Boy Meets Boy

A funny thing about the new Apatow comedy "I Love You, Man" is that it is not, in fact, directed or produced by Judd Apatow. Judging by the tone of the trailers and the cast members, it really seems like Apatow- the biggest name in comedy in this first decade of the 2000's, must have had something to do with it. It's about the same thing as his other movies- the ridiculousness of modern love, sex, and brotherhood. There's a fair amount of sexually explicit dialogue and at least one Jewish joke, and it's even got a nice close-up shot of up a bong (Although, sadly, nobody declares their intention to fuck it.) Didn't he at least come by the set?

But make no mistake, despite any pretenses to the contrary, "I Love You, Man" is most-assuredly not an Apatow film. For one thing, the directorial quality is not nearly as confident or pointed as any of the great A's features. As a matter of fact, it's downright timid- what with liberal use of soundstages and soft, netural lighting. This isn't exactly a surprise, coming from third-time film director John Hamburg(no er!), especially since he's the one who brought us the already forgotten Ben Stiller/Jennifer Aniston rom-com "Along Came Polly." (Checking out his IMDB credits, it looks like his debut "Safe Men" might be fairly worthwhile- but God knows when I'll get to that.)

The second, more significant reason that "I Love You, Man" differentiates markedly from the Apatow catalog to-date is that it is a queer comedy. You read right, queer- as in non-heterosexual. It is not a super ironic buddy comedy, not a (and I promise, this is the first and last time I will resort to this grossly-overextended moniker, the late decade's poor replacement for "metrosexual":) "Bromance," not even an ambiguously gay movie, although the two lead actors often seem to be channeling the spirit of a certain acrobatic, animated duo. While Apatow has thus-far remained true to his frat-boy audience and employed only the most timeworn, clumsy, insincere depictions of male homoeroticism in his films for the cheapest of laughs, Hamburg and the "I Love You, Man" company actually go all the way and do a gay romantic comedy. Therefore, the viewer shouldn't think of this project as a sub-par Apatow knock off, but rather, a logical and necessary extrapolation, fuck, maybe even culmination, of his closeted comedy career.

Where am I getting this? The film itself makes no secret of its pretense: Paul Rudd plays Peter Klaven, a self-proclaimed "girlfriend-guy" who has managed to go some 30+ years of life without ever developing any close male friends. Once he realizes that this is not nearly as socially acceptable to his stunning new fiance Zooey (Rashida Jones, best known from "The Office") or her friends as it his to him and his family, he decides to embark on a series of, and I quote, "man-dates" to find himself a... what was it again exactly? Best man at his hetero-wedding?

Even if this was the innocently stated impetus, we quickly discover how truly lonely and desperate Kraven is for male companionship, going so far as to turn to his openly gay younger brother (Andy Samberg) for help. (Notably, research shows that the probability that the brother of a gay man is also gay is about four times higher than normal.) The crux of this whole adventure in boyland rests on the fact that Rudd's Kraven is fundamentally a shy, weird, awkward, and well...queer adult man. We see it in his inability to stand up for himself- to his fiance and her friends when they bash him behind his back, to his mom when she sets him up on a dinner date with a snobby, openly gay architect caricature (Thomas Lennon, the queer and hilarious Lt. Dangle on "Reno 911"), to the loud, muscular Alpha-male strongmen in his life (Lou Ferrigno and Jon Favreau). We see it in his hobbies- he is an avid fencer in an all-men's club (and a good one at that, consistently "out-poking" his more flaccid opponents with his swordpoint), a wannabe cook and an avid fan of the films The Devil Wears Prada and Chocolat. Clearly, if we didn't know about the fantastically-formed woman set to marry him, we would conclude that Peter was pure purple through and through. Even as it is, we cannot help but think that he's at least bi-curious, given his sudden eagerness to go on man-dates the minute he realizes he's getting hitched, for life, to the very embodiment of sexy femininity.

