Sideways

I saw two movies today, actually! The other one was Tarnation, which I mildly liked, but had a LOT of problems with, too.

Tarnation on Wednesday.

*SPOILERS MAYBE*

The only time I thought the film really relied on that metaphor was during the conversation between Giamatti and Madsen on the back porch, and that seemed quite self-conscious and deliberate (on the part of those two characters, anyway). I actually thought that was one of the best scenes in the film. I also liked the way it was shot, like when Giamatti was drunk on the phone to his ex-wife, pacing in and out of focus. Nice!

No! ;)

I am the same with popular movies, I didn't know this one was getting so much praise. Is it?

2. the porch "wine as a metaphor for life" scene was excruciating, in a bad way.

3. the drunken phone call to his ex was excruciating, in a wonderful way.

4. wtf was up with that cheeseball split screen sequence! terrible terrible terrible.

5. likewise, payne's choice of music was pretty abysmal. just because the movie is about wine doesn't mean you have to track it with vanilla corporate bookstore jazz! overall the aesthetic felt a little too self-consciously 'grown-up' for me, like a showcase commercial or something.

6. most of the really solid laughs came from the film's buddy movie component. the golf course confrontation and the wallet retrieval sequences were very very funny.

7. i think i feel the same way about sideways as i do re: about schmidt - both are solid films with lots to speak for them but ultimately vastly overrated.

8. election: so awesome.

more movies should be scored with muzak à la jacques tati. though i'm not sure if this is what you mean.

Seeing as how the music I usually hear in bookstores is Miles and Coltrane and such, I highly opject to this. There's no such thing as corporate jazz. People don't really like jazz enough for it to ever be corporate. You can hear jazz and thing it's lame, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean the music itself it lame.

Actually, it was interesting scanning the mostly older crowd at the theater during scenes like that.

All your bizjazz questions answered here!

The smooth jazz station

1. I found the segment where Miles (Giamatti) steals money from his mother's dresser drawer sort've out of character. I mean, yes, he's a pathetic schlub, but for the rest of the film, he does seem to have a "moral center", so to speak. He clearly feels shame and guilt (and self-loathing) immediately after he pilfers the cash from her stash (as he glances at the photographs of his failed marriage and his folks' pictures and his married-with-children sister), but keeps the money all the same. It just seemed odd...to me. Not a flaw, just a slight incongruity (a thoroughly unlikeable trait of an otherwise likeable, nay, pitiable protagonist).

2. I found the wallet retrieval episode at bit too slapstick buddy movie ridiculous, somewhat undermining the reasonance of the more serious themes of the film (as opposed to merely providing comic relief).

Agree/disagree?

I liked Election and Citizen Ruth. About Schmidt was meh.
Did anyone know that Alexander Payne did softcore stuff for Playboy video before CR? I just saw that on IMDb...

Ditto on the wallet retrieval thing. Payne is developing an unfortunate tendency for this jarring Porky's stuff, such as Kathy Bates in the About Schmidt hot tub.

The "tidy" ending is OK (suicide? c'mon, it's a major-studio comedy), but as Armond White wrote in his review, it also panders to middle-class sentimentality (ie, the love/marriage path is the One to Fulfillment). At least it closed on the knock instead of an embrace.
At least it's not as hokey as the last letter from Ndugu in AS (trying to redeem a truly cheap misanthropic series of blackout sketches masquerading as something deeper).

Weirdly, the novel "Election" has a much more humane (tho unsentimental) wrap-up, yet he went in the other direction there.

This is totally OTM.

