held it all in for me. Robbins was excellent, too. (as always- hey Tim, I want to see another directed feature from you!) Highly recommeded for fans of "intellectual" comedy. Some classic moments....

'Human Nature' will inevitably be reviewed in comparison to 'Being John Malkovich', and the comments will be along the lines of 'less coherent', 'not likely to be as commercially successful', etc. But should these be reasons to NOT see this movie? Only if you want to miss the most intelligent movie to come out since BJM. Forget 'A Beautiful Mind', which gives the appearance of intelligence by flaunting pseudo-guru math, but was just another sappy tale of 'the triumph of the human spirit'.

What makes 'Human Nature' and BJM a cut above the usual cinema drivel, is that they actually attempt to get into some serious philosophical issues. BJM delves into personal identity, while 'Human Nature' digs even deeper into the realm of our underlying... human nature. What makes human nature any better than animal nature? civilization? language? manners? And do these distinctly human features actually make us better, or just different, or different in a bad way... i.e. by making us lead dual lives, tearing our originally united being into inharmonious halves (subjective/objective)? And can we simply unite our duplicitousness by forgetting language, civilization, and manners... by returning to nature? Or, with a philosopher who gets an intensional nod in 'Human Nature', Wittgenstein, are we stuck in language, forever banished from the garden of eden?

This movie raised all of these questions, and more, for me... which is what I expect out of a good movie: not only does it entertain us, but it invites us to join in the entertaining. By posing these questions, it challenges us to answer them, and to ask our own questions of it... which means that we have to see it again in order for it to continue the dialogue. Now that's what I call interactive movie-going. Philosophy has started some great stuff in history: religion, government, science. So I think that's its not asking too much for movies to engage in philosophical debates and trying to include the audience, rather than thinking of the audience as fodder for the box office.

I read the IMDB reviews on this two nights ago, and decided not to rent this film. But then as if by coincidence, the next night I noticed it was on cable currently, so I taped it.

And I'm glad I did.

It seems some reviewers lament the lack of a message in this, I can appreciate such weighty films, hey I enjoyed the "Whale Rider," but such films often reduce down simply to hackneyed sententia. I'm kinda afraid life does as well...but this ain't the forum for that chat.

Charlie Kaufmann seems to specialize in *mixed* message films. I enjoy them as I enjoy a puzzle. They are thought-provoking both in theme and in details (don't know about you, but I had to look up Franz Kline...)

Other reviewers lament the onanism going on (or should that be down). To me, "Adaptation" was a whole lot more masturbatory, this has an easier-to-follow plot. The humor rises more quickly to the surface...and yes I did chuckle at times.

No one so far has voiced concern over this being a film that reflects back from the start. It is done deftly; although I know some people dislike that as a device.

There are several nice film tricks. A circular beginning/ending, Robbins clearly being in a closed afterworld, and nods to other films...Bambi, Tarzan, Frankenstein, Sophie's Choice... ;> No, I'm forgetting another real one. I'm not that familiar with the director's MTV exploits, but I'll rent that collection sooner or later.

No one here yet has mentioned Young Frankenstein (which I see as more of a prototype than Pygmalion...or even Oedipus Rex.) But there are some serious questions being posed. Less these days than in the 70's do we get pitched an idyllic ideal; one wherein if man were stripped of his modern trappings, social strictures, political oppression and other garb, would we find a purer being? Isn't that also an element of Marx/Hegelism?

Kaufmann weaves a new sort of unibrow...uniting the high and the low.

There are other more universal moments here. Arquette struggling not to care what others think about her. Robbins trying to chose between the sweet girlfriend and the saucy seductress, between his heart and his...

Ahem, still there's much more here than what I fear is found in "Me and Him." Libido is a prime mover...whether subjugated or conjugal.

I'm having a hard time wrapping this up...is it a film that states that human nature is deceitful (all of four main characters are in at least one charade)?

Again, I'm glad I rented it. I've got to get better at cross-referencing other reviewers when reading posts here. I think Kaufmann is a very gifted, and very conflicted guy.

7/10

After perusing the other viewers' comments on this site and noting the plethora of pertinent sociological questions that arise from the viewing of this obviously intellectual piece of cinematography, I can't help but notice that the most obvious question of all has not yet been touched upon, therefore, I will ask it now.

If you were locked in a room with Patricia Arquette and an electric grooming shear, would you shave her body before making love to her?

Maybe the reason this question has not yet been asked is because the answer is so obvious it pretty much goes without saying. That answer is, of course, no. If you were to buzz-cut Ms. Arquette's body with such a tool, you would, without any doubt, leave a stubble that would be rough and scratchy, causing you so much discomfort during the act of intercourse that the whole experience would inevitably become somewhat unpleasant, relatively speaking.

Leaving her hairy, on the other hand, would give you the sensation that you were rolling around with a large, fluffy dog...a feeling which could only add a new measure of pleasure to the whole coital experience. This should not be construed as bestiality, being that the "fluffy-dog" sense of pleasure would be separate from the "doing Patricia" feeling of prurient ecstasy, which means the whole scenario could be pulled off guilt-free.

That would be superb, especially for me, being that I have been totally hot for this particular actress ever since I saw her in True Romance. I would be happy to be in bed with her even if she was a toothless quadruple-amputee covered with hair from her head all the way down to her...uh, never mind.