Is it possible to be obnoxious and funny at the same time? Yes, I believe it is. But "Patch Adams" is just obnoxious while thinking itself not merely funny, but noble as well. Robin Williams has played this sort of character before, the compassionate rebel, in other films based loosely on true stories, like "Good Morning Vietnam" and "The Dead Poets Society." If this film doesn't work as well as the others, it is because it oversimplifies what otherwise would be an attractive theme, namely that doctors should strive to improve the quality of their patients' lives rather than to postpone death. I wish there would be a movie that expresses this idea in a nuanced and believable fashion. Here, it's nothing but cheap shots at the establishment.
One of the major problems is that Patch Adams just isn't very funny, which undermines the whole point of what he's doing. I laughed during one scene involving a catatonic patient, but most of the time I just sat there looking about as stone-faced as the pretty medical student Patch flirts with. Considering how awkward and obtrusive most of Patch's "jokes" are, it's a wonder the movie never considers the possibility that the patients might not be amused; indeed, even the most irritable ones eventually succumb to his charms. If the real Patch Adams was truly like he's portrayed here, I doubt he'd have had any success with his "method." Perhaps the doctors who opposed his behavior actually had a point, and weren't simply the stuffy, anal-retentive stereotype this film shows them to be. This film seems to exist in a one-dimensional world where "comedy" automatically means dressing up as a clown and doing unsubtle slapstick, and where the only people who fail to appreciate such antics are those totally lacking in any sense of humor, not to mention humanity. In a particularly ironic scene, a fellow medical student played by the wonderful actor Philip Seymour Hoffman gives a heartfelt speech about the harm in Patch's failure to follow procedure. I actually found Hoffman's argument a lot more convincing than the movie wanted us to think.
In my experience, I've met a variety of medical professionals ranging from those who only seem concerned with the technical aspects of their profession to warm, funny individuals who care about their patients' feelings in addition to their health. The latter can be accomplished without acting obnoxious, arrogant, and immature like Patch Adams comes off in this film. I couldn't relate to the film because both sides seemed too extreme, and there wasn't the slightest hint that a broad middle ground exists. It was like having to choose between fascism and anarchy.
Eventually the film resorts to an implausible, manipulative plot device so as to give the Patch character a moment of doubt which the situation hardly merits. Or, at least, he's doubting the wrong thing. What he should be doubting is not whether humor itself has a legitimate place in the medical profession, but whether his particular brand of humor does. The movie's ideas are stronger than its execution, and at the end Patch gives an inspirational speech that actually impressed me. If only the rest of the film lived up to the strength of his words.
One of the major problems is that Patch Adams just isn't very funny, which undermines the whole point of what he's doing. I laughed during one scene involving a catatonic patient, but most of the time I just sat there looking about as stone-faced as the pretty medical student Patch flirts with. Considering how awkward and obtrusive most of Patch's "jokes" are, it's a wonder the movie never considers the possibility that the patients might not be amused; indeed, even the most irritable ones eventually succumb to his charms. If the real Patch Adams was truly like he's portrayed here, I doubt he'd have had any success with his "method." Perhaps the doctors who opposed his behavior actually had a point, and weren't simply the stuffy, anal-retentive stereotype this film shows them to be. This film seems to exist in a one-dimensional world where "comedy" automatically means dressing up as a clown and doing unsubtle slapstick, and where the only people who fail to appreciate such antics are those totally lacking in any sense of humor, not to mention humanity. In a particularly ironic scene, a fellow medical student played by the wonderful actor Philip Seymour Hoffman gives a heartfelt speech about the harm in Patch's failure to follow procedure. I actually found Hoffman's argument a lot more convincing than the movie wanted us to think.
In my experience, I've met a variety of medical professionals ranging from those who only seem concerned with the technical aspects of their profession to warm, funny individuals who care about their patients' feelings in addition to their health. The latter can be accomplished without acting obnoxious, arrogant, and immature like Patch Adams comes off in this film. I couldn't relate to the film because both sides seemed too extreme, and there wasn't the slightest hint that a broad middle ground exists. It was like having to choose between fascism and anarchy.
Eventually the film resorts to an implausible, manipulative plot device so as to give the Patch character a moment of doubt which the situation hardly merits. Or, at least, he's doubting the wrong thing. What he should be doubting is not whether humor itself has a legitimate place in the medical profession, but whether his particular brand of humor does. The movie's ideas are stronger than its execution, and at the end Patch gives an inspirational speech that actually impressed me. If only the rest of the film lived up to the strength of his words.