This is like when Ebert gets all helpful in his reviews and lets us all know that Hotel Rwanda "is not about hotel management, but about heroism and survival." Like: Wow, I was all worried about the possibility that Sideways might be too esoteric for me after every review tried to bolster the outsider appeal of Sideways (and bolstered each critics' notions of their own refined taste) by cautioning "now I know there's a lot of chatter about wine in this movie, but stick with it." Or, even more laughable, "who'd have thunk that a movie about nothing except some wine snobs comparing notes would also be one of the best movies of the year?!" Thankfully, each one of those reviews also made sure that no one would be scared away by all that dialogue about wine, nevermind that talks of "bouquets" comes in a distant second to "I'm going to get you laid" and that every single mention of wine comes with a easily translatable subtext/reflection on the characters. Poor Mondovino, it never had a shot in hell; I guess because it couldn't so easily be differentiated for the dilletante moviegoers in the audience, ready to congratulate themselves for having the uncommonly good taste to choose so risky a movie with such an acquired taste that it's shown up on basically every mainstream critics' year-end top 10 list.

At least it closed on the knock instead of an embrace.

BFD. The last-second rescue was still plenty well confirmed. Just because the movie ended on "..." instead of "." doesn't change the fact that the last words were "finally, everything turned out good for Miles"

OK, obviously this is a rant, and I too thought Sideways was a step up from About Schmidt, and though a relief this was, I'm not prepared to call this anything other than mediocre. And it still means next to nothing if, like me, you resist the urge to identify with the characer of Miles.

4. wtf was up with that cheeseball split screen sequence! terrible terrible terrible.

5. likewise, payne's choice of music was pretty abysmal. just because the movie is about wine doesn't mean you have to track it with vanilla corporate bookstore jazz! overall the aesthetic felt a little too self-consciously 'grown-up' for me, like a showcase commercial or something.

This movie seemed to be actively sabotaging its own formalism occasionally. Self-consciously fugly indeed.

Not necessarily. Granted, Miles is finally taking action instead of continuing to wallow in self-pity, but I didn't interpret this scene as a clear-cut "happily ever after". Hopeful, but not guaranteed.

the best part:

"In "Sideways," a good many critics see themselves, and it is only natural that we should love what we see. Not that critics are the only ones, by any means, but the affection that we have lavished on this film has the effect of emphasizing the narrowness of its vision, and perhaps our own. It both satirizes and affirms a cherished male fantasy: that however antisocial, self-absorbed and downright unattractive a man may be, he can always be rescued by the love of a good woman. (What's in it for her is less clear.)"

OTM

A) Jazzbo soundtrack apropos and enjoyable, because (humorously) positions movie within genre of classy road movie.

E) Comments about underwritten females OTM, but actresses well-chosen to cover it up, although I still don't know what I ultimately think of Sandra Oh- I always found her slightly annoying on HBO.

I) Porch Swing Blather was a jarring change in tone, but I avoid cognitive dissonance by saying the awkwardness was that of the characters as they fall short of completing their Love Connection at that moment.

O) Wallet retrieval scene funny enough for me, and justifiable in plot as evidence of Giamatti's Woosterian Code of Never Let A Friend Down. Also provides symmetry with Stealing Money From Mom on Her Birthday scene.

U) Those who buy into the version applied to this movie of the old David Lee Roth canard that Critics Only Like Elvis Costello Because They Look Like Him should read Bebe Buell's book- apparently girls liked him too.

Sometimes Y) I felt like somehow this character was an interesting distant cousin of Giamatti's Harvey Pekar, which I didn't mind. But see me in 2015, when the same guy shows up DeNiro style in Analyze That, Harvey!

(read: "It's a buddy pic about GUYS, people!")

the porch scene pissed me off alittle when she was like THESE BOTTLES, THEY ARE JUST LIKE US or whatever. but no that was a great scene otherwise. it was all on giamatti iirc, and that was the one scene where i COULD totally relate to him.

that paragraph mark quotes is v funny! i was wondering about that myself. the whole match was off, really. but it's hollywood so i didn't give a shit - why adaptation failed for me: panning hollywood endings is MORE HACKNEYED AND STUPID AND BORING than hollywood endings themselves. i know that sounds awful but i may explain it more tomorrow.

someone asked me and i said "B+".

welllll i'm gonna stop posting here for the night.

except whatsit matter if it's a "clear-cut happily everafter"? (really.) you guys take this shit way too seriously you know.

