MCN Columnists
Mike Wilmington

By Mike Wilmington Wilmington@moviecitynews.com

Wilmington on Movies: Casa de mi Padre

U.S.-Mexico; Matt Piedmont, 2012

In Casa de mi Padre, Will Ferrell and some friends from Mexico, including those two talented fugitives from Y ti mama tambien, Diego Luna and Gael Garcia Bernal — make fun of bad Mexican movies. Their target is a big one: bad Mexican cinema in general, especially lurid telenovela serials about obsessive romance and family intrigue and dark dirty secrets: dumb shows that soak up time and rot the brains of couch potatoes south and north of the border. It’s a comedy that tries to look stupid and succeeds,

Give Ferrell credit. He approaches the project with real De Niro-like determination, playing his entire part in Spanish — a language that he had to learn phonetically for the role. But though he does a typically good Ferrell job of playing a vacuous dolt (like his Saturday Night Live George W. Bush, a classic), in this case the movie often proves too dumb for its own good.

Ferrell, his beady eyes clouded in vacuous doltdom, the words chewing in his mouth like big juicy burritos of addled sentiment. plays the majestically foolish, buttock-fondling Armando Alvarez, a doofus, a virgin and a lousy rancher who — as Ferrell imagines him — is also being played by a lousy actor. Armando (who lost his mother as a boy to his own stupidity), now roams the range of El Rancho de mi Padre, in the grandeur of MexicoScope, with his two dopey sidekicks Esteban and Manuel (Efren Ramirez and Adrian Martinez). These range scamps hide behind rocks watching drug executions by the evil fashion plate drug fealer Onza (Bernal), and engage in dopey sidekick high jinks.

Armando’s father, Don Ernesto Miguel (played by the late Pedro Armendariz, Jr., son of the old John Ford stock company stalwart who costarred in The Fugitive and Three Godfathers), thinks he’s a buffoon. His brother Raul (Luna) — who has returned to the rancho to pay off their debts by dealing dope like Onza — thinks he’s a lovable fool. His brother’s knockout fiancee, Sonia (Genesis Rodriguez), thinks he’s sort of cute. Indeed, she seems unaccountably attracted to Armando, possibly because he’s the star of the movie.

The rest of the cast actually keep catching up to the El Dopo levels of Armando’s deliberately witless histrionics. Even though they’re mostly Hispanic and can speak the language without cheat sheets or teleprompters, almost everybody in Casa de mi Padre acts as if they’ve learned their parts phonetically. They also seem to be trying desperately to keep from breaking up into helpless laughter as they say their lines. (The audience, unfortunately, mostly doesn’t share their dilemma.)

That Casa de mi ensemble includes the movie’s most unusual character (other than Armando): a stuffed snow leopard who drops by occasionally to peer at Armando and his Two Stoogelitos and offer pearls of wisdom. (In this context any half-grammatical sentence of five words or less that contains a complete thought might qualify as a pearl of wisdom. Examples: “Life is a snow leopard‘” “Life is a telenovela‘” “A telenovela is life,” “I’ll have huevos rancheros with salsa,“ and “Armando is a buffoon.” ) At the end of the movie, Dan Haggerty (of Grizzly Adams ) shows up and suggests we all have a joint — something he doesn’t seem to have learned phonetically.

The movie was written by Andrew Steele (of Saturday Night Live), directed by Matt Piedmont (of Saturday Night Live) and of course stars Will Ferrell (of Saturday Night Live) — and it might probably star more SNL alumni if they’d been willing to learn their parts phonetically. It’s almost all in Spanish, except for Haggerty as Grizzly and Nick Offerman as a villanous DEA agent, who seems to have wandered in from the SNL version of No Country for Old Men. It’s all subtitled. And I swear, as I looked around at the audience around me , they were laughing phonetically. But not very often.

I’ve never watched a telenovela, though I’ve skipped past what might have been a few (they were certainly bad enough) while channel-surfing. But I’ve got to say I don’t think this is a very good idea for a movie — even though the actors all seem to having fun, especially Haggerty. Most of us don’t know enough about telenovela conventions or bad Mexican cinema to catch all the jokes, and the movie doesn’t set them up for us too well.

