Steve Carrel Vs Ben Stiller

The Office premiered last night and as usual was pure genuis. How Steve Carrell manages to play Micheal Scott without simulating a victim of Joker toxin I just don't know. How his coworkers manage it I can't even compehend.

Afterwards the wife and I were watching Leno, and Ben Stiller was his first guest. The wife and I are both huge fans of Jerry's little boy, and we were pretty surprised at how unfunny he was, especialy given how hard he seemed to be trying. In contrast, Steve Carrell had been Leno's first guest the night before and was absolutely hilarious without even seeming to try. This got me to thinking about how mediocre the movies Carrell has starred in have been, conpared to how good Stiller's vehicles have been. Which led me to think about the contrast between these two comedic gods.

Stiller isn't really all that funny by himself, and in fact most of his better movies have cast him as the straight man. Think of "Meet the Parents", "Theres Something ABout Mary", etc and you quickly realise that most of his movies have been about a fairly normal guy put in decidely abnormal situations with extremly excentric people. The comedy comes from his "normal guy" reactions to those situations and people, more than from Stiller himself. Take Gaylord Fokker away from Jack Byrnes and hes really not that funny of a guy. Like wise if Ted Stroehmann isn't interacting with Woogie, Mary and the rest, hes pretty dull. Carell on the other hand has the abillity to make the most normal situations funny, and Micheal Scott would be hilarious even if he were in a coma.

So why have most of Stiller's movies been so good, while Carrells have been so bad? I think it has a lot to do with Stiller being much better at picking scripts that play to his strengths. Carrell on the other hand seems to pick movies that seem almost designed to not too. Take "Evan Almighty" for example, In which Carrell reprised his role as Evan Baxter from "Bruce Almighty". While the idea of a politican becoming a modern day Noah is funny, its was so ludicrous that Carrell's signature absuridty was overwhelmed by the plot. That is to say the situation was so absurd, that it would have probably been better had soemone more like Stiller been in the lead role. In fact the whole "normal man in absurd situation" just screams out for a well played straight man. But when you put someone whose specialty is the absurd, into an absurd situation, it just seems to fall flat.

In many ways Carrell is the Anti-Stiller, wheras Ben does best as a normal man in an absurd situation, Carrell is at his best when hes the absurd man in the normal situation. Stiller specialises in normal reactions to the absurd, while Steve specialises in absurd reactions to the mundane. Now neither of these two particular approaches is better than the other, but they are very different, and they require different types of characters. Put Gaylord Fokker in a line at the DMV and theres not a whole lot about it thats funny, unless the plot creates it. Put Micheal Scott in a line at the DMV, and it would be hilarous without any plot at all. Switch Steve Carrell for Ben Stiller in "Zoolander" and it would have been much much funnier. Switch Steve Carrell for Ben Stiller in "There's Something About Mary" and it probably wouldnt have worked.

I really hope that as time goes by Steve Carrell learns how to pick out scripts more suited to his style, becasue the guy is enormously talented. He deserves to have a long and successful carreer from what I've seen so far. As a result I have an idea that will not only solve this problem but will lead to a great movie. Have Stiller and Carrell team up in a buddy movie. While on the set Ben can teach Steve how to pick better scripts, and in the meantime we get a great straight man playing of a an amazing dunce. The script wouldnt have to be all that great. but if we can get the Farrelly brothers to write it, and Judd Apatow to direct it....

Well lets just say the Joker would be jealous of the results.