Idiots Film Review | Noisy, Empty Comedy

I have always believed that comedy is the most sacred genre of cinema. A genre with a history of more than two thousand years, on which figures such as Aristotle the Great have commented. Classic cinema and the early days of the magic lantern also produced masterpieces that, had Aristotle himself seen them, would surely have stood up to applaud.

I have always believed that comedy is the most sacred genre of cinema. A genre that is more than two thousand years old and people like Aristotle the Great have commented on it. Classical cinema and the early days of the magic screen also created masterpieces that, if it were Aristotle, would undoubtedly have stood and encouraged people like Laurel and Hardy. Now, after a century of cinema's life, it is as if that sharpness in the comedy genre has been forgotten. Movies are made that don't even have a funny joke. Artificial and forced laughter is the only reaction of the audience to the film. Idiots is one of these works. Weak, without sharp comedy, crowded and aimless.

The story of the movie Idiots is about two failed men named Mark played by Dave Franco and Davis played by O'Shea Jackson Jr.; Two people who have each reached a dead end in some way in their lives and now, in order to earn money, accept what should be a very simple task: transfer a rich and troubled teenager to a drug rehabilitation center. Sheridan, played by Mason Thames, is a teenager whose family wants to send him to a rehabilitation center, but being with him soon turns into a nightmare for the two drivers.

What was supposed to be a normal trip to do a mission and get paid slowly spirals out of control. Sheridan is not only an obedient passenger, but with his unpredictable behavior, he leads Mark and Davis into situations that are each time more strange and dangerous than the previous one. In the meantime, the difference in personality of these two men adds to the confusion of the story; One is careless and irresponsible, and the other tries to stick to his principles and beliefs. As a result, a journey that should have ended simply turns into a chain of chaotic events, conflicts and new troubles.

The film, directed by Macon Blair, is a comedy with a road and crime atmosphere that tries to get laughs from the encounters of strange characters, unusual situations and their stupid behavior. But the main issue in such works is whether putting together a few silly characters and some strange events alone is enough to create a successful comedy? Or does comedy, even at its silliest and most rambunctious, need more than noise and crazy situations?

Before going to other aspects of the movie, it is better to start with the plot. The story is the first thing that brings the audience into the world of a work, and it is supposed to create a basis for believing what happens next. But the story of Idiots faces problems from the very beginning. Why should a super-rich young man be transferred to a drug addiction treatment center with such simplicity and with a scrap car? Why doesn't her rich, absentee father hire a professional team to do the job? Of course, in cinema, any unusual situation can be turned into the starting point of a story, but the problem here is that the film must be able to make that situation believable for the audience. In Idiots, such an effort is not visible.

On the other hand, the misfortune and failure of the two main characters is not believable for the audience. This is the second part in which the film should be successful; It means creating a context for the audience to accompany the characters. The black and Christian character of the story is dismissed from work in a very simple way, and the reason for this is his recklessness. And in the situation that we find out in the rest of the movie, how cautious and adhering to his principles is this character. Here we are faced with a contradiction that the film neither creates nor provides a convincing explanation for.

Another character, played by Dave Franco, loses his job just as easily. More importantly, we don't even feel the pressure of unemployment and lack of money on this character in a tangible way to accept why he accepted such a job. As a result, the film fails to establish its two main elements at the outset: the setting that is supposed to drive the story and the characters that the audience is supposed to relate to. When these two foundations are weak from the beginning, subsequent events can hardly have the necessary impact.

After a few short scenes that don't have much of a comedic feel, the character of the teenager and apparently an anarchist enters the story. The film puts a lot of emphasis on his dangerousness and rebelliousness, but does it really succeed in creating such an image? Yes, we see violent and rebellious behavior from him, but just showing violence does not mean creating a believable character. The problem is that we don't know why he became the person he is. The film wants us to accept that it is dangerous, but it does not provide the necessary psychological and character background for this acceptance.

Are we going to face a charismatic and anarchist anti-hero, something like the Joker? Naturally, my goal is not to directly compare this teenager with the Joker; These two characters have many differences in terms of their position and function in the story. But the example of the Joker can clarify an important point: for a violent and unpredictable character to form in the mind of the audience, it is not enough to show extreme behavior. We must be able to understand the logic of his behavior in the story world; Even if we do not sympathize with him or accept his actions.

In Idiots, however, this gap between the film's claim and what we actually see on the screen is disturbing. The film talks about dangerous, out-of-control adolescence, but does little to turn that claim into a cinematic character. If we knew more about his past, motivations and mental world, maybe we could understand his behavior in the context of the story and follow the events. But when the character is merely a collection of strange and violent behavior, we are no longer dealing with a made-up character; We are facing a tool that the screenplay uses to create chaos and advance events.

Finally, Idiots for me is an example of comedies that confuse busyness with entertainment and chaos with storytelling. From the beginning to the end, the film constantly presents various events to the audience, but these events do not create suspense, do not arouse special curiosity, and do not make us interested in the fate of the characters. Basically, while watching the movie, we rarely feel like we are really with the story; We do not understand the logic of the events properly, nor are the characters paid enough to worry about their fate. It is as if the film simply jumps from one situation to another until time passes and a new chaos begins, without knowing where this chaos is going to end up in the end.

In such a situation, neither the director gets much opportunity to show off nor the acting can compensate for the fundamental weaknesses of the work. The main problem is the script, which does not succeed in creating comedy situations, does not create believable characters, and does not even encourage the audience to follow its story. When the foundations of the story are so weak, busyness and exaggerated behavior can't fill the void of comedy and storytelling.

To make the audience laugh, comedy first of all needs to understand the situation, know the character and have the right timing; Elements that can hardly be found in Idiots. The result is a film that makes a lot of noise, but has nothing to offer behind this noise; Not a lasting laugh, not an engaging suspense and not a story worth accompanying. Idiots is busy, but not fun; A lot happens in it, but none of it turns into a satisfying cinematic experience.