Blame ‘Writer Guy,’ Not ‘Cable Guy’

Attention, movie studios! I have a movie pitch. Here it is: “Dumb & Dumber” meets “Cape Fear.” What? Or how about this: “Tommy Boy” meets “Unlawful Entry.” Are you kidding? It gets better. I can get the best physical comedian in the biz today, actor Jim Carrey, who has played nothing on the big screen other than childlike lovable losers who are senseless but still sensitive. And the best part is he’ll do it for only $20 million! Think I’ll get a bite? Not after “The Cable Guy.” As Ace Ventura would say: “Looooser!”

Articles concerning Carrey seem to be more than plentiful these days. For example, “Humor Too Dark for Its Own Good?” (Calendar, June 25). Or “Dumb or Ace Career Move for Carrey?” (Calendar, June 21). Does Carrey have the talent to veer away from wacky comedies to more serious pieces? Is he worth $20 million? Through all the commentary and second-guessing, the most obvious and important question was never asked: Were the premise for “The Cable Guy” and more specifically the finished screenplay any good to begin with? To the moviegoer, the evidence suggests that the answer is “no.”

How are audiences supposed to react when they watch the first 45 minutes of “The Cable Guy”? It’s a marginal comedy about a lonely cable installer who won’t leave a broken-hearted architect alone. Then the next 45 minutes they watch “The Psychotic Sociopath and Homicidal Cable Guy.” It’s a marginal thriller about a terrifying cable installer who uses brutality and manipulation because a man won’t be his friend. And that ending, a knee-slapper if I’ve ever seen one (I won’t give it away). A movie that was billed as a comedy (dark, light, white or pumpernickel--it doesn’t matter), promoted as a comedy and starred the hottest comedic actor was actually nothing even close. It wasn’t cute, enjoyable, redeeming or, most important, funny.

How can any film work where the filmmakers lead the audience down one path and then halfway through turn in an opposite and nonsensical direction? Think about it. What if “Cape Fear” started with Robert De Niro at a prison karaoke jam imitating Grace Slick singing “Somebody to Love”? What path would that tell the audience we were going to go down? It makes no sense in light of where the film ends up.

“Cable Guy” would have benefited greatly by choosing a genre and writing a script that was consistent and committed to the spirit of the story. Director Ben Stiller said: “I shot every scene with a dark version and a light version because I knew it would all be in the tone.” Was the script really that insignificant? Hardly. It was “all in the tone” all right . . . the tone of the script. Guess which “version” made it to the screen? The same “version” that was on the page. The half ‘n’ half “version.”

“The Cable Guy” acquired $19.8 million its first weekend, low on the “Carreyscale” of opening grosses. Bad word of mouth about the film, increasing competition and a staggering 48% drop in grosses in one week brought to light the $20-million question: Is Carrey worth the money and, more important, can he hold up a picture that isn’t wacky comedy? No, to the money. No one is worth that much but I understand why his camp would fight for it and why studios would pay it. Yes, to his talent. He can hold his own in any picture. His talents are so tremendous, many still untapped, that I wouldn’t bet against him or any picture . . . except one with a flawed premise and an ill-conceived, poorly executed screenplay.

If Carrey truly is one-dimensional and couldn’t handle “The Cable Guy” role then who could? Robin Williams or Tom Hanks? They are routinely used as examples of how to break out of the confines of generic comic acting roles to chunkier parts. Even so, these two great actors with the enormous talent between them couldn’t have given the cable installer any more humor or any less viciousness. The character was written that way no matter how you slice it. On the flip side, think about what movies Williams and Hanks used to solidify their A-list status. The movies they’ve made between them are some of the best in the last 10 years.

“Awakenings,” “Big,” “Good Morning, Vietnam” and “Philadelphia” are a few. Could Carrey convincingly play the literature teacher in “Dead Poets Society”? How about a crazed homeless man in “The Fisher King”? Maybe even “Forrest Gump”? In my opinion . . . absolutely. They would be different films, of course, but all of them were wonderful movie ideas transformed into well-executed and thought-provoking scripts.

So don’t blame Carrey, his talent or his salary, on the unfunny, multiple-personality film known as “The Cable Guy.” Blame the writers (usually they always do) and anyone who took part in conceiving, shaping and producing a story that was doomed from the beginning. Dumb or ace career move for Carrey? It’s a dumb move for anyone to involve themselves in projects that don’t first have a script that will deliver.