Directed by and starring Jerry Seinfeld as Kellogg’s executive Bob Gabana, “Unfrosted” follows Kellogg’s attempt to win the cereal war in early 1960’s Battle Creek, Michigan. Going up against rival company Post, Bob and Kellogg’s want to be superior by being the first company to produce a shelf stable fruit pastry breakfast treat. The central focus of the story is two-fold. 1, the competition between companies; 2, creating a new and revolutionary ‘thing’, in this case the otherwise unremarkable Pop Tart. Although the film uses real company names and products, it is a fictional comedic farce made clear immediately by the silliness of the world and the characters within.

Let’s talk about Farce

Few films today go for all-out farce as much as Netflix’s “Unfrosted.” Perhaps because of the difficulty involved – a delicate balance between crazy humor and humanity. Just like any genre, no matter how silly, odd, weird or zany, if the audience can’t empathize or connect with the protagonist (and secondary characters) they will tune out. It will also be a no-go if the protagonist is unlikable. Likability matters more in comedy than perhaps any other genre. But let’s pause that thought for a moment to talk about farce – the Google definitions being:

“A comedic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay, and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations.”

Physical humor, crude characters, crazy situations. There are many different styles of comedy films and demarcations for each in this genre. Farce can sometimes be mistaken for a Parody or Spoof, which borrow from previous films or tv shows. There is also the much referenced “Fish out of water” comedy which portrays either an unusual character in a normal situation – or a normal character in an unusual situation. Farce takes all the unusual and puts it together in one original story.

Farce can have little to say beyond the big laughs. Jim Carrey’s resume has a few pure laughers like “Ace Ventura.” The Farrelly Brothers and Ben Stiller are often providers of good times through farce (“Something About Mary” & “Zoolander” for example). But farce can do more than comedy, by providing commentary or tackling the norms of society. The Marx Brothers films constantly dealt with classism. Monty Python’s films often jabbed at history, religion, and government. Mel Brook’s “Blazing Saddles” brought racism to the forefront through a classic western plot. The filmmaking team of Joel and Ethan Coen have an incredible resume of farcical movies where weird and improbable are the norm. “The Hudsucker Proxy” looks at the danger of letting money and power corrupt. “Raising Arizona” deals with parenthood. Farce can be a creative way of making a statement about life’s absurdities.

Screenwriter’s Friend Analysis of “Unfrosted”

More than any other genre, in a farce the protagonist and/or their team need to be likable. This can be seen in all the films characters mentioned above. Ace Ventura, Derek Zoolander, The Marx Brothers, Cleavon Little’s Sheriff Bart and Gene Wilder’s gunslinger, H.I. and Ed, and onward…these are all highly likable characters each in their own way. They’re funny in their quirks and ways of being outlandish. As an audience, we connect with them for what they want, how they look at life, the grace and uniqueness at which they take on the world around them, and especially their struggles. They are silly, while at times expressing real emotional highs and lows we can empathize with. And sometimes, just being funny is enough.

Fixing Bob Cabana

Bob (Jerry Seinfeld) the protagonist of “Unfrosted” is not a nice man. He lies, cheats, threatens employees with pay cuts, and only wants for new sod in his yard. He’s smug and unlikable, and generally exists to steer the plot and help his company win this competition.

• Consider how to turn Seinfeld’s Bob into a likable character. In farce, it’s not necessary to have a protagonist that undergoes significant change or has personal inner issues. Bob’s current goals are all based on vanity and financial success, and he’s already a successful executive. Rather than be the man at the top, maybe Bob is a low level employee with a dream. Maybe he has co-workers that like him because he’s always up to some new idea, oftentimes creations that help them in their personal life. Maybe Bob’s job isn’t creative, it’s in quality control. This is someone with untapped potential that may do something great once given the chance. Any audience can connect with undiscovered talent, feeling that way about themselves at times. Maybe he doesn’t even work at Kellogg’s at the start, but it was always his dream to work there. It can be a funny obsession, that occupies the decorations of his house, his mental space, and breakfast table every morning. There’s already a scene in the current film where three characters eat cereal together slow motion – really emphasizing the director’s love for this ritual. It might be better applied to connect this love specifically to Bob’s childhood bliss that can become his driving force to work for Kellogg’s.

• Let’s ground Bob in a way you can care about him in his home life. Maybe show he really is a family man with love of his wife and kids, and that he would do anything to make their lives better. In it’s current form, we don’t meet Bob’s wife until 50 minutes into the film, or see much of any family life. Maybe in this new iteration, one of Bob’s kids has special needs and they can’t afford proper care. Being farce, the kid would have a great attitude and always see the silver lining. Maybe, to draw a connection to current day, Bob’s kids are addicted to some 1960’s toy that they take everywhere and can’t put down. This could go for his wife with an addiction to something silly in her world – all of which makes Bob feel like he’s losing his family. Or maybe Bob’s trying to have a family but can’t seem to get the wife pregnant despite all the weird and creative ways they try. This could lead in many comedic directions. Looking for connection to real life families and their issues, while putting a comedic spin on things should be the target. And building in a family story could give this farce something to say about how life has changed in the last 60 years.

Fixing the Other Characters

As Kellogg’s and Post are real companies in the real world, “Unfrosted” elects to pull from real people, real mascots, and real situations that also exist in the real world. Anything goes, with the Bob character acting as the ‘straight man’ to everything weird around him. In the movie world, Snap, Crackle and Pop are real people who work for Kellogg’s. These are not people in costume, that is who they are. Meanwhile, Tony the Tiger is a man in costume, a disgruntled Shakespearean actor sometimes wearing his striped mascot suit. Also making appearances are Chef Boy-r-dee, President John F. Kennedy, Jack LaLane, A fictional drug kingpin name El Sucre, the Russian Prime Minister, a milk mafia called The Milkmen, and a ravioli turned sentient. It’s a strange and confusing mix. ‘Anything goes’ can sometimes be funny, but with the characters being such a hodge podge between real or fictional, the audience may struggle to tell up from down.

