Holy Man (1998)
Director: Stephen Herek Cast: Eddie Murphy, Jeff Goldblum, Kelly Preston, Robert Loggia, Jon Cryer Screenplay: Tom Schulman Producers: Roger Birnbaum, Tom Schulman Runtime: 112 US Distribution: Hollywood Pictures/Buena Vista Rated PG: some language
By Nathaniel R. Atcheson (nate@pyramid.net)
Holy Man prompts me to ask the question, "Do shopping networks broadcast live?" The film, which stars Eddie Murphy as a strange and spiritual individual, hinges entirely on the assumption (or is it a fact?) that shopping networks broadcast everything live. If this is a fallacy, then nothing in this film is even remotely possible, for every plot development lies on the shoulders of scenes that have Eddie Murphy spewing "insightful" nonsense on a live shopping network. If the network didn't broadcast live, then the producers could have edited out everything he says, or kicked him off, and he would've been nothing more than a crazy Peter Finch-wannabe who likes talking into the camera.
You may be wondering why I'm asking such a silly question. It's because this is such a silly film. Holy Man a movie that wants to be deep and satirical, but is neither one. It's unintentionally ironic, though, which is a quality that's fun to mock. What really bothers me, aside from the dumb script, is that Holy Man doesn't really know what it's about -- it's a satire that unconsciously satirizes itself. So, due to inept production values, the film's appeal rests on the appeal of the three lead actors: Murphy, Jeff Goldblum, and Kelly Preston. They carry it to a point, but they can't hide the fact that the film just isn't well-conceived.
Goldblum actually has the main role as Ricky Hayman, a producer of the shopping network. The film begins with Ricky's career in trouble -- sales have been going down, and the boss, McBainbridge (Robert Loggia), is breathing down his neck to do something, and quick! McBainbridge brings in Kate Newell (Kelly Preston), who has some bright ideas about where they should take the image of the network. Just when things start going really bad for Ricky, he meets an odd, serene individual named G (Murphy). Kate is instantly entranced with G, but Ricky finds him annoying.
At this point, I figured the film would be pretty straightforward: they put G on air, ratings soar, conflicts arise, happy ending, blah blah blah. I was right, but only partially so: everything happens as I said, but there are about forty-five minutes of down time in the middle, featuring scenes in which G stumbles onto the live shopping network sets and speaks to the salespeople who are trying to sell laundry detergent balls and chainsaws. Then, of course, Ricky has to struggle to get him off the stage so he doesn't make a fool of himself. It's only after this happens for half the film that the ratings and sales finally increase, and then we're allowed to watch the plot trudge through all the bland banalities of the Happy Family Film formula.
It's not really an awful film, but it reminds me that Hollywood, for the most part, can't articulate a theme in even the most pathetically misguided way. It also reminds me that talented actors are often forced to take certain roles to keep their careers alive. Now, I probably would have really disliked this film if it weren't for Goldblum -- the guy is very funny, even when his lines aren't that good. He's a commanding screen presence, but he's also a good actor; he wrings at least a little bit of feeling out of the obligatory "touching" scenes towards the end. Preston is also appealing, but, expectedly, the token female role in this particular film isn't exactly fleshed-out. Loggia is good but annoying, while Jon Cryer, as Ricky's assistant, is surprisingly funny.
That leaves us with Murphy, who has clearly made this movie because it has some kind of message. What, exactly, is that message? Well, he spends most of the film delivering trite, underdeveloped sentences like, "Don't rely on material goods for happiness!" and "Admire the beauty of grass!" (By the way, I read somewhere that grass is one of the most unnatural environments; it can not exist freely in nature, and is basically nothing more than controlled weeds. This makes me wonder how "in touch" G really is with his surroundings.) When G gets on TV, he urges people *not* to buy things, and this leads to two things: 1) massive increase in sales, and 2) a nationwide G-craze. The film therefore implies that everyone watches shopping networks, which is also a pretty silly thing to say.
Hey, satire is a great thing. Failed satire, however, is pitiful. Holy Man is just another Hollywood movie, made specifically to rake in cash with its big-name stars. The fact that Hollywood tries to satirize an industry that closely resembles itself is pretty odd, especially when it fails to realize the irony in doing so. There's a big difference between a film like this and one like The Truman Show (which, by the way, succeeds), because Holy Man isn't bold or biting -- it fits a formula down to the last detail. A formula film that says, "Don't fall prey to consumerism!" is, in effect, saying, "Don't watch the film you're watching!" For a film that wants to make money, I fail to see the logic in all of this.
On top of everything, the story is just so bland. And, if you want to know the history behind G -- his name, religion, why the hell he acts the way he does -- you won't find it here. Holy Man provides absolutely no insight into its namesake, which creates a big problem when the producers are expecting audiences to understand this man and believe what he says. This simply adds to the dominating flimsiness of the film's claims.
It's not all bad though; aside from the amusing acting, there are some pretty funny scenes (the two ladies with the laundry detergent balls is pretty good). Director Stephen Herek, although relentlessly heavy-handed (his tactics worked better in Mr. Holland's Opus) at least keeps the film interesting to look at. It also got me to ask some pretty challenging questions about the shopping network industry (do they really broadcast live?). Overall, I'm left as a fantastically confused viewer: didn't anyone notice that Holy Man is a self-defeating endeavor? A film that really wants to take a shot at satire should first take a good look at itself, just to make certain that it's not at the butt of its own joke.
** out of **** (5/10, C)
Visit FILM PSYCHOSIS at http://www.pyramid.net/natesmovies
Nathaniel R. Atcheson
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews