Despite starring Chris Rock, Julie Delpy's directorial follow up to her 2007 comedy simply isn’t funny.
Hopping from one chic capital city to another, director Julie Delpy follows her 2007 comedy 2 Days in Paris with a frantic, intermittently amusing sequel.
Having split with Jack, her partner from the first film, artist Marion (Delpy) now lives in New York with her son Lulu, hipster DJ boyfriend Mingus (Chris Rock), and his daughter from a previous relationship. Though work commitments obstruct the pair’s sex life, they are happy – if ill-prepared for the visit of Marion’s eccentric French family.
As soon as they arrive, the floodgates open for a cavalcade of excruciating Meet the Parents-style situations. Cultural stereotypes abound, including unrestrained sexuality (Marion’s sister, Rose, played by Alexia Landeau); poor, garlic-influenced personal hygiene (her father, played with sybaritic relish by Delpy’s real-life papa, Albert); and generally louche, antagonistic behaviour in the form of Manu (Alexandre Nahon), Marion’s dissolute ex, who seems to conflate his own addiction to weed with hackneyed notions of ‘blackness’ much to the chagrin of Mingus.
Mingus and Marion make for an intriguing pair, and the drama hinges on this central couple’s ability to maintain their relationship and professional lives in the face of such a blizzard of disruptive activity. Sadly though, a handful of keenly observed scenes (including a discussion between Mingus' parents and Marion’s sister that unexpectedly turns to political rap pioneers The Last Poets) are outweighed by a surfeit of madcap set-pieces, which accelerate quickly to a point of shrill climax.
Amid the strained farce, there’s barely time for the key characters to develop or address the stereotypes and cultural misunderstandings that arise.
2 Days in New York’s biggest problem is that for a comedy, it simply isn’t funny. Many of the setups are telegraphed and wouldn’t pass muster on a mid-ranking TV sitcom. The language-barrier jokes swiftly pall and, worst of all, there’s a groan-inducing subplot about a fake brain tumour, which stretches both credibility and patience.
Mingus, impressively essayed by Rock, is the film’s most interesting character. He seems to be the very embodiment of Time journo Touré’s formulation of the idea of 'post-Blackness'. A Barack Obama fanatic, he’s introverted, obsessed by his music and art, and characteristically functions as a subtle counterpoint to the rather heavy handed artistic self-analysis of Marion, who literally sells her soul to the highest bidder as part of a confessional art project.
Despite its flaws, 2 Days in New York is a good-natured, fiercely contemporary affair in which Delpy has captured a visually vibrant, colourful cityscape. It works best in its refreshingly frank portrayal of a liberal modern family in all its complexity. How often do we see content, mixed-race families in mainstream entertainment? Furthermore, it effectively communicates the universal, heightened anxiety inherent in that dreaded visit from the in-laws. For that, it deserves credit.
A sequel to look forward to.
Strained, and not as funny as it should be.
Reflection reveals a warm heart, sweet nature, and contemporary sensibility.
View 10 comments
gen
• 1 year agoashclark1
• 1 year agoL_Wit_Tumor
• 9 months agoLets just make fun of the deaf and the blind while we're at it too you bastard film makers.
TAKE SOME FUCKEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ROLE IN SHAPING CULTURE THROUGH FILMS.
There is nothing funny about pretending to have a brain tumor. Do you have one? Do you know what its like to have one? NO YOU DONT ASS HOLES!!!
Shaun R
• 9 months agoBut to say that you can't laugh at things like this, is something I don't agree with. IMO, humour and laughter as dark as it can sometimes be, is an extremely powerful tool or weapon to utilise when trying to deal with life-shattering news such as this. A relative of mine was diagnosed with cancer and it was the making light of the situation through humour that helped us all through it.
For me, the key issue would be as to whether the subject matter was dealt with tastefully. 50/50, American Splendour, Funny People and to a certain extent, Breaking Bad are examples of such. If the subject matter in the film was not dealt with tastefully then I would agree with you 100%. But from what I've heard from various reviews, it doesn't look like this is the case with many reviews generally stating that "it's heart is firmly in the right place".
I suppose what I'm trying to say is - laughing at things, such as cancer and tumours, makes it less frightening and oppressive should we ever be unfortunate to suffer from them in anyway. For me, that's a very important thing to have in any culture.
xxx
• 9 months agoL_Wit_Tumor
• 9 months agoNeighbor catches french sister and her friend in apartment elevator smoking pot, and turns out the neighbor too speaks french. Next morning the Marion (Delpy) encounters the same woman and to get passed the woman's anger about the family getting high in the building elevator, she tells the woman she has an inoperable brain tumor. As a result the woman's husband comes up to with sympathy provide some help. This is not even remotely dark humor.
There is no pathological liar in this plot, it is misplaced and not funny. Films promote how people in society think and what becomes acceptable to joke about about. This is not a movie about cancer where they show the good, bad and ugly through appreciative humor. It is a rotton devaluing view that encourages people to joke about imitating retarded kids and other forms disrespect. It is no more humorous than saying it is funny to call black people the N#@@&$ word. THAT WOULD BE FUNNY TOO IN THIS PARTICULAR MOVIE, considering the contents, but the kind of disrespect that is made for people like myself who actually have an inoperable tumor is no different than saying nigger. If that offends anyone clearly you lack an appreciation for dark humor. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. Though it doesnt make it right now does it, but even though i dont use the N word I've certainly made my point.
It is not a behavior that should be encouraged in jokes among social circles just as the N word should not be encouraged for frequent use. THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FILM AND MUSIC INDUSTRY TO THINK ABOUT HOW THEY ARE SHAPING CULTURE AND WHATS ACCEPTABLE. Saying Nigger is not (which is why they didnt use it in the movie) NEITHER IS MAKING LIGHT EXCUSE WITH THE LIES OF AN INOPERABLE BRAIN TUMOR. OTHERWISE THE WORD NIGGER WOULD BE FUNNY ALSO!!!!
Anton Bitel
• 9 months agoL_Wit_Tumor
• 9 months agoI mentioned apples, and you're talking about oranges.
What you speak of has dittley squat to do with the sections of the plot which I have made reference to.
Don't confuse what I was referencing with something entirely different.
Bullshitting a neighbor is not a tragedy and does not support a pretense of terrible circumstance.
The dark humor of the entire movie with their light humor of her fathers french translation would have been better if her father used the word NIGGER theres some fucken dark humor lost in translation for you clearly they knew better and respect for some but not others is not acceptable.
L_Wit_Tumor
• 9 months agoIts not appropriate to make light of those with brain tumors if they cant equally make light of the phrases nigger, spic etc with that imitative child character they had dealing pot in the movie, The women observing the drug dealer child should have said nigger there's some timely dark humor left out. Making light of those with inoperable brain tumors like myself is equally wrong.
Anton Bitel
• 9 months agoThe film begins with a puppet show put on by Marion - and Marion/Delpy's impersonation of someone with a brain tumour is another form of play-acting - a way of identifying with her dead mother, much as Marion sells off her own soul later in the film as a conceptual art project, and then almost immediately regrets what she has done. She is, in her way, trying to come to terms with loss and death (both major themes in the film). You don't have to approve of her impersonation - personally I never felt that we were meant to. Certainly Mingus is horrified by what she has done, and his perspective is surely as much a contributory part of the film's ideology as Marion's. I also fail to see how the film is in any way making a comment, whether positive or negative, on people with actual inoperable tumours. Rather it is dramatising the confused mind state of its female protagonist, and showing her, not for the first or last time, behaving questionably.