Where Fools Wander In: the collected parody films of Jon
Tewksbury and Jason Shabatoski.
Curated by Gerald Saul for the Saskatchewan FIlmpool
Cooperative
Thursday September 12, 7:00 pm, at the Artesian - Regina, Saskatchewan,
Canada
So What's the Deal?
The Jody Fulkerson Story (17 minutes) 2003
written by Jon
Tewksbury, Jason Shabatoski, Logan Parkinson, Regan Jans, Rob Miller. directed
by Jon Tewksbury
Shuya Show (47 minutes) 2009
written by Jon Tewksbury, Jason Shabatoski, and David
Stefanyshyn
directed by Jon Tewksbury and Jason Shabatoski
Spooksbury
(18 minutes) 2017
written and directed by Jon Tewksbury
Jon Tewksbury and Jason Shabatoski’s collaborations began
with meeting each other and many of their other co-writers and recurring
performers when they were studying filmmaking together at the University of
Regina. In the three irreverent short comedies in this program, Shabatoski and
Tewksbury created parodies of genres which defy the conventions of satire,
leading the viewer to question the nature, and perhaps the very existence, of
the original genres for which they seem to reference.
In this program’s first film, So What’s the Deal? The Jody Fulkerson Story , they embrace
the mockumentary. . As with other works in this genre such as This Is Spinal Tap (Rob Reiner,
1984), Best in Show
(Christopher Guest, 2000), or Land Without
Bread (Luis Bunuel, 1933), humour emerges as the filmmakers alter the
tone of the source genre and twist the truth of the subject matter. Ironically,
the titular character of So What’s the
Deal? The Jody Fulkerson Story is a stand-up comedian and therefore the
filmmaker’s task was twofold: to reverse the nature of the subject (make him
not funny) but at the same time, make the film funny. While they do take a few
cheap shots at this character, allowing viewers to laugh at him, they also find ways to show us the flaws in his armour and
allow him to remain human, and even likeable.
Central to the film is an aspect of controlled improvisation,
with each performer receiving co-writing credit for material that emerged from
weeks of informal woskshopping (ie: goofing around in a role-playing method of
script development). Nevertheless, the film never felt rudderless. The
foolishness remained on screen and never in the driver’s seat. The end project
has sophistication and polish, suggesting production values far above its
meager student film budget.
The second film, Shuya
Show, has the filmmakers working again with their filmmaker friends, in
particular the late, great enigmatic Dave Stefanyshyn who used his signature
deadpan performance style in this film which pretends to be what we can only
guess is a beyond-the-iron-curtain drama. The faux dubbing of all dialog lacks
as much in finesse as the production itself appears
to have. Acting seems impaired, sets and design dreary, and special effects ludicrously
flawed. At times, the viewers finds themselves uncertain if it is satire or
simply an appropriated low budget cinema flop. Shuya Show carries on these filmmaker’s obsession with the
nature of failure, and drudgery of life, and the pointlessness of celebrity
through a mix of clever role reversals, ironic comedic surprises, and low-brow
humour. Attention to detail and knowing when to let the project suffer from its
orchestrated mistakes was a balancing act that the filmmakers needed to carefully
consider.
In their most recent film, Spooksbury, Shabatoski and Tewksbury again place the viewers
in a liminal space behind the scenes of production but watching the movie at
the same time - uninformed insiders. As such, we become uncomfortable because
of the tension of seeing characters, primarily the title character played by
Jon himself, who should be uncomfortable but is seemingly oblivious to the
situation he is in. It is a sort of dramatic irony but on an emotional level
rather than a dramatic one. Just as we ask how could Jody Fulkerson not know
that he is making such huge mistakes with his performance, we also ask how
Spooksbury does not know how ill-suited he is for the performance he is
supposed to be giving?
As with So What's
the Deal, Spooksbury
is another project about a failed or incompetent performer, and like in So What's the Deal, the peripheral
characters are similarly aware of the problem. These side characters, film
crew, interviewer subjects, and others share the film viewer's awareness but
lack the distance privileged by the cinematic fourth wall which allows the film
viewer to see the train wreck events for their absurd humour.
The films each draw attention to the act of filmmaking,
grounding the projects in the world that these filmmakers are most knowledgeable
about. In So What’s the Deal, the voice of the interviewer (Jon) talks
from behind the camera and in some cases, subjects talk to the camera operator.
In Shuya Show, dubbing, titles
and other graphic elements are miss-fitted, leading us to question the film
process. In Spooksbury, we are
most often placed behind the scenes, watching the crew rather than the subject.
This creates what arguably is as much a self-portrait of the filmmakers as it
is a drama as the lines between what is the story and what is the filmmaker’s
role in creating the story is blurred. Furthermore, in each of the three films
celebrities (each named in the title of the corresponding film) are treated by
everyone around them as just people, with a certain amount of cynicism about
being in the spotlight. This brings
media in general into the realm of the everyday, into being just life.
One might further argue that this reflects a prairie
sensibility, the misbegotten belief that greatness only exists elsewhere, and
filtered through zero-budget filmmaking and through Groucho Marx who would
suggest that any celebrity who would be willing to associate with us would not
be worth associating with. The films are full of fools and losers because it is
a mirror to how we see ourselves. This is the true prairie Gothic, a world of
inescapable depression where the only thing more foolish than being a fool is
to think that you are not a fool.
Presenting fools as protagonists, these three films
contradict the conventions of narrative cinema and deny the need for crisis and
climax. Though steeped in the absurd, Tewksbury and Shabatoski’s films give us
a frighteningly accurate mirror to gaze upon the inability most of us have to
change or grow. We may find that we don’t like their characters, respect their
characters, or even believe in their characters, but deep down we know that any
of us could be these characters, living in a state of denial of our perpetual
failure. We do not laugh with the characters nor do we laugh at the characters,
we laugh at ourselves.
Enjoy the program and laugh.