Film Reviews

Growing pains may easily be one of the things that mostly all human beings can relate to. I can speak for myself assuredly when I say that life’s lessons come in all shape, sizes, and consequence.  For Lead actress Yainis Ynoa, better known as Lena AKA “Babygirl” it seems like they come all too frequently.  Already dealing with. being a 16-year-old latina in the Bronx which comes with many an obstacle economically, and socially there are expectations of her; her complex homelife is a constant theme throughout the film, documenting a relationship that seems like she is the parent most of the time.  Their bond is undying, of course, but their relation to each other is awkward at times, as you witness the responsibilities of the home and in guiding each other too often fall in the lap of Babygirl. 

At times she is a crutch, others a confidant, and at the most important moments she is her mothers conscience. Lena has taken on the burden of holding the fort down as some would say as Lucy struggles with her demons, and promiscuosity.  Falling head over heels for whom she believed would be Mr. Right has quickly turned into another heartache.  When learning that Mr Right, Victor, secretly covets the company of her daughter not her, Lucy loses it in a reaction that almost costs the two (mother and daughter) their relationship

Outside is no relief for the Lena; as an after thought, her closest friends like Daishan are really jealous, instead of suppportive. Judgemental in time when what Lena needs is consolation; her intrigue with a neighborhood sweetheart named Xavier who innocently wants nothing more than to share moments of puppy love, a stark contrast to the creepish desires of Victor.  What was overwhelming at first, becomes a place of comfort for Lena as she quickly learns what trying to grow up too fast can amount to.  

From backstab to backlash, tribulation, to exhilaration ( a first kiss, or first alcoholic beverage at a time when she does not even know how to order except from the kids menu ) follow the maturation of Lena AKA Babygirl in this very candid portrayal of what unfortunately is the life of boriqua teenager in the mean streets of Fordham Heights.

BABYGIRL a film by Macdara Vallely NOW PLAYING thru October 10 New York’s QUAD CINEMA

http://youtu.be/ohaKTlsbP1E

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: Macdara Vallely
PRODUCERS: David Collins; Gigi Dement; R. Paul Miller    
EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS: Felix Werner; Kathrin Werner
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Jarin Blaschke       
FILM EDITOR: Nathan Nugent
CAST: Yainis Ynoa, Rosa Arredondo, Flaco Navaja, Joshua Rivera, Gleendilys Inoa

SYNOPSIS: Set in the Bronx, BABYGIRL is about Lena (Yainis Ynoa), a fifteen-year old Nuyorican girl, who has watched her heart-broken single-mom (Rosa Arredondo) fall in love with one man after another.  When Victor (Flaco Navaja), the latest boyfriend, starts hitting on Lena, she sets out to expose him.   But the plan backfires, and Lena finds herself trapped in an impossible love-triangle.  The only way out is for her to stand up and confront some bitter home truths. BABYGIRL is the second feature by Irish director, Macdara Valley, who moved to Bronx, New York seven years ago. 

WINNER:  PANAVISION’S INDEPENDENT SPIRIT AWARD
Santa Barbara Intl. Film Festival Award – BEST FEATURE 2013
Jameson Dublin Intl. Film Festival – BEST IRISH FEATURE 
Tribeca Film Festival 2012 – OFFICIAL SELECTION   

Read more

As a huge music fan who nevertheless can’t play a note, I always enjoy watching documentaries about behind the scenes details about the music business and how the greatest records of all time were recorded.  While there are hundreds of music documentaries, many are fairly pedestrian and focus on household names who have sold millions of records and whose stories are already well-known.  The stars of MUSCLE SHOALS, a documentary about two prolific recording studios in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, certainly have had that “sold millions of records” part down since the 1960s, but their lives have been anything but open books.

