Over the weekend I asked folks to let me know if any of the films currently in theaters are worth seeing. John from Dayton starts of today's Civilian Voices with his review of Pay It Forward...

"I guess some people just don't get it.  I guess we can't have a film that speaks up for lofty ideals like hope and optimism anymore.  You see I was looking forward to seeing a film starring two Oscar® winners and a recent Oscar® nominee until I began to read all of the bad word from critics this week.  David Poland was not lying when he wrote, "Pay It Forward draws the kind of gentle, polite nods that are usually reserved for an ugly bride." Needless to say, I went to see it anyways, critics be damnned. Pay it Forward got to me.  And I think some of the critics are misfocused in their problems with the film.  Pay it Forward is pure Hollywood entertainment, pure and simple.  Could I see it and be a cynic and knowing that a movement like this would never take off?  Very easily.  But do I want to believe something different?  Hell yes.  One critic called this film "unceasingly manipulative entertainment."  I couldn't disagree more.  I don't think Pay it Forward is really trying to manipulate us into thinking that the pay it forward movement should happen.  At its heart it is a simple story about a boy wanting to do something bigger than himself, something all of us inside aspire to do.  It's a story about a man trying to break out of his shell and a woman trying to live life without dependency. If the film is manipulitative, it's because it made me care about the characters.  It manipulated me into wanting to succeed, fall in love, and make a difference.  If all films were manipulative in making me care about characters, I wouldn't be disappointed week in, week out by stories where I just didn't care. I know this film has problems, mostly with the ending.  But even though it's not perfect, for those two hours I cared for the lives of those three people.  And in a time where I'm treated to paper-thin characters, that is enough for me." --John Haubrich Dayton, OH

Another reader, Jeff, spent his hard earned dollars to see Dancer in the Dark this weekend. Exiting the theater, he began to question the sanity of film critic Roger Ebert who gave the film a four star review...

"Midway into Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, a married couple attends a critically heralded but artistically bankrupt play: 'The [play] justified the verdict of its sponsors: it brought laughs, it was amusing; it was an indecent joke, acted out not on the stage but in the audience... [A popular drama critic of the time] had not tried to influence anybody; he had merely made clear--well in advance and through many channels--that anyone unable to enjoy this play was, basically, a worthless human being. 'It's no use asking for explanations,' he said. 'Either you're fine enough to like it or you aren't.'" During the intermission, an audience member is overheard exclaiming, "It's wonderful. I don't understand it, but I have the feeling that it's something very important." Anyone doubtful such a scenario could exist outside the realm of fiction need look no further than Roger Ebert's review of Dancer in the Dark this week, and the movie-loving lemmings dutifully bound to follow their thick-thumbed leader off a Dogma 95 cliff into a swirling sea of motion picture mediocrity. Ebert is conscientiously vague in avoiding labeling any Dancer in the Dark detractor, 'a worthless human being,' preferring instead to slyly acknowledge, 'Some reasonable people will admire Lars von Trier's Dancer in the Dark, and others will despise it.' Of course, it is purposefully unclear if Ebert means to suggest anyone who considers the film a flop might potentially be also deemed 'reasonable.' As the review wears thinly on, Ebert devotes most of his column defending potentially logical lines of attack against the movie, rather than presenting compelling reasons why the film deserves any artistic reverence: 'It is valid to dislike [the film], but not fair to criticize it on the grounds of plausibility, because the movie has made a deliberate decision to be implausible: The plot is not a mistake but a choice.' Apparently, Mr. Ebert would have us all meekly accept ridiculously formulaic plot devices firmly rooted in general character ignorance alongside the occasional blatant burst of especially brain-numbing incompetence, all simply because the film has done so intentionally. Ebert delicately explains, "If I told you the movie was set in 1912 and starred Lillian Gish, you might not have the slightest difficulty in accepting this plot; whether you would like it, of course, would depend on whether you could make the leap of sympathy into the world of silent melodrama." So you see, since the works of D.W. Griffith are beyond critical reproach (except by a few unsympathetic louts), so too must you embrace the same preachy, heavy-handed plot structurings in this picture. Not satisfied propping up D.W. Griffith's celebrated corpse to legitimize his own opinion, Ebert reminds his readers that he isn't alone in finding redeeming (if inexplicable) merit in Dancer in the Dark. After all, 'This film won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.' Message gracefully sent: Those gentle folk in Southern France have seen far more films than you ever will, and undoubtedly understand much more about what constitutes a great work of filmic art. Before haphazardly relying on your own 'philistine' (to utilize Ebert's terminology) thoughts, consider what a wall of expertly honed intellectualism you'll be facing by disagreeing. Ebert boasts, 'The relatively crude visual look underlines the movie's abandonment of slick modernism.' Yeah! Down with modernism!... Except, with 'modernism' defined as 'a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression,' the shine quickly wears off Ebert's trite little anthem. Before applauding Mr. von Trier for 'divesting himself of modern fashions in plotting,' consider such 'modern fashions' apparently include plot unpredictability and character complexity. Before bragging 'Dancer in the Dark is a brave throwback to the fundamentals of the cinema--to heroines and villains, noble sacrifices and dastardly betrayals,' realize that the film is also a quick and easy throwback to such filmic fundamentals as story cliches and after-school-special brand moralizing (with cheaper cameras but better music). In conclusion, Ebert proclaims Dancer in the Dark 'smashes down the walls of habit that surround so many movies. It returns to the wellsprings. It is a bold, reckless gesture.' He fails to mention the film merely replaces modern techniques of moviemaking with antiquated ones, confusing 'smashing down' with basic substitution. And he also neglects to confess such 'wellsprings' ran dry over half a century ago. In the final analysis, Dancer in the Dark is far less reckless than Ebert's own insubstantial review.    -- Jeff

