blogspot
visitor
Everything's Gone Green | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

green1.jpg


The Importance of Being Earnest

Everything’s Gone Green / Jeremy C. Fox

Film Reviews | April 27, 2007 | Comments (23)


When I was in my late teens and early 20s, it seemed that almost every novel I read and many of the movies I saw (excepting, naturally, the slasher flicks and most of the teen sex comedies) left me feeling that I’d learned some valuable life lesson or gained a newfound insight into the nature of existence. I’d close the book or walk out of the theater convinced that I had a whole new outlook, that things were going to be different from then on. But as I get older and more jaded, those pop-culture epiphanies get harder and harder to come by — I’ve listened to “New Slang” a hell of a lot of times, and enjoyed it, but, pace Natalie Portman, it hasn’t really changed my life.

So it was with considerable surprise that I walked out of Everything’s Gone Green having actually been persuaded by the film to make some changes, and with even more surprise that I actually found myself following through on those plans (we’re still in the early stages here — check back with me in a couple of months and we’ll know how it all worked out). Maybe I shouldn’t have been so surprised, though, since Douglas Coupland, who was responsible for several of those late-adolescent epiphanies, wrote the screenplay for Everything’s Gone Green (the title comes from a New Order song and refers to money — I think — and not environmentalism, as one might assume). A connoisseur of youthful anomie, Coupland (Generation X, Microserfs, Hey Nostradamus!) has written about most known varieties of teen and twentysomthing angst, always in a way that remains persuasive despite frequent hyperbole.

Here, in his first screenplay, Coupland’s protagonist is 29-year-old Ryan (Paulo Costanzo), a Vancouverite who exhibits all the ironic enthusiasms and low expectations we’ve come to expect of a Coupland protagonist. But when his girlfriend dumps him for his lack of ambition on the same day that his boss fires him for his lack of enthusiasm, Ryan realizes that ironic disengagement may not be the sound life strategy he’d assumed it would. He’s pushing 30 and his life is going nowhere; he has to admit to himself that he’s become a loser.

Ryan’s problem then becomes not just how to not be a loser but how to figure out what that means. His father (Tom Butler) has just been fired from his job too, after decades of loyal service and total frustration, and Ryan certainly doesn’t want to go down that path. His best friend Spike (Gordon Michael Woolvett) appears to be happy running his small milk distributorship, but not everything there is as it seems. His brother Kevin (Peter Kelamis) is a successful realtor and developer, but Ryan can’t abide his anything-for-a-buck attitude, though he will accept the stunning penthouse apartment Kevin offers in exchange for him being the superintendent of the empty building it’s in. And when Ryan lands a new job working for provincial lottery, he sees that even immense wealth is often less a guarantee of happiness than an obstacle to it.

Ryan’s not certain of anything in his life until a chance encounter brings him together with a beautiful woman named Ming (Steph Song), whom he certainly wants to get to know better. She’s smart and funny and seems comfortable in her own skin in a way that Ryan can’t quite imagine himself feeling, but like a lot of beautiful, intelligent women, Ming has an inexplicable asshole boyfriend, Bryce (JR Bourne), whose official job is golf-course designer but who has his hand in a number of other shady dealings. Bryce first sees Ryan as a threat to his relationship with Ming, but later he realizes that Ryan could be an asset, and he pulls him into one of his criminal enterprises.

In outline, EGG is a romantic comedy with a standard genre plot — good guy tries to win good girl away from bad guy — but at its center, it’s really about a guy trying to figure out how to live in an ethical way even though everyone around him is corrupt. Ryan is a good guy in that he means no one any harm, but he’s capable of being seduced by the allure of money and fancy possessions, and he’s morally elastic enough to rationalize compromising his own sense of right and wrong. In short, he’s like most of us, and the kind of decisions he must make, between doing the expedient thing and doing what he knows to be right, are like decisions most of us have faced.