If you ever wondered what Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Ronnie Van Zant meant by the lines “In Muscle Shoals they got the Swampers/And they’ve been known to pick a song or two” in Sweet Home Alabama, the documentary MUSCLE SHOALS has the answer.  The town of Muscle Shoals, Alabama became a somewhat unlikely major hub of soul, R&B and rock music beginning in the early 1960s with FAME Studios, which was founded by native Rick Hall.  Hall is a seemingly ancient producer who overcame a life full of tragedy to turn his town into a recoding juggernaut.  The list of world-famous musicians who recorded major hit songs in Muscle Shoals is nearly endless, with many of them commenting on their work in the town in the documentary, including Aretha Franklin, Percy Sledge, Wilson Pickett, Gregg Allman, and The Rolling Stones’ Keith Richards and Mick Jagger.

So what’s the reason why an out-of-the-way studio became such a mecca for great music?  The documentary offers many explanations about the environment, but the true reason is that the house musicians for FAME Studios developed a powerful sound that has been impossible to find anywhere else in the decades since.  It’s the kind of music that gives you chills if you sit down and really absorb it.  The documentary goes into depth about these musicians, particularly because the group of white guys behind the instruments seem to be the furthest thing from “soul” musicians on the planet.

Because of this, the documentary serves as a spectacular journey through American R&B and soul music of the 1960s and 1970s.  Naturally the documentary focuses on the hey-day of Muscle Shoals, and there’s little said about the records made here since aside from recent footage of Alicia Keys recording a Bob Dylan song that Dylan originally recorded here (and oddly U2’s Bono appears numerous times in the documentary though he never recorded music here).  However, it’s an incredible ride. In particular, I’m impressed by the participation of world-famous musicians as “talking heads” – Keith Richards, one of my all-time idols, is particularly hysterical as usual – rather than relying on “music journalists” to tell second-hand stories as so many documentaries do.

The only aspect of worry is that first-time director Greg “Freddy” Camalier has set an extremely high bar for himself.  I don’t know how he’ll ever be able to follow up this supremely entertaining and informative documentary with his next film.  However, after seeing Muscle Shoals I know I’ll be in line to see what he does next.

Review Rating: 4 out of 5 : See it …… It’s Very Good

http://youtu.be/mmM–aUROQc

Read more

With no disrespect intended to any ladies reading this, it’s been said that no story carries the emotional impact of a story about the relationship between a father and his son.  From the days of the Bible and mythology, countless stories have used that relationship as a basis for emotional conflict, from fantasy films like Star Wars and Field of Dreams to biographical films like Walk the Line. Indeed, it is because of that last film that the documentary MY FATHER AND THE MAN IN BLACK exists.

This documentary is about Saul Holiff, who served as Johnny Cash’s manager from 1960 to 1973.  Saul Holiff, who committed suicide several years ago because he was suffering from a terminal illness, had an estranged relationship with his son Jonathan Holiff – Jonathan confesses, “I knew more about my father from his obituary than from the man himself.”   Shortly before the release of the successful Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line, Jonathan quit his unsatisfying job as a successful Hollywood agent and moved back in with his mother.  While living with her they were bombarded with calls from Cash fans looking for memorabilia in the wake of Cash’s resurgence in popularity.  Jonathan’s mother revealed to him that his father had left a storage locker filled with a treasure trove of information and mementos regarding his time managing Cash.  This documentary chronicles Jonathan’s discovery of who his father really was through what he finds in the locker.

Jonathan Holiff has a great story to tell about this relationship to his father and his father’s relationship to Johnny Cash.  However — and I know this might sound odd — I don’t think Jonathan Holiff was the right filmmaker to tell this story.  While Jonathan was an extremely successful Hollywood agent and television producer, that doesn’t necessarily translate to filmmaking skill.  Since Jonathan is undergoing a very personal journey with this documentary it makes sense that he serves writer, director, and producer of the film, but several questionable creative decisions really hurt the final product.

