All The Real Girls

"On one hand, I found All the Real Girls to be somewhat uneven. The older characters -- Leland and Elvira -- seem underdeveloped, more like sketches. And though I appreciate Green's impulse toward a loose, documentary style of filmmaking, I think his films could benefit from more judicious editing. There's an early scene with Feng-Shui on Leland's shoulders as they walk silently through a field -- the cut to the scene is oddly abrupt, and the camera lingers on them for way too long. These moments add up.

On the other hand, the movie had a profound impact on me, like almost nothing else I've seen. I dwelled on it all last week, writing about it several times in my journal, and coming to new understandings each time. And I saw it again the other day. I'm still thinking about it.

I think it affected me so strongly because it worked on two levels. As a movie fan, I absolutely love anything that's naturalistic and episodic. I smiled at scenes like the conversation between Noel and Bust-Ass about food expanding in the stomach -- it's such a goofy dialogue, but so right on with its small-talk awkwardness. And, as Green says, moments like these are nothing that a "witty screenwriter" could've come up with, or else it'd feel contrived. (He says this, in NewCity, about Noel whispering "hellohellohello" in Paul's ear -- Zooey did it spontaneously.)

So I can champion the film in a "more movies like this, please!" way. But it also emotionally devastated me, which I think has to do with the psychological complexity of the characters. You can see how genuinely Paul and Noel love each other, how well they get along -- but they are in totally different places in their lives, and they can't understand how significantly that affects their relationship. The tragedy of their story is that they are the "best boy and girl for each other" at that moment, and that they do still have feelings for each other, despite everything that happens.

Where these two levels come together is in remarkable scenes like the motel room -- from the tension-diffusing pillow fight to Noel's soul-baring story about her scar. If that's not among the most remarkable performances I've seen from an actress, I don't know what is -- in ten minutes, she goes from nervousness (about being there) to playfulness (the pillow fight) to pain (the scar story) and then joyful love (at being able to share it with Paul). She cries and laughs at the same time. She expresses volumes with just the way her mouth moves. She says lines like, "Tip doesn't even know about this" in an off-handed way, as if she just thought to bring it up.

Now, I'll admit to finding parts of the film uniquely resonant because a) their relationship bears similarities to relationships I've had, and so certain scenes were more poignant than they otherwise might be, and b) Noel is totally my kinda gal (particularly since Zooey is so beautiful), and so I felt like I loved her, too. In other words, there's surely a subjective component to my feelings about the movie. Just so you know. But I can defend it all, too."

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW?

i agree with jaymc that it needed tighter editing. Greene seems to put too much in there for it's own sake, and often it's just not interesting enough to stand on its own.

objections aside, it was at times very beautiful. and did i hear "Mogwai Fear Satan"? it sounded different.

(x-post: Greene poetic asides have the same akwardness as Malick's, and im not sure yet why i prefer one over the other)

I'm always on a Zooey kick. :)

hands down, number one movie of the year for me.

I've just finished watching it -- moments ago. Perhaps I should give it some more time to sink in, but there are things that are bugging me that I want to get off my chest.

First off -- DGG himself. Having seen this and George Washington I can see why he's often compared to Malick. But let's not lose touch -- neither of the two features comes close to the brilliance of Badlands. It is this Malick film that, unfortunately, kept cropping up in my mind while watching ATRG.

There are a lot of good things to be said for the film. Certainly, he is one of the more interesting indie directors working today, and there's a lot of thought and craftsmanship in his films. The actors he works with (all unknown to me except for Zooey Deschanel) are all fantastic. It's always so refreshing to see great performances without the distraction of major-name stars.

My problem with the film -- perhaps problem is too strong at this stage -- let's say the thing that's sticking in my craw is that there's a certain un-evenness, or unbalance to the film. We're presented with a small town somewhere down south. As the film unfolds, I see a community of people that live pretty far removed (both literally and figuratively) from commercial interests and pop-culture influences. People are born and die in this community, or so it seems. There are a bunch of young men who do....what exactly do they do?...fix cars, sometimes work in a factory, hang around etc. All this is fine, however at times characters break out of that and start uttering dialog that really doesn't seem to fit. Bust-Ass talking about chaos theory, for one. (Don't forget that this is the same character that will later talk about food expanding in the stomach.) Another example that comes to mind is the scene in the bar -- where Paul tells this story to one of his ex-conquests (Heather McComb, I think) and she's dressed and acts like a woman I'd expect to run into in a bar on the upper east side of Manhattan. Every time one of these type of anomalies popped up, I was quickly removed from the flow and 'feeling' of the story. (A story, I should add, that I really enjoyed.)

I think DGG put too much into the screenplay. Was he not confident enough to allow the images and the action tell the story? Characters seem to have too much to say -- think of Badlands as a comparison. The scene in the hotel for example -- while Ms. Deschanel's performance was quite good, how did it add in any way to the character or story? It didn't -- DGG had the hotel scene, needed a scene of dialog, and out came this.