And sure, it's easy enough to point to the elementary Freudian symbols- the sword, the corn dog, the guitars (especially the "air" ones). Anyone can twist those around and make them as sexually significant as their particular arguments entail. But combined with the such well-defined or well-summarized personalities, combined with the transparently classical romantic story structure, combined with the very relationships that form the basis of the film, well, then these symbols take on a much greater and focused significance.

Just look at how drastically Peter's behavior, initially so meek, inhibited and insulated, changes when he begins his "relationship" with Jason Segel's Sydney. Here is Peter at the first encounter- immediately taken with Sydney's brashness but hesitant to approach- observing the stylish but eccentrically-dressed extrovert from across the room at his open house. Here he is a few days later; anxious, bashful, eagerly awaiting Sydney's call like a high school girl waits on that from her crush. Here he is again and again on the phone with Syndey- nervous; stuttering, stammering, speaking nonsense. And then so delighted after their first night out- drunk, bouncing back and forth on his heels, giant, goofy grin on his face. You get the point. The movie HAMMERS us with it over the head it, making sure we are not dumb enough to make the comparison to every straight love story we've ever seen. But again- we are trained at this point in our filmgoing career to laugh it off- to roll our eyes and shake our heads. It's just a self-aware buddy flick, that's all....Just one where the courtship of one buddy by the other forms the whole first and second acts. Just one where a guy LEAVES his babe of a girlfriend to "have fun" with the guys...with one guy...in his bachelor pad on Venice Beach...with no windows...

"Not good enough," you say, "Again, all of these could be deliberate parodies of the development of a straight male friendship, allusions to common cliches of courtship to make us laugh at the conventions of both dating and hanging out." Maybe, I say, no doubt even those involved in the production would use this is a defense. But, I retort, why so many???

On a separate, but obviously related note, I would like to put forward the theory of the gradient scale of masculinity at work in "I Love You, Man." The scale goes like this: On one end is the prima-donna architect- the most stereotypically homosexual, i.e. feminine, of the lot. Then comes Peter, the repressed but burgeoning queer, who over the course of the film comes to embrace his "rock'n'roll" masculinity, thereby moving across the scale a few notches. Next is Peter's brother, Samberg's unsuspecting gay body-builder, who has to teach his supposedly straight brother how to make platonic friends. In the middle is Sydney, the swinging bachelor, the "bad-boy" that no woman (or fem) can resist liking, in spite of his reckless and irresponsible ways. It's Syndey, talking crudely and frankly, who gets Peter to open up about his repressed sexuality (we find out that Zooey, for all her physical charms, is not much of a giver when it comes to oral sex, which leaves Peter unfulfilled but still too afraid to communicate, until Syndey drops a not-so obvious innuendo to the entire family at dinner) and yet it is Sydney who owns a small dog, lives alone in a house without windows and alone appreciates the fine hours d'ourves that Peter lays out for his open houses. It's Sydney that jumps to stand up to Lou Ferrigno (the alpha-male at the far end of the scale); Sydney risking his hide for his "friend" Peter. And what of Ferrigno, the some time body builder and "Hulk" actor, never depicted in this film with a love-interest? And the beefy, beer-drinking misogynistic John Favreau character, who talks a little too loudly about his sexual fitness with his wife?

Sure, even in a straight reading, it makes sense to include all these guys to show why Peter and Sydney gravitate toward one another. The rest of the male roles are portrayed largely as extremities on the scale, people that are either too feminine or too masculine or just plain too fucking strange to really relate too, let alone form an enduring relationship with. But it makes a lot more sense, and is a helluva lot more interesting, when Peter and Sydney are gay, or at least selectively bisexual. Only then are the characters fully realized as symbols of modern romance, with all of its nuance, confusion and freedom.

"You're reading far too much into this," you say, with panicked skepticism. "It's just a cheap, R-rated, Apatow-esque comedy that happens to rely mostly on gay jokes." Potentially, I say once more, and yet even in that case, the biggest joke is on us for being so fucking unreasonably, immaturely uncomfortable about the thought of man on man love.

In Sum: A sincerely funny but more importantly, provocative film about relationships- gay, straight, and in-between, as the case may be. Worth seeing in theaters.