For instance, perhaps my least favorite technique in documentaries is shooting narrative-style recreations of true events.  It not only seems false to me, but it begs the question of why the filmmakers didn’t choose one style or the other.  It appears that Holiff has spent a lot of money shooting narrative recreations of his father’s interactions with Cash with lookalike actors in their places. But why? Saul Holiff’s story is fascinating on its own and is told through incredible archival photos, film clips, and, most of all, audio recordings.  These are historical documents that uncover untold aspects of the life of one of country music’s most iconic figures (or two if you count Cash’s wife June Carter).  I would have liked to have seen more authenticity and less awkward recreations.

Regardless of that poor choice in technique, Holiff discovers deep emotional connections and parallels with the father he previously wanted nothing to do with, and learns that his father’s chief flaw was trying to manage his family life like he managed Cash.

Though MY FATHER AND THE MAN IN BLACK has won several awards and generally positive reviews at numerous film festivals, I can’t help but think it would have been a much better documentary if it took a different creative direction.  Cash fans will enjoy it more than most (even if he doesn’t get the most glowing portrayal), but others will probably want to pass.

http://youtu.be/jtovAxxPo2Q 

RATING 2 out of 5 : See it … At Your Own Risk

Read more

Totally detached from society, as a matter of personal choice Abigail Harm is as anti-social and introverted as they come. Her only human interaction from day to day is that of her commitment to the service of reading to clients whom she sees at their home, as she reads from their favorite novels or other materials of choice. As the famous Korean folktale would have it,  one which tells of love, true love, the ever lasting kind which results from the taming of a deer, who is appears robe-less in need of consolation. One most unexpected evening a gentleman in need of food and temporary shelter appears in Abigail’s home. Over a meal she prepares, the man questions Abigail’s understanding of  love, to which she admits her only experience with it was through her parents, as an infant.  His one wish for Abigail becomes that she truly gets to feel what love is. He enlightens her to the myth of ‘The Woodcutter and the Nymph’ impressing upon her the importance of keeping her eyes open to her true love which is forthcoming.  In a matter of days, Abigails entire existence is revamped via this revelation, and literal appearance of a man in need of her as she is in need of he.

With her new relationship, and new outlook on life Abigail Harm now allows herself to experience as everyone else in humanity would seem to know it. Watch as the once anti-social becomes a butterfly all at the behest and coercion of love and intimacy.  The two share moments once unforeseen in her world, or expected, for that matter, to the tune of one of a potentially classic love story.

Experiencing nothing short of love which is overwhelming at times for her psyche, Abigail quickly learns to embrace the attention of another human being.

Many live a life which they desire could mirror fairy and folk tale, but quite often it does not happen; Abigail Harm gives us the hope and lesson of how we would might one day be in that small percentage of fruition. A great gem is shared regarding the importance of caring, of loving, and being loved as well as the need to be invaluable to someone whom you hope to keep forever; share in the joy of happiness and live if only vicariously, through Abigail Harm.

http://youtu.be/_jJfumiMcZo

“ABIGAIL HARM” Opening August 30th at The QUAD, NYC

Read more

All screen adaptations of classic novels face the same inevitable obstacle: though they need not best their source material, they must work twice as hard as an original film to justify their existence. Why watch an adaptation of Jane Eyre, of Pride and Prejudice, or of Madame Bovary when those original texts are so celebrated and so readily available?

François Mauriac’s 1927 novel Thérèse Desqueyroux may not be as well known on this side of the Atlantic as those novels, but it is nevertheless a French classic. The literary origins of the late Claude Miller’s adaptation, which has its United States premiere at the Film Society of Lincoln Center are manifestly and regrettably obvious. The events of the film take place over many years and lack the propulsive dramatic force of stories crafted directly for the screen. The last third of the movie does not build to climax but simply and unsatisfyingly peters out. Miller’s direction, meanwhile, is pedestrian at best: this is not a movie made up of striking, original images. His visual choices convey little about the characters or the narrative.