I remember going to see a film with a girl i was hopelessly chasing about ten years ago. Before the film started, they showed a preview for "Glengarry Glen Ross". Jack Lemmon. Al Pacino. Kevin Spacey. Alan Arkin. Ed Harris. Fleeting but effective cameo by Alec Baldwin. Gritty, taut drama. I remember being instanty intrigued. The girl I was with simply said: "What a phallocentric film! Not one woman in the whole damn cast!", and with that, had completely written it off.

Can't a story simply be about caucasians? Can't a story simply involve one gender? Does every film have to include every race, creed and culture?

i found a lot to enjoy in this film but i probably will forget all about it in a few weeks.

the porch scene was, in terms of dialogue, craptastic; but in terms of editing and staging, quite nice.

in jonathan rosenbaum's year-end-top-ten column this week he devotes several full paragraphs, not so much to a review of this film, as a review of the celebratory notices it's been getting. why rosenbaum wastes his intelligence week after week reviewing reviews (and typically ending up with the same whine about our "cultural gatekeepers" "not letting" "us" see certain films, and celebrating certain others because of some obvious lack with undoubted political dimensions) is beyond me.

yes.

i think the porch scene would've played better if they were having a truly inane conversation rather than an obviously loaded metaphorical one. their gestures and expressions and the editing rhythms really conveyed all that we needed to know anyway.

of course a movie can just be about caucasian characters. and it would be ridiculous to make films that are so blatantly and needlessly diverse. but between the shitty jazz, the wine-isms, the shyness, the golf, the middle class angst, etc, etc, it just felt especially white to me. i understand that alexander payne and jim taylor (?) are reflecting their own sensibilities and perspectives, but this just seemed ridiculously myopic. i am a young white male and i could not relate to it because it seemed too white. i don't know exactly what that means, or rather, i can't explain it without inevitably offending someone of some other non-white race.
"Glengarry Glen Ross" worked because it was a really good film. This film did not work because its whole was less than the sum of its parts and it felt slightly pandering and yet somehow it felt too carved out and specialized (for an audience of such broad and mainstream presence).

Rosenbaum:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/archives/2005/0105/050107.html

The pinot scene sounded like writing, but I imagine wine geeks could talk that way. Madsen's line about a bottle tasting like it would on no other day struck me as bullshit, and that's probably not what they were going for.

They aren't reflecting their sensibilities at all. Payne isn't a wine snob or a golfer, as far as I know. The screenplay is adapted.

As for the 'myopic' comment... plenty of culture types raved about movies like The Fast Runner and The Story of the Weeping Camel, two Orientalist melo-docs that depicted tiny tribal communities that most people have never thought twice about before. But it still struck a chord with people, as Sideways should, because the essential stories are common to all: heartbreak, obsession, embarassment, anger, friendship, drug abuse / alcoholism... that it happened to be about some rich white dudes seems pretty inconsequential to me.

Among the other good movies this year, there's the story of a Huti hotel manager in genocidal Haiti, the story of two boxing teachers and a female boxer, a cartoon about superheroes... which of these lifestyles represent your day to day life, or one that you have first hand familiarity with?

I personally thought the movie was very good -- not my favorite of the year, but a lot of fun. It reminded me of a much better film called The Rules of the Game, which similarly skewered the mores of upper class, privileged whites, although with a far more critical bent.

I would be highly surprised if Payne and Taylor didn't identify with Giamatti's character, btw. As you point out, there is much more to it than his simply being a golfer or a wine snob... he's a pinot grape and a shitty, angry golfer for a good reason.

