Ishtar has been a film I procrastinated for who knows how long. It came into my radar on two fronts. First, it became a running gag on RedLetterMedia. And you know me, I like me some Redlettermedia. But on a more interesting front, it has a unique history.
At its release, it was seen as one of the most striking failures in film history. It had an over $50 million dollar budget and gross merely a fifth of that cost. It was panned to high heaven. Multiple stories before, during, and after the production that make for a fascinating read if you want to dive deeper into it. The word infamous could not be a better fit than for Ishtar.
And what makes it mind blowing talking about it from today's lens, and why I wanted to watch it, is despite having this crazy albatross around its neck, it still manage to accrue a cult following, and not just any cult following. No, this isn't the Freddy Got Fingered kind of revaluation. Highly respected film buffs and figures have praised this film. Martin Scorsese, Quinten Tarantino, some of the most acclaimed directors have lauded Ishtar. It's the kind of comeback story that makes it such an odd duck. Because, even though many well respected individuals have come to bat for this film, it's a movie barely anyone talks about anymore. Why? Surely a film that's loved by Marty would see a critical revaluation on par with Night of the Hunter or Vertigo. One where a community at large recognizes an injustice that misunderstanding an artistic work can bring.
So fuck it, I had an eight hour flight, why not spend it on Ishtar and ramble about it for a few minutes which leads to the answer to my long procrastinated question. Is Ishtar any good?
Uh, sure. It's pretty good.
I think similar to Ishtar's backstory, the film itself is extremely odd. It's a comedy with one of the most distinct flavors Ive seen, and I don't know if I can properly articulate what that flavor is.
I guess the closest I can describe it is to compare it to the U.K. Office. You got comedy that feels almost diametrically opposed to the standard expectations of traditional comedy. The main characters are awkward with very little charm to make that palatable. The plot is batshit crazy and I have no idea what to make of that shit. It's a hodgepodge of choices that feels surreal from a modern perspective lens and absolutely insane from a 1980s one. This is the kind of comedy that feels thirty years ahead of its time, and I can only describe that feat as accidental.
I would almost describe the movie as genius at times, and the baffling thing is the uncertainty whether this movie is actually this brilliant. One stand out is the writing and acting of Dustin Hoffman's and Warren Beatty's character of down on their luck folk musicians. Normally, when portraying 'bad' musical artists, they usually go one of two extremes. They are either good but the movie will for no reason portray them as bad. Or, they make them so awful that it comes off as unrealistic. Ishtar hits a cringy middle ground where our musical protagonists feel authentically untalented. It's a testament to the perfect balance where I don't know if Hoffman and Beatty's performances are embarrassing or arguably the best performances in their career. Yeah, even potentially better than Rain Man.
Unintended or not, the vibe has to be accredited to Elaine May of the legendary Nichols and May duo. I can't help but bring up Mike Nichols since he is my favorite director. And while Ishtar is no Graduate, I did get whiffs of Nichols style in this movie. One because both the Graduate and Ishtar both have Hoffman in a comedic role. But also, it has that unusual comedic style that is seen in a Mike Nichols movie. It's just that Ishtar goes much further. I guess what I am saying is that Elaine May must have been the wild one of the duo.
It's a tragedy tho that Elaine May ended her directing career with Ishtar. If this movie was even slightly successful, we might live in a timeline where Elaine May had a body of work potentially as interesting as her male counterpart. Imagine the weird shit she could have produced? We might have entered into the era of postmodern comedy long before the 90s. But unfortunately, it's a potential only left in the imagination. And yeah, it's pointless to dwell as there many of these kinds of "what ifs" in any art form. Lord knows there are many wishing Charles Laughton made more movies after Night of the Hunter. But at the same time, we can look at it from the opposite end as well. As much as I wanted Alfonso Curon to direct the other Harry Potter movies, that would have come at the cost of losing Children of Men and many other phenomenal titles Curon has made since Prisoner of Azkaban. I guess you win some you lose some.
I guess the question I am thinking right now as I am free writing this review ramble is why don't I love it.
I guess from a scene to scene perspective, it's a little inconsistent. Some scenes overstay their welcome or don't quite execute in the way they likely intended.
I also think the movie would have been better received if they pivoted from the initial idea of homaging a series of Bob Hope movies no ones gives a shit about anymore. As it is now, it starts off like a B tier Woody Allen movie before diving into the Middle East subplot, and the writing transitioning into that feels inelegant.
So to tie it back to the beginning, I understand why it's both a rather beloved film but also not a cult classic that's culturally significant. I think if you are a movie buff, you will find Ishtar fascinating. It's weird, almost ahead of its time, and there are very few films that feel quite like it.