But there is something else about the film that hearkens back to prose fiction, and particularly to the novels of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: Thérèse herself. She is a fascinating creature, one we cannot help but find compelling even if we would not, perhaps, want to deal with her in real life. If the film deserves to exist at all – and I’m not sure it does – that is due to Audrey Tatou’s performance in the lead role, which is truly remarkable. It’s safe to assume that readers of Mauriac’s novel are privy to Thérèse’s innermost emotions, but viewers of Miller’s film have to rely primarily on Tatou’s performance to figure out what is going on inside her character’s head. She effortlessly telegraphs each of Thérèse’s thoughts and feelings to the audience, despite the fact that the character is nearly always acting a very different role in front of her family.

The press materials for the film compare Thérèse to Emma Bovary and Anna Karenina, which is certainly valid: she, like both of them, is trapped in an unsatisfying marriage; she, like them, yearns for the city while imprisoned in the stultifying country. She is ultimately separated from her child, toward whom she has never expressed much maternal feeling. But Emma is a fool and Anna is a martyr, and Thérèse is something harder and slipperier. Deliberately or not, she owes far more to Kate Croy, the anti-hero of Henry James’ The Wings of the Dove, than to the long list of suicidal women who populate so many nineteenth-century novels. Kate is manipulative, conniving, and amoral, but she is not without feeling. Tatou’s performance, indeed, is strongly reminiscent of Helena Bonham Carter’s as Kate in the 1997 adaptation of that novel, easily one of the most successful adaptations of a complex nineteenth-century text. The minds behind that movie were smart enough to shape their story into something undeniably cinematic. Despite the relative age of the source material, it feels new.

THÉRÈSE, alas, feels no such thing. Though changes were certainly made to the source material, the film nevertheless plays like an old book that has been translated directly – and uncreatively – to the screen. Thérèse struggles against the bonds of her family and the staid, bourgeois society of which they are a part; Tatou struggles equally against the bonds of a movie that does not really know what to do with her. It is a crying shame that one of her most complex and accomplished performances came to be in so undeserving a movie.

“THÉRÈSE”
dir. Claude Miller
feat. Audrey Tatou, Gilles Lellouche, Anaïs Demoustier
MPI Pictures
110 minutes, NR

http://youtu.be/MzRWaFMQFbw

Read more

Appearances are often deceiving. Two people who might appear to be perfect for each other on the surface by the way they interact might be incompatible once things get deeper. In DRINKING BUDDIES, a romantic comedy from writer/director Joe Swanberg (V/H/S), pretty and playful Kate (Olivia Wilde) works as a marketer at a Chicago-area brewery. Though she is in a relationship with the pedantic Chris (Ron Livingston), she clearly has better chemistry with one of the brewers she works with, Luke (Jake Johnson). However, the outgoing Luke is engaged to Jill (Anna Kendrick), a somewhat shy special education teacher.

Just from reading the description of those characters you might think that Kate and Luke are a better fit for each other, and on the surface that’s obvious. While they’re together they’re flirty and playful. Kate in particular is clearly struggling with the romantic feelings she has for Luke, and while the two are always talking they never talk about what’s going on between them. On the other hand, Jill and Chris seem to have a connection of their own – Chris is the type of guy who doesn’t think Kate is sophisticated enough for him (he stops making out with her to give her a John Updike book to read. Yeah, he’s THAT guy). He doesn’t even like the free beer Kate gives him! Nonetheless, Jill is still compatible with Luke – it’s really the “interesting, polite gentleman” (as Jill calls Chris) who is the odd man out. But that still leaves the question of what becomes of Luke, Jill, and Kate.

Drinking Buddies is an exercise in body language and brilliant camera work. Because Kate and Luke never talk about their relationship (or lack thereof), shots are built around their symbolic physical closeness and distance. Because of what is seen and not said, it’s an incredibly tense movie despite being about relationships – as a viewer you almost want to cut in and state the obvious to all the main players. But that’s what makes Drinking Buddies such a fun movie. Swanberg could have gone the easy route by making Kendrick’s Jill an ice queen (after all, that’s how most mainstream romantic comedies do it), but just because Kendrick’s Jill is mousier than Wilde’s Kate doesn’t mean she’s not right for Luke.

