December 2, 2002

What is tearing us all apart?

There is always a range of opinion when it comes to movies.   Critics are not monolithic and we often disagree with one another.  But this year, it is getting more than a little out of hand.

Critics are not just disagreeing.  The splits are getting ferocious, like Pre Movie Syndrome, forcing us to not only disagree but to disembowel. 

Maybe it’s the movies.  Solaris, Adaptation, Antwone Fisher, Frida, The Hours, Far From Heaven, 8 Mile, Femme Fatale, Punch Drunk Love, Max, Spider… even James Bond… are all causing disagreements that seem deeper and angrier than ever.  There is no middle.  Love and Hate and no DMZ. 

Did you read the negative reviews on Die Another Day?  I happened to think it was the best Bond movie in many a year.  Some didn’t.  But how could people think it was THAT bad?  This is a year in which XXX came up as a pretender to the throne and couldn’t come close to what Lee Tamahori delivered for MGM/UA, even with the incredibly crappy CG surfing sequence… which was only a little worse than the much longer XXX avalanche sequence.

"This is a train wreck of an action film -- a stupefying attempt by the filmmakers to force-feed James Bond into the mindless XXX mold and throw 40 years of cinematic history down the toilet in favor of bright flashes and loud bangs."  James Berardinelli

Huh?

The first Bond that where the women can handle themselves, the villains don’t tell Bond their evil plan and leave him with some murderous contraption, one major CG sequence fails, but other CG not much different than traditional model animation in Bond, and they are throwing away 40 years of cinematic history.

Michael Atkinson seemed closer to the mindset of most of the critics who ripped into this film when he wrote, “Dissing a Bond movie is quite like calling a dog stupid, but when it has the temerity to run over two hours, you feel like winding up with a kick.”

Is that really the level to which criticism has been reduced?  I know it was a somewhat facetious comment, but an awful lot of critics wound up and kicked.  And why?  I still haven‘t read a critic who really made me understand why this Bond film was worse than any other… with the CG surfing exception. 

But what about Solaris, a film on the opposite end of the intellectual spectrum?  

On one coast John Anderson is saying, “A return to what sci-fi was meant to be: Not a way to titillate teenage boys, but a means of finding a context for complex human issues." 

On the other, Glenn Whipp is slashing, "Soderbergh seems capable only of delivering artfully lighted, earnest inquiries that lack the kind of genuine depth that would make them redeemable."

How is it possible for these two earnest gentlemen to disagree without going so far as to insult one another?  I’ve dealt with it myself.  To Solaris haters, Solaris lovers are easily conned pseudo-intellectual posers.   To Solaris lovers, Solaris haters are unwilling or unable to see past their own stunted emotions to see the complexity of Soderbergh’s work. 

What about Frida?

Looking at the Rotten Tomatoes site, the film was “fresh,” with 78% of participating critics recommending the film.  But the “Cream of the Crop,” a selected group of critics from major outlets, was just 57% in favor… a vote of “rotten.” 

The disparity was greater on Attack of The Clones.  A “fresh” 62% of critics overall said, “go.”  The Cream Croppers were only 36 percent positive.  But more stunningly, many of the critics who disliked the film decided that George Lucas should be attacked personally and berated for making the film that he wanted to make. 

This is an issue I’ve addressed before with Igby Goes Down and Moonlight Mile, where critics seems to be split pretty cleaning, loving one and hating the other. 

And the 8 Mile experience has been fascinating, as the film does its classic Hollywood job so well that it has convinced many that it wasn’t Hollywood at all, but earthy truth.   As someone who has had an appreciation and respect for the craft of the film and deep problems with the unfortunate subtext, I have had to defend myself repeatedly… not from disagreement, but from somewhat personal attacks that cannot really be responded to without returning the insult. 

And it’s just getting rolling.  Far From Heaven is either a powerful drama or a clever trick. Adaptation is wither brilliant from stem to stern or “okay until you get to the third act.”  The Hours is going to either be deeply emotional or long-winded and boring.  Antwone Fisher is going to get smacked by some for being too straightforward a narrative and too tear-jerking at the end.  And who knows what we are going to do to Gangs of New York?

And how about that Femme Fatale?  Audiences hate it.  The film got a 45% recommend rating at Rotten Tomatoes.  But that 45% is wild with passion for this film.  For Manohla Dargis, it is like this: “The film has the high-buffed gloss and high-octane jolts you expect of De Palma, but what makes it transporting is that it's also one of the smartest, most pleasurable expressions of pure movie love to come from an American director in years.”  Meanwhile, J. Hoberman says that the film “Sustains its dreamlike glide through a succession of cheesy coincidences and voluptuous cheap effects, not the least of which is Rebecca Romijn-Stamos.”

