Punchline (1988)

Thanks for the memories!

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

First of all, it was main reason of my failure at one exam during my college days. Yes, at the night of the exam I wasn't that ready to tell you the truth, however instead of reviewing the course, I sat to view this movie, then I burned all the midnight oil reviewing it. And the result was pernicious.Well, it's one way to say that I loved it! I didn't regret at all. I just kept asking what was this movie about? And why it's magical? After 11 years, I ran into it again. Ohh, I felt like meeting an old friend who I've been missing for a long time. I was so happy out of re-seeing it, contemplating every second, being dazzled. Damn, I do love it.But despite its nice drama it got me confused. What was it about ? Hmm, maybe it's about how we meet in our dreams, yet not our goals. That makes a perfect "impossible love story". Yet (Punchline) wanted another thing which is being a movie about the stand-up comedians and their world. And when it came to this second purpose it didn't achieve. I believe someone like (Scorsese) would have made it with the 2 missions yet in longer movie.Its magic comes mainly from its characters and its simple way of showing them. (Steven Gold), played by Tom Hanks, is so dramatically attractive. He's talented, lonely and complicated since his childhood. He's afraid of love, but when he thinks that he found it he loses it. It can fit the meaning of the one who makes the smile in the people's life the most is the one who doesn't meet it in his own. And again we can dream together, but at the end we might not get together. The melancholy of the movie remains in the way (Gold)'s storyline ends, since he finds success at last, but not love; meaning that success can be enough love.Another character. (Lilah Krytsick) the mom, played by (Sally Field). This woman just wants to know does she funny or not? She got everything but the assurance that she can make laughs. So she lived her victory the moment her husband knew that she can. Hence her winning at last meant nothing, and her giving up the award was natural since she doesn't need it, as she already won what she originally dreamed of. So while (Gold) wanted the recognition of the world, (Krytsick) wanted the recognition of just her husband. As you see, success was his love, and love was her success.One last character, the club's owner. This guy, played smartly by (Mark Rydell), got no dream but investing the other's dreams as long as they bring him money. He meets with the successful one, since they're successful, then throws them down afterwards if they lost their glamour. He's so practical. Success, according to him, is money. Not real love he gives or takes. So, sarcastically, his name was Romeo ! I loved many feelings it gives. For instance the desire to be something else the image which has been forced on you (Hanks wants to be a stand-up comedian instead of a doctor), unnoticing that the most expensive love is the free one around us (Goodman makes his wife feel good about her hair), and the over pressing craving to succeed (aren't all we? ALL THE TIME TOO ?!). Let alone the feel of lost love; certainly we all got respect to the noble loser lover.You may say it's about chasing different dreams in the same track; (Lilah) wanted her self-confidence and her family, (Steven) wanted the breakthrough that his talent needed, (Romeo) wanted the money, and (Emperato), the comedian played by (Taylor Negron), wanted the recognition of (Steven), or something higher than it. Or it's about the comedy clubs' life. Or it's about the pains of the funny guys (Did you see Hanks dancing, slaughtered, in the rain ?!). Many issues huh ?! Frankly this non-concentrated condition was a shortcoming! The crowded presence of many interesting characters (the different comedians, especially the old one) so unused in the background causes a feeling of a deficiency of something good or an excessiveness of something wasn't done. Furthermore, I bet the persona of (Hanks) at the time as a comic star plus the publicity of the movie as a comedy destroyed it utterly. It can be perfectly misunderstood whether as comedy without a punchline, or disappointing romance. While it isn't both.Actually it's about none other than the recognition; it has many faces as the same number as the ones who dream of it, and every face clarifies its dreamer's real purpose, hence self. And as every joke has its different, very own, punchline, every one has a goal that uncovers their marrow in the end. Anyway, despite any problems (Punchlibe) has, it still holds up as fine time. It got deep and hot characters. It got such a smooth and warm feel. And it got me thinking and entertained. It achieves entertaining time like any comedy yet more touching. And ends happily like any usual romance yet in its own way.The 1980s was magical itself. And it's a rare time to feel that one movie is your friend. Well, dear friend is the word.

A reviewer once complained that "Punchline" commits an unforgivable sin by being an unfunny movie about stand up comics. For anyone who agrees, try looking "irony" up in the dictionary - it's an element that's occasionally used outside of the literary world. The film's deliberately awkward and painful scenes illustrate the point, "Lady, nothing is a joke to me. That's why I'm in comedy. And that's why you're not." The same reviewer made the hilarious claim that comics never tell jokes out of compulsion or denial, but simply because "they love making other people laugh." newsflash: creative and hysterical people are often highly dysfunctional! :D thank you goodnight!

My father is a stand-up comic, and all I can say is that this film above most others shows comedians for what they truly are. Comedy is truly based out of pain, and the two main characters truly have a great deal of pain in their lives. All the actors give their performances more than two dimensions, and are truthful in what they are dong at all times. If your looking for a laugh out loud comedy, than you'll be greatly disappointed, this film is really about he drama of the life of people who are trying to make it in the entertainment business. As a closing statement, i have heard many comics who were around at the time of this picture say that Tom Hanks was one of the greatest comics that they had seen, and if he had not caught the acting bug first, that he would have been a great comic.

Spoilers herein.Filmmakers like to tinker with genres. That's the most direct and easy path to cleverness. One template is to make two genres into characters, then to embody them in people. When the people interact, you have a battle of film genres. When the people are alone, you have the genre in its normal form. Lynch took this to extremes with "Blue Velvet" of the year or two before. Although the craft is far less here, the ambition is equally advanced.On the one hand, we have a simple date movie: charming Sally (with her charming girls) has a marriage dilemma. There's some charming humor with making dinner. There's some minor threat to all this sweetness (the threat represented by the big, bad Church), even (gasp!!!) a bad hairdo. But loving husband comes through in the end. Sally is perfect for this, our prototype of absolute earnestness, moving through Lucille redheadedness.On the other hand we have a genre that has exploded in the past decade: the reflexive film where the performances are about performances, the skits are about skits, the character is schizoid because the position of the actor is also, simultaneously playing the performed and the performer. Here it is a standup comedian whose life and performance are confused. Sally is an archetype but she is also a performer so she finds herself sharing the stage, even contesting the stage with Hanks. Naturally she doesn't need to win, and her genre resolves as planned.Hanks does need to win. He lives in two layers: the madness of the performer and the madness of the performance: a commonly sought situation for intelligent actors. I call this folding. The whole film is constructed around one scene, the scene in the diner where Sally distances her genre from Hanks; genre and (because he is layered) his character. Watch him try the inside-outside acting shifts that Jack Nicholson invented. Watch him quote one of the most influential films in the folded films movement (for Hollywood), "Singing in the Rain." Watch him even try a few Brando mannerisms.Its a pretty brilliant idea. And it is pretty inspired and risky acting. Hanks has since become a joke, When he says he made only three good movies, I am certain he has this one in mind. Actually, his thread is bungled by the writer/director. There?s a bad decision in introducing his character with an anatomy test. And his material doesn't match his character: when comedy is a defense against life it is different than lots of what he does, excepting the "hate stylist" notion.But he really does try here, and it is an intelligent notion.Ted?s Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.