If you like your movies subtle, Drinking Buddies is a wonderful film. I immediately wanted to watch it again to see what I missed of the actors telling a story without stating the obvious. In particular, I was blown away by Wilde – I’ve only seen her in big-budget films like TRON: Legacy and Cowboys & Aliens, so I never suspected she could pull off a subtle role like this. If mainstream romantic comedies have burned you out on their silliness, Drinking Buddies will restore your faith in the genre.

Also, look for an uncredited Jason Sudeikis as Kate and Luke’s goofy boss, Gene Dentler (who is oddly credited as “Himself”).

Review Rating: 4 out of 5 : See it …… It’s Very Good

http://youtu.be/Dj9Q92s97Uc

Read more

The clock is ticking; the days are passing, as she sits behind closed doors, paralyzed by fear.

SPARROWS DANCE, directed by Noah Buschel, explores the life of a former actress (Marin Ireland) who has been sequestered in her apartment for a year. Her daily existence is plagued by fear. This fear serves to clog her life, until she meets Wes the plumber (Paul Sparks).

She is a young woman who wanders from room to room, existing in total fear. She has many crutches used to stave off her ‘fear of’. Her days are spent in utter isolation; her existence is one of self-imposed exile. Each day passes with her engaging in simple routines: sleeping, eating, exercising and watching T.V. Her daily sustenance is conveyed to her door. It is through this door that she communicates with the outside world.

She lives vicariously through the lives of the people in the old movies. While scarfing down a wrap, she watches an old movie in which the male character cheats on his wife. She has a forlorn expression on her face. A look that says: ‘I am right to be in a state of solitude.’

She also witnesses a crime in progress from her window and she dials 911. She acts, while the other witnesses look on in fear. It shows that in spite of her phobia her humanity shines forth.

One day her toilet overflows, water is everywhere and the neighbor alerts her to the problem by banging on her door. Her reaction to this intrusion is to withdraw under her bedcovers. Eventually, she utters a response: “I’ll take care of it.” She contacts a plumbing company and they agree to send a plumber. She struggles with this and requests that service be provided via phone. In the end, she is forced to give in.

Wes, the plumber, is intelligent, confident, and empathetic. He enters her solitary life and gently attempts to prod her out of her shell. Soon, he has her dancing, smiling and sharing her fears. She is swept off her feet. Wes encourages her to venture forth onto the stage of life. She is overcome with immense fear at his prodding. She wrestles with her phobia and lashes out at Wes.

Will she vanquish her fears? Only time will tell…

The director/writer, Noah Buschel, is brilliant in his portrayal of agoraphobia. The music is effectively interspersed throughout the film. The lighting techniques implemented are truly commendable. It is a sensitive and captivating portrayal of this phobia.

http://youtu.be/pWuq198T15k

Read more

By now, you’ve likely heard all about LEE DANIELS’ THE BUTLER, the story of an African-American man who served on the White House staff through eight administrations. In the film Forest Whitaker stars as Cecil Gaines, who is loosely based off actual White House butler Eugene Allen. Of course, don’t be fooled by the marketing – reading the Washington Post article the film was initially based on, shows that the film is fictionalized to a great degree. Because of that, in some ways The Butler is like a real-life version of Forest Gump, though by no means do I mean to compare the obviously completely different protagonists (to be like Forest Gump, Cecil would have had to do something like stop the Cuban Missile Crisis by misplacing JFK’s silverware).

Whereas the real-life Eugene was born in Virginia, Cecil is a child of cotton fields in the Deep South. After a horrific childhood tragedy he slowly grows into his role as a servant and constantly impresses the right people until he is hired by the White House. However, his service to white presidents in the racially turbulent 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s puts him at odds with his eldest son Louis (David Oyelowo), and while we witness Cecil’s humorous encounters with numerous presidents we also witness his rocky relationship with Louis, who gradually becomes involved in the Civil Rights Movement.

