Reason Magazine

Site Search

Brooks' search for Islamic laffs goes on...

When I recently expressed hope that the upcoming Albert Brooks joint Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World might be funny, an unimpeachable source whom I can now identify as Reason's own Brian Doherty warned that the movie was so bad it probably wouldn't be released. That opinion has since been seconded by Ben Schwartz, who notes: "Forget what makes Muslims laugh; why isn't he making me laugh?" Doherty's prediction appears to be coming true, as Sony Pictures fobs the movie off on a rival. Patrick Goldstein of the L.A. Times laments the release troubles:

The movie makes fun of comedians' neurotic neediness and State Department ineffectuality, but seems to steer clear of anything that would insult Muslims. Still, in a June 30 letter to Brooks, Sony chairman Michael Lynton said that he wouldn't release the film unless Brooks changed the title. Lynton wrote: "I do believe that recent incidents have dramatically changed the landscape that we live in and that this, among other things, warrants changing the title of the film." Sony insiders say Lynton was alarmed by the violent reaction in the Muslim world to Newsweek's May 9 story, since retracted, about a Koran being flushed down the toilet by interrogators at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay...

Lynton won't discuss the issue publicly...

Brooks, in his first interview about the film, confirmed that Lynton expressed concern about Muslim outrage over the alleged Koran incident. "When we spoke, he told me, 'The Newsweek thing has changed the world.' And I said, 'Wasn't it 9/11 that changed the world?' But Michael said he just didn't want to take a chance."

While Goldstein calls the picture "inspired," neither he nor anybody else in this piece addresses the question of whether it's funny. My sources say the premise is indeed strong, but that the execution, in which, among other things, Brooks plays cupid to a winsome Indian translater and her boyfriend, is a failure every step of the way; special objections are raised to Brooks' setting the picture in India rather than Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. I speculate that the title brouhaha is a convenient one-cheek-sneak that allows Sony to rid itself of a stinker.

Warner Independent Pictures has picked up the title, promising a release "early next year." Says Doherty, "I believe that too will change."

Another interesting tidbit: Looking was financed by Steve Bing; is he aiming to shave the child support he has to pay to Liz Hurley? They're right about the title, though: It's starting to look like that's the only laugh in the picture. Maybe it's better to leave the film as a great might-have-been in the Brooks canon, which looks less impressive with every new movie he comes out with. (I say that with regret, as I think anybody would be proud to hang his hat on the trilogy of Real Life, Modern Romance, and Lost In America.)

Send this article to:

« A Good Word for Book… | Main | Smurftastic Imagination »

Comments to "Brooks' search for Islamic laffs goes on...":

Russ D | September 27, 2005, 4:53pm | #

OK Tim, so why was Brian's name withheld in the first post weeks ago?

Russ D | September 27, 2005, 5:02pm | #

Anyway, sounds like Albert Brooks trying to do a movie about looking for comedy in the muslim world would be a much more interesting movie than the one he actually did.

NoStar | September 27, 2005, 5:31pm | #

A mullah walks into a bar and says, "Praise be to Allah, that will leave a mark."

fishfry | September 27, 2005, 5:31pm | #

Christ. Since when did Reason become Not Work Safe?? What is that thing with the tits?

jf | September 27, 2005, 5:32pm | #

I love the phrase "one-cheek-sneak", although the way I've heard it (as used by noted language expert Fox Mulder) I believe is "one-cheek-squeak".

fishfry | September 27, 2005, 5:33pm | #

Christ. Since when did Reason become Not Work Safe? What is that thing with the tits??

Tim Cavanaugh | September 27, 2005, 5:44pm | #

Don't take the Lord's name in vain, fishfry.

Sandy | September 27, 2005, 6:23pm | #

Tits? Where?! Where?!

Sandy | September 27, 2005, 6:24pm | #

Oh, dammit, fishfry was probably referring to Drew Carey.

Tom Crick | September 27, 2005, 6:43pm | #

"OK Tim, so why was Brian's name withheld in the first post weeks ago?"

When's the last time we saw a post from Doherty? ...I'd assumed he was on some kind of Reasonoid secret mission!

Eric the .5b | September 27, 2005, 6:50pm | #

I thought "The Ultimate Fitness Program" had rendered Hit and Run NSFW for some time...

chthus | September 27, 2005, 7:24pm | #

Albert Brooks greatest accomplishment is making Woody Allen actually seem funny by comparison.

Stevo Darkly | September 27, 2005, 8:23pm | #

Christ. Since when did Reason become Not Work Safe??

I was going to say, "Since the day my boss came up behind me and busted out laughing at the pic of Bald Sweaty Guy humping the carpet," but Eric the .5b essentially already beat me to it.

Tim Cavanaugh | September 27, 2005, 9:06pm | #

Answers to all (or some of) your Doherty questions:

He didn't want to be identified at first because he's a man as impartial as King Solomon. Now that Sony has dumped the picture, he's free to speak up like Deep Throat.

He hasn't been around at Reason for a few months because he's working on a book. I forget whether I'm at liberty to discuss the book, so I'll just say that it'll be even bigger and more fantabulous than This Is Burning Man, and that every libertarian worthy of the name will be proud to say, "I own several copies. "

Jack | September 27, 2005, 9:20pm | #

Tim Cavanaugh wrote "every libertarian worthy of the name will be proud to say, 'I own several copies.'"

Yes, except they'll all be pirated copies downloaded off of Bit Torrent.

panurge | September 28, 2005, 1:36am | #

Actually, "early next year" is probably when the film will debut, since that is the time of year when Hollywood pulls all its garbage out of the dumpster and smears it over our screens. 98% of the films released between January and April are garbage, and the remaining 2% are decent films that are stuck in obscurity because they got bad release dates.

Andrew Ian Dodge | September 28, 2005, 9:29am | #

Not surprising the studio got cold feet on this one. Its too bad its completely rubbish. Not surprised however because the question asked in the title has a simple answer: No.

ed | September 28, 2005, 10:06am | #

I don't know, Andy. Some of them thought 9/11 was a laugh riot.