From Page to Screen: 'Yes Man'
Filed under: Comedy, New Releases, From Page to Screen

Jim Carrey's Yes Man struck me as an awful waste of a terrific premise.
Far from the retread of the Liar Liar gimmick that some people claim, Yes Man's central conceit really resonates, and gets at a simple but profound truth: saying "no" to opportunities is safer and easier, but saying "yes" is more rewarding and fun. Literally having the main character start saying "yes" to everything is not my preferred way of tackling this issue, but it could easily work as a goofy, absurdist approach. Jim Carrey's track record may be bruised, but the actor is still a national treasure. And Peyton Reed's filmography contains some films that managed to be thoughtful despite their staunchly populist aims.
What an unpleasant surprise, then, to see a film so terminally mired in the worst Hollywood comedy conventions. It's hard to be meaningful or even sincere when everything is hideously distorted to fit the confines of hoary old formulas, complete with scenes that don't fit, but which a movie like this simply must contain. Yes Man winds up shrill, manic and unpleasant (albeit sporadically funny) when it should have been breezy, earnest and simple.
Examples. The idea is that Carrey's Carl Allen is the type of guy who declines opportunities all the time, to his own detriment. There is any number of ways to depict this so that it makes sense. Instead, the movie opts to have him literally say no, to everything, all the time – sometimes before a question is even asked -- which is good for a montage, but not a character. Then there's the film's inexplicable decision to add a supernatural karmic dimension to his eventual "yes" experiment – whenever he says no, he is literally hurting himself, in that he immediately falls down the stairs and/or is bitten by a dog. "Yes" leads Carl to a romance with the lovely Zooey Deschanel, but I wonder if we're in for the inevitable scene where she discovers that he's with her not because he wants to be but because he made a covenant to say "yes" (see also: because it was his job, because he made a bet...).
The interesting thing is that Yes Man was "inspired by" a book that purports to be a memoir of sorts, found in the "biography" section of your local bookstore. Here, I thought, I might get the story I wanted from the film. And to some extent I did. If you were attracted to Yes Man's premise but didn't like the film – or refused to see it – I can issue the book by Danny Wallace a cautious recommendation.
I say cautious because, despite its pretensions to "true story" status, the book is not a great deal more realistic than the movie, and in some ways gets just as carried away. (Wallace pretty much gives away the game in the preface, where he notes that he moved things around a bit, but "for your own good. I don't want you falling asleep on me.") For one thing, it's so snarky as to be disingenuous – one of its hooks is that, as part of his experiment, Wallace says "yes" even to Nigerian email scams, and so he carries on and on for pages quasi-sarcastically pretending that he thinks some sultan who knew his father really does want to give him $40 million. (Positive thinking, you see.)
On the other hand, Wallace never pretends that "yes" has supernatural qualities. He paints himself at the beginning of the story as a sullen, routine-bound shut in, not a "no"-shouting caricature. His romance with "Lizzie" (the counterpart to Deschanel's Allison) ends sweetly, without a phony dramatic confrontation about his "yes" obligations. And he is sincere and realistic about the power of "yes" and the benefits and limits of his experiment.
The book is very funny, though in a droll British way that might have made it an ideal project for Ricky Gervais instead of Jim Carrey. (That could have been fantastic.) It's pretty easy to see why its high concept was refashioned into an ultra-mainstream, wacky Jim Carrey extravaganza, but the result was disappointing for anyone who hoped that the movie would take "yes" even a little bit seriously. Danny Wallace's book is maybe 80 pages too long, but it's much more thoughtful, and a lot more fun.









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-05-2009 @ 11:58PM
Rob said...
I was quite disappointed when I heard that Jim Carrey was the lead in
this film. I read the book while backpacking around Europe, and
despite the fact that parts of the memoir are probably fudged, it
really resonated with not only myself but also my travel companions
as we each took turns reading it as we traveled. The book itself is
really amazing, and it is a must read for any 20 somethings, but
since this is cinematical, I'll return to the film. Carrey was
clearly the wrong choice for this, as were the cliches which ruined
the actual message of the work. When I first heard about the film, I
was hoping Simon Pegg would be the lead, I thought he'd be perfect for the role.
Reply
1-06-2009 @ 10:13AM
Kevin said...
Eh. The movie was funny for about 45 minutes or an hour, like many comedies, and then got lost in the "message" of the movie. Anyone that walked into the theater expecting a realistic depiction of the title characters situation was bound to be disappointed no matter how good/bad the film was. The fact that he said no to everything didn't bother me, nor did I find it unrealistic at all. Maybe to open and honest about the fact, but c'mon, we all know people who are like this. We all have friends who we KNOW before we even ask them that they're not going to want to come to the latest party, or meet you at the movies. Just because they will wait until we tell them when and where the party is before rejecting the invite doesn't make their attitude any different then Carrey's; the movie just doesn't offer up the pretense of the possibility of acceptance. I may be wrong here, but it seems like you heard about the premise and then went into the movie hoping it would be just like you wanted it to be. When it wasn't you were upset and already prepared to dislike the movie. I kind of had the same expectation when I saw it; I thought it would be one way and only saw it cause my brother wanted to, but when I turned my brain and expectations off I realized that it was a pretty enjoyable film that I completely stopped thinking about after I saw it.
Reply
1-28-2009 @ 5:24PM
Jonathan Kuhn said...
You summed up my feelings about the movie perfectly. It could have been something interest, but instead it used ridiculous plot devices to achieve things.
Reply