If you go to see the The Butler to see caricatures of former presidents, be prepared – their appearances are limited to glorified cameos that are often played for laughs. The idea seems to be to show the presidents at their worst, so you see Eisenhower (a miscast Robin Williams) cowering over his decision to enforce Brown v. Board of Ed, Lyndon Johnson (Liev Schreiber) on the toilet, Nixon (an even more miscast John Cusack) pandering for votes and drunkenly insisting he’ll never resign, and Ronald Reagan (Alan Rickman) trying to hide things from Nancy (Jane Fonda). Only John F. Kennedy (James Marsden) gets off without looking ridiculous, partially because Marsden plays him straighter than the other presidential actors and partially because, well, I’m sure you know how Hollywood feels about the Kennedys. I mean, you’d think a White House butler would’ve seen a mistress or two running around Kennedy’s office, right? As for Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, they get a pass via a montage that zooms through late 70s/early 80s American history, which, inexplicably, ends with a lengthy shot of Princess Diana. This leads to a major all-serious tonal shift in the last half hour of the film that is far removed from Eugene Allen’s actual life.

Aside from the presidents, the film does have an impressive cast beyond the always great Whitaker. Oyelowo’s Louis is a great foil for Cecil, even if the Louis character is entirely fictional. I was also surprised by how good Cuba Gooding Jr. is as Cecil’s fellow butler Carter. Considering the last film I saw Gooding in was opposite Dolph Lundgren in the direct-to-video One in the Chamber, his funny performance here could put his career back on track. Another surprise is Oprah Winfrey, who plays Cecil’s oft-drunk wife Gloria. She’s a better actress than I expected, but most of her lines are delivered as sassy quips, even the lines of her dialogue that aren’t supposed to be sassy quips. She also curiously seems to age at half the rate that Cecil ages. Still, the shame of that is that there about a half-dozen far more proficient middle-aged African-American actresses who deserved the role over her and could have done something more than a two-dimensional sassy wife.

In that sense, the engaging father/son story and the more comedic upstairs/downstairs presidential comedy seem like two completely different movies. While the drawing card is obviously the presidents, it’s the far weaker part of the film. Surprisingly, it’s the fictional story of Cecil and Louis that is the most moving. It makes me wonder if the real-life Eugene Allen’s story would’ve been better told as a documentary. Director Lee Daniels went from directing films with small scope like Shadowboxer, Precious, and The Paperboy to The Butler, and I think that explains why the film’s weaker parts are the ones that meant to be more “epic” in scope. I believed in the scenes of Louis facing harsh racism as an activist. I did not believe the scenes of Cusack’s goofy Nixon handing campaign buttons to the butler staff. I’d think screenwriter Danny Strong, who wrote HBO political movies Recount and Game Change, would have had a better handle on the political material.

Despite the August release date, The Butler is the most obvious Weinstein Company Oscar bait since The King’s Speech. While being Oscar bait isn’t necessarily a bad thing (The King’s Speech alone is evidence of that), I figure you’ve seen enough Oscar bait movies to know how thick The Butler lays it on. It’s a very good movie, but it misses the “great” mark by trying to be too goofy and too preachy at the same time.

Film Review Rating 3 out of 5 : See it … It’s Good

http://youtu.be/9uBXH_DLxsU

Read more

“A time when a vacation meant a trip to the Catskills”

And with it you were assured to see a show. Now whether or not it was to your liking was no guarantee. Moments afte ther decline of Vaudeville and Burlesque there existed a huge void in American activities and passtime; what once ensured entertainment was now old news, yet the audience remained. 75 miles NW of New York lie a region called the Catskills, still til this day, a place of hotels, rooming houses, and more. As it remains very popular today, there was a time when the Catskills were the end all be all in vacation options. Tourists from all over frequented this area in search of opportunity; to relax, to engage, to mingle, and more.