That's probably my biggest complaint with the film -- it's as if he had all these little ideas (and shots) in his mind and they all found their way into the film -- whether they belonged there or not. (I should add that I am a screenwriter and am guilty of doing the same things.) Somebody above described the older characters in the story as sketches -- a very fitting description. For all the soulful shots of Leland and Feng Shui (please!) you'd think that their relationship would bear more on the story, but it doesn't. Even Paul and his mom -- some nice scenes, but they come out of nowhere.

I realize I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself.

Let me simplify -- DGG is a better director then he is a writer. I wish he would partner with a really good screenwriter because he is clearly interested in making quality films that are character rather than plot driven. Paul and Noel are such interesting characters -- if they just didn't have to talk so much (along with everybody else in that town.) I really felt like he had characters speak for a fear of silence.

Todd, above, commented on how it could have been a bunch of shorter films -- that's exactly right, and that's exactly my problem with it. Unlike George Washington, ATRG does center itself around a couple of characters and a story -- if only it had concentrated more on them and not wandered off needlessly.

Good film, talented director, but I don't think it's worthy of most of the gushing praise it has received.

I agree--it was definitely one of the more interesting films of the year, but still had quite a bit lacking. I agree with Buddha on the "trying to cram too much in it" thing--I normally love films that add little vignettes or seemingly insignificant additions that add so much to the overall atmosphere, but it seem a bit over-intellectualized and forced in this film (except i have to admit i loved the two-legged dog).

I think harmony korine pulls off the "little things" better in his films ("gummo" especially comes to mind--the bugs behind the picture frame the little kid takes off the wall, etc.)

but give DGG time--god, how old is this guy? he looked like he was about 14 in the "making of" documentary on the DVD. I'd love to see what he's doing in another 3-5 years (maybe an adaptation of bradford's "dogwalker"?)

As the film unfolds, I see a community of people that live pretty far removed (both literally and figuratively) from commercial interests and pop-culture influences...however at times characters break out of that and start uttering dialog that really doesn't seem to fit. Bust-Ass talking about chaos theory, for one. (Don't forget that this is the same character that will later talk about food expanding in the stomach.)

I found that entirely plausible. It reminded me of actual conversations I had with my first boyfriend and his friends. (I grew up in a mid-sized town in the midwest; my boyfriend was from the boonies about 45 minutes from the center of things--he lived in a farm house, fixed cars, drank tall-boys, routinely failed classes in school, made ignorant/misinformed comments all the time, but he also read books about science and philosophy and loved to talk those ideas with surprising sophistication.)

I really felt like he had characters speak for a fear of silence.

I think there are moments when the dialogue springs from the characters' fear of silence. The characters themselves are very self-conscious and I think much of the chatter comes from that. Maybe there are instances where I'd agree that silence would be called for, but I can't think of any off-hand.

I didn't feel that any of the wandering detracted from the central relationship's development, though perhaps some of the side-stories could have been more carefully drawn. Also, I think that much of the gushing praise comes in anticipation of what DGG will do in the future because this film shows so much potential. I can't wait for whatever's next.

Listening to the commentary on the DVD confirmed some of what I thought -- DGG and Paul Schneider mention that a lot of the ideas and dialog were things that they had been saving up for years. It showed.

I have to admit I'm a bit nervous about how he will handle Confederacy of Dunces -- is he fit for the challenge? My god -- that's one of the most brilliant comic novels ever -- there will be a lot of people pretty pissed off if he screws that up. Is he strong enough to pull the reins on Will Ferrell? I think Ferrell is very funny, but I don't really see him as Ignatius, and I worry about him being to "big". I see that Soderbergh co-wrote the screenplay, so that's a good sign.

scene where he dressed up as clown was too much, also poorly put together (why slow motion?)

framing was not always inspired

overall conception of rural working class was somewhat condescending

film was pretty good

Drew Barrymore .... Darlene
Mos Def .... Jones
Olympia Dukakis .... Santa Battaglia
Will Ferrell .... Ignatius J. Reilly
Lily Tomlin .... Mrs. Reilly

As for Confederacy of Dunces, I agree that Will Ferrell seems a strange choice for Ignatius. I suppose any film adaptation of such an epic book would have to take enormous liberties to make any sense on its own--we'll see.

"If you had to choose between being the top scientist in your field, or contracting mad cow disease, which one would you choose?"

"Well, of course I'd choose to be the top scientist in my field."

"Oh, that's good. I thought you were gonna choose mad cow!"

God amongst men, people. God amongst men.

The Chaos Theory stuff wasn't rocket science - Bust-Ass might have seen Jurassic Park recently. And I didn't find the view of small-town America condescending in the least, and the point about the characters being afraid of silence up above is spot-on.

Anthony picks out the highlight