First of all, it was a 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 curriculum, I sat to watch this movie, then I burned all the midnight oil reviewing it, asking what was it about? And the result was pernicious.
Well, it's one way to say that I loved it!
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-watching it, contemplating every second, being dazzled. But despite feeling how magical, it got me confused, to ask anew: What was it about?
Maybe it's about how we meet in our dreams, yet not in our goals. That makes a perfect "impossible love story". However, (Punchline) wanted another thing, which was being a movie about the stand-up comedians and their world. And when it came to that, it didn't achieve. I believe someone like (Scorsese) would have made it with the 2 issues but in a longer movie.
Its magic comes basically 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 be a portrayal of the Sad Clown who makes the smile in the people's life the most, however doesn't have it in his own. And, again, we could dream together, but we might not get together. The movie's melancholy remains in the way (Gold)'s storyline concludes, since he finds success, but not love; meaning that success can be enough love.
Another character. (Lilah Krytsick), played by (Sally Field). This woman just wants to know is she funny or not? She has everything but the assurance that she can make laughs. So she lives her victory the moment her husband knows that she can. Hence her winning at last meant nothing, and her giving up the award was natural since she didn'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), has no dream but investing other people's dreams as long as they bring him money. He meets with the successful ones, since they're successful, then throws them down afterwards if they lost their glamour. He's so practical. Success for him is money, not real love that he gives or takes. So, sarcastically, his name was (Romeo)!
I loved some feelings and meanings that it gives along the way. 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), the over pressing craving to succeed (Aren't all we? ALL THE TIME?!), and losing love yet nobly (We all have pain because of it, and have respect for it).
But there was a reason for my confusion. Because 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 agony of the funny guys (did you see Hanks dancing, slaughtered, in the rain?!). Many issues huh?! Frankly, this non-concentrated condition was the movie's big shortcoming!
Furthermore, the jam of many interesting characters (the various comedians, especially the old one), so unused in the background, causes the feel of a deficiency of something good, or an excessiveness of something undone. And to make matters worse, I believe the persona of (Hanks) as a comic star at the moment, plus the publicity of the movie as a comedy, destroyed the latter utterly. It can be wholly misunderstood whether as a comedy without a punchline, or a disappointing romance. While it isn't both.
Actually, it's a drama about the recognition; it has many faces that differ according to the one who dreams of it, and every face clarifies its dreamer's goal, hence self. And as every joke has its very own punchline, every one has a goal that uncovers their marrow in the end.
Anyway, despite any problems that (Punchlibe) has, it still holds up as a good watchable movie. It got deep and hot characters. It got such a smooth and warm feel. And it got me thinking and amused. 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.
Well, it's one way to say that I loved it!
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-watching it, contemplating every second, being dazzled. But despite feeling how magical, it got me confused, to ask anew: What was it about?
Maybe it's about how we meet in our dreams, yet not in our goals. That makes a perfect "impossible love story". However, (Punchline) wanted another thing, which was being a movie about the stand-up comedians and their world. And when it came to that, it didn't achieve. I believe someone like (Scorsese) would have made it with the 2 issues but in a longer movie.
Its magic comes basically 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 be a portrayal of the Sad Clown who makes the smile in the people's life the most, however doesn't have it in his own. And, again, we could dream together, but we might not get together. The movie's melancholy remains in the way (Gold)'s storyline concludes, since he finds success, but not love; meaning that success can be enough love.
Another character. (Lilah Krytsick), played by (Sally Field). This woman just wants to know is she funny or not? She has everything but the assurance that she can make laughs. So she lives her victory the moment her husband knows that she can. Hence her winning at last meant nothing, and her giving up the award was natural since she didn'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), has no dream but investing other people's dreams as long as they bring him money. He meets with the successful ones, since they're successful, then throws them down afterwards if they lost their glamour. He's so practical. Success for him is money, not real love that he gives or takes. So, sarcastically, his name was (Romeo)!
I loved some feelings and meanings that it gives along the way. 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), the over pressing craving to succeed (Aren't all we? ALL THE TIME?!), and losing love yet nobly (We all have pain because of it, and have respect for it).
But there was a reason for my confusion. Because 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 agony of the funny guys (did you see Hanks dancing, slaughtered, in the rain?!). Many issues huh?! Frankly, this non-concentrated condition was the movie's big shortcoming!
Furthermore, the jam of many interesting characters (the various comedians, especially the old one), so unused in the background, causes the feel of a deficiency of something good, or an excessiveness of something undone. And to make matters worse, I believe the persona of (Hanks) as a comic star at the moment, plus the publicity of the movie as a comedy, destroyed the latter utterly. It can be wholly misunderstood whether as a comedy without a punchline, or a disappointing romance. While it isn't both.
Actually, it's a drama about the recognition; it has many faces that differ according to the one who dreams of it, and every face clarifies its dreamer's goal, hence self. And as every joke has its very own punchline, every one has a goal that uncovers their marrow in the end.
Anyway, despite any problems that (Punchlibe) has, it still holds up as a good watchable movie. It got deep and hot characters. It got such a smooth and warm feel. And it got me thinking and amused. 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.