For a batch of young men and women who set their sites on being apart of something special, a thriving industry, these travelers were the perfect tool and conduit to their success. “When comedy went so school” it was practiced, studied; For legends like Jerry Lewis, Sid Ceasar, Jackie Mason, Jerry Stiller and Dick Gregory the hotels and resorts of the Catskills were a place to earn a good days pay while ironing out the kinks in their stage performance. Comedy. which once was slap stick or somewhat dramatic was now centered around being downright hilarious (thats if u got lucky). At the time these novice performers used the Catskills for exactly what it was worth: good meals, good scenery, good company, and beyond all else, good money., and practice.

Taking center stage at bingo halls, theaters, restaurants, anywhere else that the promoters dictated these ambitious inpiduals kick the door down to a new age. In this film, Director Ron Frank and host Robert Klein provide a tutorial, which chronicles the history of comedy and its marriage to the Catskills. Where stars were made, or saved; where people enjoyed their effort encouraged their development and criticized their missing of the mark

“A boot camp….Basic training for a generation plus of our most gifted comics”

The Rodney Dangerfields, Gabe Cohens of the world all got their feet wet. Before becoming household names the Larry Kings and David Brenners went to school with comedy, for comedy. Laced with creative biblical references, interestingly substantiated by interpretations, or manipulation for that matter. Get to understand this treatise on the beginnings of Comedy. From the tumbler to the stand up expert, entertainment in the Catskills evolved, and from that evolutuion was born a new genre- COMEDY

http://youtu.be/Rwr-U1z1F60

Read more

I’ve always had a deep respect for standup comedians, which I regard as one of the toughest gigs in all of entertainment. However, standup comedy as we know is a relatively modern form of entertainment, and the origin of how it grew from vaudeville can be pinpointed to the Catskill Mountains in upstate New York, where dozens of the greatest comedians of all time developed their acts.

WHEN COMEDY WENT TO SCHOOL, a documentary about the influence the Catskills vacation region had on Jewish comedians, explores what exactly made the area such an enclave for future funnymen (and women). Narrated by Robert Klein, comedian and former Catskills busboy, and featuring interviews with Jerry Lewis, Jerry Stiller, Sid Caesar, Jackie Mason, and other comedy icons, along with plenty of vintage clips of Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, Lenny Bruce, and Rodney Dangerfield, When Comedy Went to School is full of laughs as it tells the story of how modern standup comedy developed among Jewish vacationers.

The height of the “Borscht Belt” experience lasted for a very brief time — roughly between the end of the vaudeville era and the rise of television and cheap air travel. But those three decades gave birth to so much of what we think about modern comedy. In that sense, your enjoyment of When Comedy Went to School will totally depend on how interested you are in the history of comedy. If standup comedy isn’t your thing – especially if older comedians don’t make you laugh – you probably won’t enjoy it. However, if you still crack up at Mel Brooks or Woody Allen comedies (and if you don’t you’re not friend of mine), you’ll find a lot to enjoy in this documentary.

It also delves in the special relationship Jewish entertainers have with comedy and how the Catskills served as an almost Jewish-only summer paradise where entertainers felt comfortable working on their craft away from their homes in New York City. Like Klein, many of the comedians actually started as busboys and waiters and learned that they could earn more tips by injecting comedy into their interactions with guests. Early in the documentary Jerry Lewis calls it a “laboratory,” and it’s hard to find a more appropriate analogy for what role the Catskills scene did for all those great comedians and the development of standup comedy overall.

At only 76 minutes, the documentary flies by. However, in the last twenty minutes I would’ve loved to have seen more vintage clips of the comedians rather than the focus on the decline of the Catskills as a vacation destination. I understand why directors Ron Frank and Mevlut Akkaya went in that direction (especially since I’m sure the vintage clips didn’t come free), but I know I could’ve watched hours of clips of comedians cracking their best jokes.

Film Review Rating 3 out of 5 : See it … It’s Good

WHEN COMEDY WENT TO SCHOOL opens in NYC at IFC Center on July 31, Long Island on August 2, and Los Angeles on August 16.

http://youtu.be/Rwr-U1z1F60

Read more