I don’t really have a sure reason why the disparity in criticism seems to be growing, but my guess is that it has a lot to do with ego.  Critics are much like entertainment journalists, with the freak volume turned up to 11. Being dead in the middle of the bell curve on a movie is like being dead.  It doesn’t matter whether it’s really how you feel.  Passion draws attention like shit draws flies.  So if you have some issues with a film, you’re going to get more attention if you really hate it.  And conversely, if you like it, why not love it?  Of course, the worst possible offense is not “getting it.”  To Rex Reed’s credit, he took that tack when writing about 8 Mile.  He just put it out there… “this is not my kind of movie.”  But few people have the stomach for that much honesty.

Of course, I am now making the terrible mistake that so many critics make… I am assuming that others have lower standards than myself.  Because the standards of the people… the people … the book… the screenplay… the deal….  none of them really matter.  What matters is the movie.  And what matters for a critic is his/her ability to see the movie and to express, with some objectivity, what its potential audience is in for. 

WEEKEND REVIEW:  There were no happy surprises this weekend at the box office.  Solaris died an ignoble death.  Treasure Planet opened to just 100,000 estimated dollars more than Titan A.E. did… and Titan A.E. helped cost Bill Mechanic his job.  Worse, Treasure Planet opened on 500 more screens than Titan and cost tens of millions more to produce.  Good thing that Tom Schumacher has already cleaned out his desk.  Eight Crazy Nights managed just $15 million…. which was more than tracking and less than exciting. 

On the happier side, Potter and Bond went nose-to-nose again, both winning.  The Santa Clause 2 passed the $100 million mark, still a month away from X-Mas.  Friday After Next is about 20 percent behind the last Friday film, Next Friday.  And there is a general sense that even though They managed $8 million over five days, that had anyone known about the film, Miramax could have drawn twice that on opening weekend.

GREAT GUEST:  On Thanksgiving night, Amy Sedaris took the couch on David Letterman and delivered one of the best performances by a talk show guest in many a year.  This was the stuff of legends.  And Letterman was the perfect foil.  While Leno may have tried to go swing for swing or laughed too hard, Letterman kept just the right distance. 

Sadaris appears in Maid In Manhattan, another major box office story this weekend.  Columbia offered the first of two Saturday sneak previews and every one I heard from took place in a sold-out theater.  This one stinks of money. 

READER OF THE DAY:  SWEET BABYS JAMES writes:  “Mr. Poland...I saw Solaris on Thanksgiving Day and I have to say that it was a very powerful experience.  I had worried that Soderburgh might be floundering under his own reputation.  After all, one can see where Ocean’s 11 was a fun film but it felt like fast food to me.  By all accounts, Full Frontal was a major setback, so going into this film, I was prepared for another lesser work from a great director. 

Man, was I blown away.  Everything about this film feels right to me.  From the opening shot, you almost immediately get the feeling that this is going to be unlike any film that you have ever seen.  In the last few months, I read where Soderburgh said that the film was a cross between 2001 and Last Tango in Paris.  However, I think this was a bit misleading.  I think the film does have some homages to 2001 (the slow, tracking shot of Kelvin’s spaceship going to the station, the use of instrumental music and the pacing of the film, not to mention the spacesuits) and it also has to be a nod to Malick’s.

And since no review of this film would be complete without a comment on the Clooney ass shots, can I just say that they felt completely ungratuitous?  It was so nice to see an actor open up and do this and have it be completely natural.  I was immediately reminded of how Kubrick ogled Nicole Kidman’s body in Eyes Wide Shut, while failing to even include at least one shot of a naked Tom Cruise.  Say what you want, but that seemed wrong.  It is nice to see an actor unafraid to expose himself.  In the end, Clooney understands the need to show intimacy and I think that is what makes it all the more real and unmoviestarish.

One last thing: I think that this film confirms that Peter Andrews (Soderburgh) is a great cinematographer.  Despite the fact that I love the way he shoots his films, I always felt that there was something rather egotistical about a director also doing the work of a DP.  However, this is a film, even more so than Traffic, which has such a distinct atmosphere.  The colors and shots are complex and beautifully composed.  The film should be remembered for this, if anything, come Oscar time.  Also, Clooney gives his best film performance to date.  Easily, one of the most thought-provoking and rewarding filmgoing experiences this year.”

Kitchen Patrol writes:  “I couldn't disagree with you more about "Solaris".  I just felt it was 90 minutes of George Clooney's character moping around and doing nothing.  While I appreciate the debates of free will vs destiny and thought it was interesting how our memories of a person would then control their behavior, I simply did not care about any of the characters in the movie.

I am a huge fan of both Clooney and Soderbergh's work (Out of Sight is one of my favorite movies of the past decade - [I confess there's a big difference between 'favorite' and 'best']) so I went in with high expectations and was bored.

But I'm waking up to find critics in various newspapers loving the movie.  And that's all fine and good.  I don't mind people having differing opinions; it's not like I'm right and they're wrong.  It's just an opinion.

Having said that, I'm hearing word that people at promotional screenings are walking out in droves.  They say "It was a waste of time", "I hated it", "It was horrible", "Glad I didn't pay for it."

The last time I heard of people walking out in such high numbers was "A.I.". 

Fox might be able to get the movie open, but it ain't gonna last.”

E ME:  Tell me about your weekend… we have a busy week together, you and I…