EGG’s director, Paul Fox (no relation), is an experienced director of Canadian television series and several short films, here helming only his second feature. It’s an assured, competent piece of work, but his approach is dry and somewhat removed, so that the film is initially a bit difficult to get into, but it rewards your patience with a thoughtful examination of what it takes to be the kind of person who can look himself in the mirror and like what he sees. I don’t want to overstate the film’s seriousness or its depth, because it’s never pedantic, nor does it attempt to present a full ethical treatise or say anything terribly original. It’s just a sweet, funny little movie that explores some real issues and just might make you think about some things in a new light, as it did me. Maybe it won’t change your life, but it beats Wincing the Night Away.

No, really. I found that album disappointing.

Jeremy C. Fox is a founding critic of Pajiba and a member of the Online Film Critics Society.You may email him at jeremycfox[at]gmail.com.

ofcs.gif


The Talented Mr. Pajiba | Kickin' It Old Skool





Comments

For a minute there I thought you were going to tell us you went out and bought fluorescent light bulbs and started wiping your ass with your sleeve. The title, considering the hype these days, is a bit misleading.

And could you fix "Talanted" in the link just above please. Thank you.

Posted by: jen at April 27, 2007 11:07 AM

Great review, I'll try to catch this one if I can find it.

Also, I thought "Wincing the Night Away" was actually pretty good; but I also find "Oh, Inverted World" is a lot worse than I remember.

Let's not even get into the second one, (I know it's not called "Chutes & Ladders," but it's close, right?)

Posted by: Erik at April 27, 2007 11:07 AM

I'm SO surprised that this was reviewed here, because I'm also surprised that this is playing anywhere but Toronto and Vancouver. Thanks for the review! I'm definitely going to see it (for those in T.O., it's playing at the Varsity).

Posted by: doug coupland fan at April 27, 2007 11:47 AM

Sounds kinda interesting, but *takes deep breath to begin rant*

Does anyone else get tired of the "beautiful, smart, witty woman who is dating/married to a complete asshole" plot device? Is it just me? It's fucking tired, it's annoying and it's stupid, to boot. Most of the smart and witty women I know have succeeded in dating/marrying equally clever and intelligent men. I'd guess it's because they're... oh, well... intelligent.

Except for my wife, of course. She married a raging asshole.

/end rant/

Posted by: TK at April 27, 2007 2:46 PM

I was kind of thinking the same thing, TK, only not is as many ranta-rrific colours as you did. I see more awesome woman/nasty man pairings in fiction than I do in real life.

Posted by: Ranylt at April 27, 2007 2:59 PM

Um, shamefacedly, I must admit that I just posted over in today's daily trade round-up about my attraction to absolute bastards throughout my 20s and then I come on here to see people calling it a movie cliche. Maybe I am a cliche, but seriously, I am intelligent and wasn't too hard on the eyes in my 20s and I all I seemed to be interested in back then were complete and utter bastards. And I'm not alone in this: most of my friends were the same. Yeah, we all grew out of it and moved on to stable relationships with guys who actually gave a shit about us, but we all did go through that 10-year phase. So I'm not so sure it is a movie cliche. And by the way, Pride and Prejudice anyone? Why else would Elizabeth Bennett have been drawn to Darcy? Kathy and Heathcliff? I think there's more than a little reality to this cliche.

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 27, 2007 3:46 PM

Just posting again before any of the hundreds of strict literalists that populate Pajiba (seriously, how many of you are there?) write in to remind me that Bennett/Darcy/Heathcliff/Kathy were not real. I know they are literary characters, but if Austen/Bronte (repressed virginal writers) made bastards the most compelling men for their female characters to yearn after, doesn't that help to demonstrate that actually young intelligent women are drawn to these types even when they were brought up to want good little vicar types?

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 27, 2007 3:51 PM

Maybe my thoughts are colored by the fact that it always happens when I like a guy, but I tend to find that "awesome guy/heinous girlfriend" pairings are much more common...which is why it sucks if your new boyfriend's last girlfriend was actually pretty cool.