Wondering what is going on with Roger Ebert seems to be a popular activity these days. His recent review of The Contender certainly had me scratching my head. roughcut.com reader Paul questions the critic's latest likes and dislikes...

"What is wrong with Roger Ebert?  Does anyone else think he is losing it?  Towards the beginning of the year he gave both Erin Brockovich and Gladiator two stars.  Both of those movies are not only among the best of the first half of the year but the best of the entire year so far.  In my opinion Gladiator is the best film of the year so far.  Then in August Ebert gave The Cell four stars and now he has given The Contender four stars as well.  Did he actually watch these movies?  Granted, The Contender is a pretty good movie.  But it totally cops out with a weak ending.  The bad guys become typical villains.  It ends up being conventional and predictable.  Roger, of all people, should have easily spotted this.  There is no way, despite excellent acting all around, that The Contender is a four star movie.  As for The Cell, well, Roger fell off his rocker.  Visually it was good, but the story was pathetic.  It wasn't even that good. So those are four examples.  Does anyone really think The Contender and The Cell are better than Gladiator?  Or even Erin Brockovich?  As far as I am concerned, Roger is really losing it." -- Paul Doro

Paul asks a couple of good questions. Would you rank The Cell and The Contender over Gladiator and Erin Brockovich? And what is wrong with Roger Ebert. Send me an e-mail with your thoughts on the matter and I'll post them on Thursday.

Moving on to a new topic, I still want you guys to remind me of the good films that were released this year. I'm having a very difficult time making a Top 10 List. Sadly, my Worst 10 could probably be stretched to 20 at this point. B has made his list of must-sees for 2000. Its a short list...

"I made a partial list of favorite films from 2000 prior to the summer season, when things looked bleak and must-sees were those 1999 releases still lingering in the theatres.  Since that time, I haven't added much at all to the list.  So, here goes: the two and a half movies you should see: 1) The Color of Paradise, now available on video.  This film takes the cake this year.  Some die-hard film intellects (J. Rosenbaum, in particular) disparagingly liken Moshem Makhmalbaf to Steven Spielberg.  But this is sentiment with soul: stunning visual metaphors and equally stunning sound design; strong, natural acting; and a conclusion that is more like a culmination: an epiphany.  I mean it.  I was constantly surprised that, by the time I figured out a metaphor or a motivation, the director somehow knew that I had just taken that step, and led from there.  This film bests A Moment of Innocence and A Time for Drunken Horses as the best Iranian film I have seen this year.  But they all rank high indeed; higher than any American release.  2) Fudoh: The Next Generation  Um, this is funny, sick, action-packed, loaded with bizarre kinks, and artfully constructed as a father-son duel.  Most of its over-the-top manga elements are pared away during the final thirty minutes, and it is a surprise how pyschologically rich the final confrontation proves.  If you want to see what a Hollywood action movie would only have a wet-dream of being, seek this out.  (It is available on video--likely, specialty stores.  It was the director's second film, and I think he has five or six others lurking out there somewhere.)   3) When the Day Breaks and The Yellow Umbrella  Two animated shorts that pack a wallop.  The first is from Canada; the second comes from Pasadena's Art Institute.  The Yellow Umbrella takes place in a Gilliam-esque universe of constant rain, where a boy finds a yellow umbrella that holds sunshine in its cloth.  When the Day Breaks turns animals into workday people, and successfully ruminates on sudden death, city life, momentary joy and electric wires within nine minutes.  You won't forget any of these films, if you can find them." -- B

And finally, Patty from Oregon's made her pick for best movie of the year...

"The best picture I have seen so far this year is Chicken Run put out by DreamWorks.  I definitely think this fits the 'flawless' category. Innovative, funny, touching, and absolutely amazing in its craftsmanship. -- Patty Eugene, Oregon

The quest for great films continues. What are your thoughts? Which films released this year would you recommend? Which would you tell people to avoid like the plague? Is Dancer in the Dark an important film or a piece of trash? Is Pay It Forward truly touching or manipulative? Does Chicken Run deserve a Best Picture nomination? Send me an e-mail for Thursday's edition of Civilian Voices, won't ya?

 

Meghan McCarthy
Editor, Civilian Voices

Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.com

No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.