We can tell Casa is supposed to be bad — when Ferrell and Rodrigez go rocking along on unseen but obviously fake horses before an out-of-synch moving background — or when a scene involving the snow leopard and some pearl of wisdom is interrupted by a long foolish confession (supposedly from the 2nd assistant cameraman), that the sequence with the snow leopard had to be scotched for accidental destruction or ineptitude — such surpassing ineptitude that it couldn‘t even be shown in a movie that uses fake horses. (It would have been funnier if the 2nd assistant had gone on camera and confessed, but fallen out of the frame when the drunken third assistant cameraman dropped the camera and passed out, on the snow leopard.)

Anyway, when good actors play bad actors giving bad performances in a bad movie, there’s a thin line — between bad and good and bad-good or good-bad. One can appreciate the subtle self-effacing skill involved in bad-as-good movie-making and acting. But aren’t these people taking away work from genuinely bad actors? In genuinely bad movies like, say, Casa Nine de mi Padre from Outer Space or Armando and Armanda or The Snow Leopard Speaks? Is this fair?

I have an idea. Why not take this same excellent cast and make a comedy about a cut-rate Tijuana movie company, tryong to crack the American Spanish-speaking market, who hire an arrogant, egotistical, dull-witted American actor (played by W. F.) who has to learn his part phonetically and who keeps screwing up his lines and whenever he forgets them, yells “Huevos Rancheros! Cojones! Cojones!“ The cast of the movie, called Casa de Huevos Rancheros, or maybe Casa de mi Cojones, would be a threadbare group including a phony dope dealer who hides his dope in a stuffed snoe leopard, played by Bernal, the preoccupied director played by Fred Willard, and costarring Genesis Rodriguez and her sisters Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers. .

By the way, I wrote this review phonetically. I bet you couldn’t tell.

One Response to “Wilmington on Movies: Casa de mi Padre”

  1. SamLowry says:

    I’d pay to see your movie. Sounds like it might actually be funny!

Leave a Reply



Quote Unquotesee all »

“We now have a situation where audiences very often prefer commercial trash to Bergman’s Persona or Bresson’s L’Argent. Professionals find themselves shrugging, and predicting that serious, significant works will have no success with the general public. What is the explanation? Decline of taste or impoverishment of repertoire? Neither and both. It is simply that cinema now exists, and is evolving, under new conditions. That total, enthralling impression which once overwhelmed the audiences of the 1930s was explained by the universal delight of those who were witnessing and rejoicing over the birth of a new art form, which furthermore had recently acquired sound. By the very fact of its existence this new art, which displayed a new kind of wholeness, a new kind of image, and revealed hitherto unexplored areas of reality, could not but astound its audiences and turn them into passionate enthusiasts.

Less than twenty years now separate us from the twenty-first century. In the course of its existence, through its peaks and troughs, cinema has travelled a long and tortuous path. The relationship that has grown up between artistic films and the commercial cinema is not an easy one, and the gulf between the two becomes wider every day. Nonetheless, films are being made all the time that are undoubtedly landmarks in the history of cinema. Audiences have become more discerning in their attitude to films. Cinema as such long ago ceased to amaze them as a new and original phenomenon; and at the same time it is expected to answer a far wider range of individual needs. Audiences have developed their likes and dislikes. That means that the filmmaker in turn has an audience that is constant, his own circle. Divergence of taste on the part of audiences can be extreme, and this is in no way regrettable or alarming; the fact that people have their own aesthetic criteria indicates a growth of self-awareness.

Directors are going deeper into the areas which concern them. There are faithful audiences and favorite directors, so that there is no question of thinking in terms of unqualified success with the public—that is, if one is talking about cinema not as commercial entertainment but as art. Indeed, mass popularity suggests what is known as mass culture, and not art.”
~ Andrei Tarkovsky, “Sculpting In Time”

“People seem to be watching [fewer] movies, which I think is a mistake on people’s parts, and they seem to be making more of them, which I think is okay. Some of these movies are very good. When you look at the quality of Sundance movies right now, they are a lot better than they were when I was a kid. I do think that there have been improvements artistically, but it’s tough. We’ve got a system that’s built for less movies in terms of how many curatorial standard-bearers we have in the states. It’s time for us to expand our ideas of where we find our great films in America, but that said, it’s a real hustle. I’m so happy that Factory 25 exists. If it didn’t exist, there would be so many movies that wouldn’t ever get distributed because Matt Grady is the only person who has seen the commercial potential in them. He’s preserving a very special moment in independent film history that the commercial system is not going to be preserving. He’s figuring out how to make enough money on it to save these films and get them onto people’s shelves.”
~ Homemakers‘ Colin Healey On Indie Distribution