I agree that overall, "Wincing the Night Away" wasn't as good as people had expected; it has its gems but on the first two albums, almost every song was its own little shiny diamond, and I didn't feel like that about "Wincing".

Posted by: Geetch at April 27, 2007 3:54 PM

Was D'arcy a bastard? Wasn't that the whole point of the book, he seemed like a bastard but in reality his was just a kind, loving rich guy...

Just sayin...

Posted by: nojuan at April 27, 2007 5:24 PM

Erik - It's Chutes Too Narrow. And I really liked it :/ heh.

Posted by: Nova at April 27, 2007 5:57 PM

Chutes Too Narrow-- and it's actually one of my favorite CDs ever. If I had to pick a Shins song as "the song that changed my life," it'd be 'Turn a Square' off of that, hands down.

Posted by: Genevieve at April 27, 2007 5:58 PM

Yeah, "Wincing" isn't that good, but it does have "Phantom Limb" which is the best song they've ever done.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2007 6:16 PM

This movie sounds great. I can't believe I didn't hear of it until now, but that I fast-forward past a trailer for next every other commercial break. The world is mad.

I see a lot of awesome woman/horrible man pairings in real life, but I also see a lot of awesome woman/awesome man pairings in real life. I think the awesome/horrible pairings just stick out more because people are more apt to remember thinking, "Good Lord, what the hell is she doing with him?!" than to remember, "What a great couple!" Humans love to enjoy to misfortune of others - which is probably why it is such a hackneyed plot device. Easy and lazy, that's the Hollywood way.

Posted by: stardust savant at April 27, 2007 7:46 PM

Nojuan: I'm open to debate on that. Maybe it's my class sensitivity but to me any guy who sneers at those who have less money and refuses to dance with people who he believes to be beneath him is a bit of a bastard no matter how nice he is to the people he actually likes. True, he helped out the Bennetts over the whole elopement, but he did it so that Elizabeth wouldn't be tainted by the scandal and therefore he could still marry her. He didn't do it out of altruistic motives. But as I said, I'm open to being corrected.

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 28, 2007 12:52 PM

The movie sounds interesting. Anyway.

I have to comment onAustin/Bronte . Elizabeth was initially attracted to the 'bad boy' Wickham, whom she eventually left for the smart/good Darcy.

Catherine was hardly nice herself. Both she and Heathcliff were smart, mean-spirited and ready to go to any lengths to get what they wanted, others be damned. They both used/abused the Lintons with little remorse; I'd say they were a pretty good match.

Ok, enough literature geekiness from me.

Posted by: PGS at April 28, 2007 1:57 PM

Ooh a canon-lit discussion. I can't help myself. The pedant-a-phobic really ought to skip this:

1. I think a lot of Austen scholars (which I am not) would be quick to point out that Darcy's snobbery is actually, to women of the higher echelons of the gentry (Austen showed how stratified that gentry could be) a credential of his "gentleman's blood" and all the more reason to marry the guy (compare "The Princess and the Pea"). It would have been, at least, to many of Austen's contemporary female readers--especially her middle-class and lower gentry readers (the largest demographic of novel-buyers in her day) who wanted to climb the ladder themselves. Darcy may seem like a bastard to us (I agree with Paddy there) but that's not technically his characterization in his own cultural context. And Austen shows both Elizabeth in "PP" and Emma reacting to the heroes' initial high-and-mightiness to display their own personality flaws.

2. When it comes to the Brontes, bear in mind that we're mainly dealing with second-wave Gothic literature (Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre are clear examples); one of the mainstays of the "female Gothic" genre (which the Brontes were writing--see Roche, Radcliffe et al who predate them) is what Diane Hoeveler calls turning the "punished patriarch" into a "safe husband". You'll note that trope again and again--these men aren't really bastards at all (by their cultural standards), and the heroines' attraction to these men grows in proportion to the Gothic male's improvement, personality-wise. (Let's leave Rhys's view on Rochester out of the picture, since of course that's an entirely different book--in which Rochester IS a bastard and his first wife couldn't stand the guy).

