Docu-biopic? Biopicumentary? American Splendor, co-directed by Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini, takes a unique approach to the life of Harvey Pekar, skirting the line between documentary and narrative film. Since Harvey is known primarily as a character in a comic book, the film includes comic book touches throughout. Additionally, the film peels back the narrative at times to reveal the actual characters, and the actors who portray them, underneath, all set against a stark white background. The many layers of the film are intriguing at first but become annoying toward the end.
Paul Giamatti as Harvey Pekar
The central theme of the film becomes clear early on: Who is Harvey Pekar? One of the better scenes early in the film is when Harvey invites a female fan of his comic, Joyce, to come see him. When she arrives at the train station, she envisions all the different comic permutations of Harvey, until the real one arrives and deflates her expectations. Unfortunately, the theme is later beaten to death during a scene in which Paul enters a comic-book setting and wanders around aimlessly while asking the question, “Who is Harvey Pekar.” By that time, if you haven’t gotten it, you haven’t been paying attention. It seemed like mere filler to push the film’s running time to an acceptable feature length. The film felt as if it were being prolonged for the big ba-boom.
Harvey and Toby being watched by their actors
The divide between the reality of Harvey’s daily life and the possibility, even the brief touches, of his rise to fame provide the most compelling issues, but it is difficult to know the level of Harvey’s notoriety without having been a fan or reader of the comic. While Letterman brushes him off in the end, and the moments with R. Crumb are less than interesting, Harvey himself seems conflicted about his role and what he wants out of his relationships and his life.
Harvey prepares to take on Dave
I’m inclined to think that the flatness of the film is intentional. From the initial meetings between Harvey and Crumb to the way in which Harvey overcomes a major obstacle and gains a daughter, it all seems wrapped in the confines of a comic book. Paul Giamatti’s performance can only be understood as one more drawing of Harvey, a single aspect. I felt as if I didn’t get the whole thing. By the end, it becomes less important to know who Harvey Pekar is and why there is so much media dedicated to him. I say that not to degrade what he has done, but out of a desire to better understand it. Watching the film did not make me want to go out and find copies of American Splendor comics. I wish it would have.
This is the explanation I didn't need
This review is part of Film for the Soul’s Counting Down the Zeroes series.
Comments (2)
Happened to stumble upon the review and I must say I was somewhat stunned to read an essay as undeveloped and ill thought out as this. I find it particularly interesting that the reviewer remarks on the fact that Harvey Pekar, narrator, continually states the obvious throughout the film. I personally cannot remember reading a review on a serious film site that was more guilty of this very crime. “I’m inclined to think that the flatness of the film was intentional. From the initial meeting… it all seems wrapped in the confines of a comic book.” Do you think? Since you seem to have missed the entire essence of the film, I will try to help you out. American Splendor is a film is about depression, loneliness, and marginalized people. It’s about people without connections or money who live lives of quite desperation. It’s about people with artistic sensibilities who are crushed by the weight of their meager daily lives, but want more than anything to be heard, to express the existential angst, pain, heartache, disappointment, and loneliness they’ve experience. Giamatti, in a marvelous performance, captures the essence of Harvey without resorting to mere imitation. How many actors other than he and the luminous Hope Davis would attempt to take on the portrayal of two physically unattractive characters who also were both appearing in the film with them. That’s brave. As you failed to note in your review, Berman and Pulcini take a meta approach, which is obviously an attempt at commenting on the nature of fame, and the fact that Harvey’s entire life’s battle, his running rant if you will, is about his intolerance for bullshit. The subtly humorous scenes with the real-life and character Toby are attempts to provide comic relief, but also demonstrate Harvey’s humanity (he is nice to Toby) and show him in relation to someone who is an even greater outsider than he. The fact that you state “more interesting to many viewers might be the question of who is Toby?” is probably as good an indication as any that you have missed the very heart of the film because it speaks to your desire to be titillated, amused, and Harvey and Joyce aren’t quirky enough, or are too depressing for your taste. You speak nothing about the wonderfully complicated relationship between the fictional Harvey and Joyce, which is not sentimentalized in any way, and yet manages to convey how much each of these two offbeat people need one another. Throughout, Harvey continues to bitch and moan and cast a negative light on all of his experiences, but there is a beautiful success story here – it just isn’t lined up and sign-posted like the normal Hollywood treatment would entail. And instead of praising American Splendor for its innovative technique and risk taking, you criticize the film for… what exactly? There doesn’t seem to be a cogent point to be made anywhere in the entire piece. “I say that not to degrade what he has done, but out of a desire to better understand it.” I have never read a single comic book from Harvey Pekar or anyone else, but I understand Harvey because the film beautifully evoked his humanity. “I felt as if I didn’t get the whole thing.” Wow. Probably best next time to leave the film criticism to people who do. Criticism is usually reserved for those who have thoughtfully taken in and analyzed a piece of art, judging it in the context of like work past and present. Understanding it is usually taken as a given.
I disagree that American Splendor is a film about depression, loneliness, and marginalized people or people with artistic sensibilities crushed by the weight of their daily lives. The directors have the opportunity to shoot for more but they instead chose to wrap Harvey’s life into a neat MOW package and focus on the basic “man facing a grave life challenge” story. I didn’t get the feeling that Harvey (as played) has any sense of self-awareness about himself and his role. I definitely never got a sense of the landscape or his real environment. All the shots seemed to be the same reference over and over.
For example, an lengthy early scene shows Harvey waiting in line at a supermarket behind an older lady with a bunch of coupons. What was his reaction? Frustration. Was it any different than what you would expect of anyone else? No. If that scene was an actual event in Harvey’s life, why bother to include it? If it didn’t happy, why make up something so common? It was one dimensional and gave no insight into Harvey’s life other than he gets frustrated when expected. That is why they added the comic book characters to that scene because it lacked any depth and they needed to fix it.
If you watch the actual clip of Harvey’s blowout on the Late Night show and compare it to their version, they actually do it a disservice. I get way more feeling for Harvey based on the actual clip than I do from the film version.
Likewise, why bother adding the comic versions of Harvey to the scene when Joyce shows up at the train station? It would have been more powerful to let her scan the crowd. We know what her anxiety is. Don’t dumb it down by filling in the blanks for me.
The ending was way too sentimental. It was your typical wrap-it-up-nicely Hollywood ending so the viewers can laugh a little at this odd man and feel good that he’s gonna be OK. It’s not a bad film and perhaps my harsh criticism isn’t entirely reflective of my appreciation of it. But I know it could be much more. Perhaps the filmmakers wanted to originally do something that took more risks but it is a standard guy meets girl story with a few quirks thrown in. If you can’t see that, you need to expand your horizons of what you watch.