• Consider our edit of “Unfrosted” makes a clear distinction and picks a lane. Characters like Snap, Crackle, Pop & Chef Boy-r-dee might be funnier if they’re more grounded and real people in costume like Tony. This will help make more sense when all real world characters like JFK are involved. Also the way these real characters like Jack LaLane or the Russian Prime Minister are reacted to, lend to the lack of grounding since we know them to be real people. LaLane should be treated like a celebrity that he is, and the Prime Minister should be feared like he would in real life. If everyone in this world is silly, then nothing really matters and the audience stops caring.

A prime example of this is when one character gets blown up during testing of the new pop tart. His funeral is a ridiculous (and somewhat funny) scene of pouring milk and bananas over his casket (“full cereal honors”). The only problem is the widow isn’t in on the farce and quizzically asks Bob, “Did you plan this?” His answer is simply “I don’t know” then walking away. Consider how this might look if she was appreciative and thankful of the honors – as if what the characters were doing was normal. This could lead to a better button of the widow saying, “Thank you for honoring my husband.” To which Bob could reply, “We couldn’t have done it without him.” A proper set-up and punch-line, and characters behaving consistently with the world around them.

Consistency should also apply to how the characters behave toward each other. The Melissa McCarthy character named “Stan” is said to have had a falling out with Bob, as they used to work together. Bob explains that they worked out their differences by coming up with a list of things they just can’t talk about, so as to avoid conflict. That’s might sound fine, but it’s not consistent. If they already came up with a no-go list, why aren’t they still working together? (Stan works for NASA now) And once they resume working together, there’s no re-ignition of conflict between them.

• Consider removing this idea of them putting their differences aside until they come back together, struggle and then need to find a solution for working together amicably. It would be this current conflict – not one solved in the past – that leads to the idea for a list of forbidden topics. This way you get the conflict and drama necessary to a narrative which leads to something new. In this case a unique, and possibly funny working relationship necessary to make their new product great.

Fixing the Story

The story of “Unfrosted” is a competition between two companies. Films often are about competition because it’s built-in conflict. And conflict is great for drama. But what does victory mean to the winner, and what does defeat mean to the loser? And why is it important to the people in this competition on a personal level, not just financial?

• “Unfrosted” never answer this question beyond a way too early “we’re on the verge of collapse” shouted out by Kellogg’s President played by Jim Gaffigan. Nothing has happened in the plot beyond the theft of some trade secrets. If the Kellogg’s company is in dire straights, should we see layoffs, meetings, projections or news stories about the company failing? Is there a lot of history here that’s at stake, personal and professional? Perhaps Mr. Kellogg has been entrusted with the family business even though he’s considered a screw-up and this is an opportunity at redemption. Or perhaps the layoff of beloved employees and the health of the town relies on this company to succeed. As the company has up’s and downs, maybe there’s even a ticking clock to make debt payments, or creditors starting to line up. Without stakes or timeliness, the conflict will just read as a competition for increased stock value. And stories where money or ego is the only object are empty shells with no rooting interest for the audience.

• Consider how Bob can help win beyond bringing in ringers from outside the company. Also, he receives inspiration and information from the two dumpster kids who are the smartest characters in the film. They should probably go as well. These characters seem like crutches to the story. Perhaps Bob starts trusting his employees (or co-workers), and innovating rather than doing the same old thing. This will lead to developing relationships or new friendships. Taking individuals, putting them together, creating a work ‘family’ that leads to the wonderful team invention of the Pop Tart. (following many failures and setbacks) Finding ways to involve side characters who are introduced early – like the Rice Krispies trio or the Tony the Tiger mascot – will be much more gratifying than any ringers. This also allows for their personal work storylines to play out rather than dropped for lack of interest. Tony goes from feeling indignant to becoming a valued member of Kellogg’s success. Same with the Rice Krispies guys looking for more to do to feel important. Imagine how uplifting that would be for both Bob and the audience.

• Consider how the antagonist might not be simply competitors but actively trying to bring down the Kellogg’s company. This could mean taking offensive action beyond spying on them. If the Post President character wants to create change, which for her is to remove the competition, at some point she might target Bob as the linchpin in Kellogg’s success or failure. Where can she put a thumb on the scale, add pressure, or widen a crack in his world? Somewhere in his personal life, or by finding a way to sabotage their progress. Perhaps by trying a corporate take-over or creating a phony P.R. nightmare. Maybe trying to lure Bob to her company financially or by offering threatening blackmail. Most of the film feels like Kellogg’s is the antagonist – taking all the sugar in Puerto Rico and fixing the cereal awards. Let’s turn the tables so that Post is clearly the aggressor in all this. And it wouldn’t hurt to give them their own set of problems to help justify their behavior or need to ‘win.’ This can be just as ridiculous as everything else in this farce.

Finishing Up

More could be said in service of fixing other plot holes not mentioned above, which we won’t get into. And the dialogue would be served to adhere to the time-tested ‘set-up and punchline’ of the comedy genre. Instead, the filmmakers attempt to cull most of the humor from observations of the odd environment. That’s not to say there aren’t a small scattering of laughs. But with better drawn characters (with stronger motives and points-of-view) the funny dialogue might come more easily. Improvements would also mean telling a story that emphasizes the ‘who’ over the ‘what’. This ‘who’ approach means characters we care about, connect with, and at the minimum are likable. Hopefully for Mr. Seinfeld’s next film, he’ll study-up to better understand the principles of his chosen genre and get his next script a good analysis before going to picture.