Uncut Gems: He Was Always This Good

I enter the back room of the store that I work in and a co-worker of mine is watching the trailer for The Safdie Brothers’ Uncut Gems.

After the video ends, she turns to me, and says, “Adam Sandler actually looks pretty good”. It’s moments like these that remind me that I, along with the rest of my film cronies, exist well within our bubble of film snobs and movie geeks. I’ve accepted it at this point. When my friend from the back room said this to me, I had an an almost immediate, albeit silent, reaction in my thoughts. Adam Sandler has always been good. After this, I immediately clocked the thought as something only a pretentious person would think. I went into the recesses of my Sandler related experiences.

There are three types of Adam Sandler performances. The first type is the comedian-Sandler: Films that allow Sandler to play with characters with the traits he is known for. The funny voices, the screaming, the ADHD. These include the Happy Gilmores, the Clicks, the Little Nickys. Then there are the cash-grab-Sandler, the films that exploit Sandler’s ability feigned autism and/or unique stardom in order to (hopefully) make a buck. Films like Grownups, Jack and Jill, and of course, all of his Netflix films (which Sandler describes as “paid vacations”). Then finally, there are the counter-Sandler films. These are movies that utilize parts o Sandler that he is not necessarily known for: fathering, softness, the quiet before his explosiveness. Your Bedtime Stories, the Meyerowitz Stories, and that 9/11 film with the title that always escapes me (9/11 Stories? I’ll remember it later). And obviously this categorization system holds no ground in “real life” where each performance should be held to a case-by-case basis, but in a world filled with listicles and media OCD, where audiences so desperately need to place ideas in little boxes and constant diagrams, I think that it’s okay to imply these for argumentation’s sake. Leave now if you won’t hear anymore of it.

So then, to which category of Sandler performance does Uncut Gems belong? After watching the film, comedian-Sandler, although present in some moments, is far too removed from the film. The method which he approaches his character’s despicable nature comes from a place of seediness and greed rather than lovable misfortune. A softer, fatherly, counter-Sandler performance, while I believed to be at play while watching the film, isn’t actually present at all. He is no father to his children, and his sobs are as bombastic and arrogant as his shouting. This leaves us with the box Uncut Gems belongs in: cash-grab, money-grubbing, box-office, fame-exploited Adam Sandler. Before my house gets pillaged for shelving Uncut Gems in with the likes of The Do-Over and Ridiculous Six, there are several reasons as to why the casting of Adam Sandler in Uncut Gems for the purposes of box-office/fame exploitation is not only is not only accurate, but also the best possible storytelling choice that the film makes.

While their break-out film, Good Time, played a major part in the reinvention of Twilight star, Robert Pattinson, Uncut Gems does not do the same for Sandler. After this film, there is no Sandler-ssance. There is just more Adam Sandler, more Netflix films. Adam Sandler has a net worth of $420 million dollars, one of the richest actors in Hollywood. He does not need Uncut Gems to prove himself as a “serious actor” or “reinvent” his on-screen persona. Even in terms of look and aesthetic, Robert Pattinson in Good Time undergoes a physical transformation that renders him unrecognizable, while Adam Sandler grew a beard. I don’t mean to undercut the hair and makeup department of Uncut Gems, but in comparison from what they did to Pattinson, Sandler got off pretty easy. We can tell we are watching Adam Sandler on screen, because we are supposed to. The Safdies are full aware of his star power, and to disguise him as something he is not would possibly hinder the film.

I don’t believe this role is “subversive” (a word that I have heard tossed around, in regards to Sandler’s involvement). If anything, the Safdies have created a role that enhances and magnifies traits that he is already known for. From his sandpapery screaming, to his almost slap-stick movements, to his incessant building intensity, what we witness is Sandler at an exponential height, shoving 300 times his usual schtick into a performance that is lived-in, relentless, and insatiable. Sandler’s controversial humor concerning his religion is in full effect, as he races around New York as a character who on surface level could be clocked as a racial and religious stereotype of Jews. Only Sandler could perform this way because only he can get away with it. Even on the poster, his name appears above the title of the film like a crown.

And the film certainly provides the Adam Sandler-centric experience promised by trailers, promotional materials, interviews, and more. The success of the film is contingent on the success of Sandler in the role. Did the Safdies place the right bet on the right actor? It’s a question that mirrors the main conflict of the film. Throughout their career, the Safdies have been running around New York making films with increasingly higher stakes. Uncut Gems is no different. The film’s performance at the box office, a record-breaking opening for A24, is an indication that their instinct about Adam Sandler is correct.

He was always this good.