I am not one of those people who gets out a Marxist's fine tooth comb and searches for the dandruff that will reveal a film to be the bourgeois sham any guilty male liberal knows it is. I don't have the analytic instinct or instruction to detect those sorts of things. So when I say that the film is too white or too myopic, I'm certainly not saying that I've parsed it on any profound level and am trying to discredit it. I'm just saying, ineloquently, that it is distinctly unfunky, shallow, polite and, I would guess, probably lacks appeal outside of a fairly rigid contextual frame that encompasses that arc of moviegoer demographic that is becoming much more apparent lately-- people that read film reviews-- old people, young urban or exurban people and, obviously, film critics. This is not a bad thing. I'm glad that there are so many movies made that are not meant for mass appeal, though of course I like it when the good ones achieve it, too.

Granted, maybe myopic is the wrong word to use. A bit harsh. The movie wasn't about wine. It was about a character who's sufficently damaged to make his life considerably more difficult than it ought to be, considering his modest, but acceptable amenities. Obviously this is offset by his failure as a writer, as a husband (and, by virtue, as a man)-- hence the angst. However, there is something about it, which, try as I might, i cannot articulate, that keeps the character from feeling universal. You mention The Fast Runner, which, of course I cannot completely relate to. But thematically, yes, it succeeds, it wins me over, I identify, I connect. Now, how is it that a character so far removed from my own experience can so much more readily be related to than a man whose experiences, surroundings and upbringing could not, culturally speaking, be too much different from my own?

I believe it is the vague and (terminologically, probably malappropriated), overarching heavyhanded whiteness of the story, that keeps the themes from connecting on a deep, meaningful level. I cannot explain fully why the fault lies in the whiteness other than to say that the black friend that I went with agreed that the film was very white (granted, he still enjoyed it). I guess it is because it does not feel like it is about a man, but a white man.

sorry for rambling... eating lunch in my office today.

Perhaps the reason for disconnect is that the Fast Runner features people who are "so unlike us," so when commonality is found, it is that much more heart-rending and exciting.

Finding commonality with a wine snob golfer dickhead isn't quite as big a leap. It reminds me a lot of another of my favorite movies this year, Metallica: Some Kind of Monster, a film about four generally loathesome people, but yet, I still felt where they're coming from.

I can see the point about "having seen this character before," but it seemed to me like a pretty fresh riff on a well-worn trope. He could be Jack Black in High Fidelity or Paul Giamatti in American Splendor or any number of woebegone culture obsessives, but his prissy sadness seemed very unprecedented to me.

Also though, I think that the definitive quality of Giamatti's performance in American Splendor made me less willing to compare him to himself.

Harvey Pekar freaking out about wine just didn't ring true.

I was kinda shocked when Church's character mentioned A Confederacy of Dunces. Didn't seem like a book he'd know about. Maybe Giamatti's character recommended it!

Church's character seemed to have a lot of interior life for such a fool/idiot. Until his mental breakdown anyway, which seemed a bit out of sorts/improbable.

I guess I am basically thirding the previous two posts.

I don't think his lies or adultery were sociopathic either. I think they were just puerile.

it's so much more interesting to read someone writing about something they love and want to share than something they hate (or are allegedly indifferent to). i think the surest sign of rosenbaum's exhaustion is that he writes more about the latter than the former it seems.

And, yes, why he decided to devote the better portion of his YEAR END FAVORITES article to something he hates is puzzling. Almost Armond-esque.

1) i didn't think church's character was intellectually dumb. he never gave any indication of that beyond not being knowledgeable about wine (which he seemed to want to learn about). he was just a putz when it came to his love/sex life.

2) what people said above. confederacy is EVERY middlebrow person's favorite book. (i think his statement may have been wrong though -- didn't toole publish a novella as a teenager? or did he just write one?)

did you find, as i did, that all the woman characters in this movie were totally half-baked? it was almost relentlessly uninterested in them...

The film was solely concerned with Miles. Throughout the film the narrative followed him, and only him; all new information was presented to us as Miles experienced it. Considering this, it's no surprise the female characters should be so underwritten - Miles probably spent a few hours at most with them.