I was going to post something about how this discussion just reveals that we humans are masters of selective perception/memory (especially Hollywood screenwriters, I'm sure we can all agree), but stardust savant beat me to it.

Posted by: Ranylt at April 28, 2007 2:25 PM

Dammit, Ranylt, you said what I was going to say so beautifully! I agree. I'll only add to it that the characters in P and P pointed out that Darcy was shy, which gave him the snobbish appearance.

I, for one, find him irresistable.

Posted by: bonnie at April 28, 2007 9:09 PM

Great minds, Ranylt. Great minds. ;-)

Posted by: stardust savant at April 29, 2007 2:51 PM

See this is is why I come to Pajiba (see comments above from Ranylt, Bonnie, Stardust, etc). I don't care who disagrees with me because the opinions are always articulate and intelligent and I can't get that anywhere else.

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 30, 2007 10:36 AM

(I'm not going to weigh in on the literary discussion, because I will only end up looking like an idiot. I do however agree with PaddyDog on the calibre of posting here. It's a little slice of rational internet heaven.)

As far as the horrible guy/awesome girl phenomenon goes I've seen it more times than I have with the "awesomeness" going in the other direction, however I'd probably put that down to having more female than male friends and as I generally tend to avoid hideousness as a personality trait in my friends that sort of makes sense. It does happen though, frequently, to both sexes. Sometimes through choice (in which category I include myself because I'm strange that way) sometimes not.

However, I completely agree with some of what TK said in that I'm fed up of seeing it used in movies. It just feels lazy. It's an overused shortcut to making us care about our male protagonist and to give him an obstacle to overcome (and in some cases feel sympathy for our female lead if we can show she's unaware of her boyfriend's bastardness). I'm not saying its not a valid dramatic device, of course it is - it plays out every day to millions of people - but it's been used way too often to have the full intended effect.

Posted by: Alex the Odd at April 30, 2007 11:02 AM

I don't care who disagrees with me because the opinions are always articulate and intelligent and I can't get that anywhere else.

Truer words, PaddyDog.

Man--how can some of us be so bloody off-topic and still, kind of, be on-topic? The Pajiba overlordlings must have hearty laughs observing us. Thanks to Alex the Odd for tying it all back up to the review in question (it's a fine art!).

All this to say I will definitely be watching out for this film when it hits the disc.

Posted by: Ranylt at April 30, 2007 11:34 AM

"True, he helped out the Bennetts over the whole elopement, but he did it so that Elizabeth wouldn't be tainted by the scandal and therefore he could still marry her. He didn't do it out of altruistic motives. But as I said, I'm open to being corrected."

At the time that Darcy came to the aid of the Bennetts in the elopement scandal, Elizabeth had already refused to marry him. He felt guilty because he knew how horrible Wickham was and didn't tell anyone except Elizabeth in his Letter of Confessions. He had no real hope that such an act would make her marry him.
Granted, it could have all been a clever ploy to change her opinion of him and convince her to marry him, as well as keeping her family just on the right side of acceptable. But that would be one long, drawn-out ploy, and in the course of it her really did become less of a bastard.

Posted by: Blonde Savant at April 30, 2007 12:51 PM

With apologies to Jeremy for hijacking his thread, the thing is I'm not so sure that Darcy had no real hope of marrying her at that point because they'd had those few days at Pemberley and things were going well and she hadn't run away so I think he had reason to keep his fingers crossed at that point, but the elopement would have completely ruined things for him. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing Darcy, I just believe he is one of the all time great irresistable bastards of literature. I totally accept Ranylt's point that I am judging with my values and not those of when it was set, but I also think Austen almost openly makes fun of the niceness and good-naturedness of Bingley and basically tells us that we'll have more long-term fun and stimulation with the bastard than we will with the nice guy.

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 30, 2007 2:53 PM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.