I found myself laughing a lot during this film, laughing hard. Whether this makes it a good film or not is another question.

ts: freaky trigger vs. mojo

I thought it was ironic that despite Giamatti's love for and identification with Pinot Noir, his treasured wine was a Cheval Blanc -- a Bordeaux blend based primarily around Cabernet Franc. Bordeaux is in some sense the spiritual/philosophical opposite of Burgundy (France's home for Pinot Noir), which makes for an interesting contradiction. Whereas great Burgundy is fragile, nuanced, delicate, confounding (the things Giamatti loves about Pinot Noir), great Bordeaux is firm, aristocratic, haughty, self-satisfied. Why then does Giamatti covet a Bordeaux? His only brush with a great Burgundy in the film is when he and his pal are at Sandra Oh's place, and she reveals that she owns a Richebourg (the only wine she won't allow him and Madsen to open). Is it a symptom of his spiritual and psychic constipation that he can't bring himself to pull the cork on the one great Pinot he encounters?

Upperbrow people have a pretty deluded concept of what constitutes the middle.

Like, I wouldn't presuppose that in order to get High Fidelity, you have to know who Captain Beefheart or Belle & Sebastian or Falco are... but it makes the detail of the film that much richer.

Amen to that. There seems to be more reverse snobbery from the hipster-PBR crowd than the "highbrow" wine lovers.

I think it would be interesting to see a film that treat's Miles' passion with some respect, without it being a metaphor for his pathetic personal life, but hey, Payne is a satirist. A film centered on the wonders of wine could only be tolerable if made by Italians, I think.

I didn't think there was anything bland about its commentary about two aging guys... if he had been really into, say, Mission architecture, the movie wouldn't have been that different an experience for me. It's wine-ness felt very secondary to me. Again, I'm not against the idea of a movie centered around wine, I just don't think this was such a film.

who says i'm upperbrow?

I thought the director was very gentle-handed and calculatedly ambiguous with regard to Giamatti's alcoholism. I found myself bouncing back and forth between being convinced that he had a serious alcohol problem and strongly doubting it.

Samuel Johnson is spinning in his grave.

You should hang out in California a bit.

Yes. (xpost)

anyone agree that a better ending may have been this: we hear Mia's voicemail but Miles doesn't as he has already gone to see her, unaware that she has finished his book and would like to see him again - but the last shot is still the knock on the door.

this way there's a stronger sense of 'taking a chance really can pay off sometimes' and it's just that little bit sweeter.

The film was solely concerned with Miles. Throughout the film the narrative followed him, and only him; all new information was presented to us as Miles experienced it

compare that with the icy reserve and poise of 'election'.

pretty self-consciously fugly movie

i read this as 'self-pityingly fugly', and i think that'll pretty much do it as a three-word review.

It could have used more cigarettes.

What brands would be best?

Other than that, I loved it.

As for cigarette brands - I'm thinking that Miles would smoke Marlboro lights and the other guy Parliament lights. The women would obviously smoke American Spirits.

Still a good movie though.

Kamel Lights, maybe, or the British cigs that come in a flat box (Dunhills?).

overal pretty funny. goddamn is that wine talk cloying, though.

but then the movie got ruined for me when sandra oh found out that the dude was just a big liar and that he didn't really care about her daughter. then i just wanted those two dudes to die and i didn't find the rest funny or poignant.

but it's kinda sad when someone has a half a good idea and half a screenplay and just makes up the rest.

I guess there were good moments (the porch scene with Giamatti and the blonde woman would probably be awful if I were to sit through it again, but she sold it well), but much of it was reprehensible (the angry poor fat people, yes).

Sarandon and Tim Robbins were raising two young sons Jack and Miles

http://thedissolve.com/features/exposition/530-the-curious-case-of-the-japanese-remake-of-sideway/

http://cdn4.thedissolve.com/features/530/fullwidth.faf2651f.jpg

Was the novel of this any good?