the_mysteries_of_pittsburgh02.jpg
No Price Too High for the Privilege of Owning Yourself


The Mysteries of Pittsburgh / Ted Boynton

Film Reviews | April 10, 2009 | Comments (18)


Much like the term chemistry in describing the success of ensemble casts or sports teams, the concepts of tone and mood in films and novels defy ready explication, though they are generally vital to success. In adapting Michael Chabon’s much-loved debut novel The Mysteries of Pittsburgh, writer and director Rawson Marshall Thurber captures the essential but hard-to-define feel of Chabon’s book by largely re-focusing the narrative to feature more prominently the novel’s most intriguing character, while at the same time retaining the fundamental depiction of the protagonist’s teetering steps across the tightrope running from what society or family expects of us to what is true to our nature. While Thurber’s adaptation has its flaws, the film version of Mysteries penetrates to the core of that breathless sensation of jumping blindly from the familiar, guided only by the trusting embrace of one’s sense of self.

As in the novel, Mysteries centers on recent college graduate Art Bechstein (Jon Foster), an economics major expecting to spend a dreary summer preparing for the examination to become a securities trader in a job arranged by his father, local gangster Joe “the Egg” Bechstein (Nick Nolte). Bechstein the elder greatly desires that his son live a boring, respectable life far from police surveillance and hotel rooms crowded with scheming wise guys, but his son’s vague dissonance over this plan has left him emotionally adrift. When not whiling away his days in a bookstore job attractive solely for its utter lack of responsibility, Art spends his time in a dead-end relationship with his embarrassingly over-dramatic boss (Mena Suvari), whose primary interest is ensuring that all of their co-workers know that they’ve had sex in every part of the store.

Art’s tepid existence takes an unexpected swing following a chance introduction to Jane Bellwether (Sienna Miller), a hard-partying society girl neck-deep in an intense, unstable relationship with sleazily charming ne’er-do-well Cleveland (Peter Sarsgaard). Jane and Cleveland take a strong mutual liking to Art, who brings a hint of stability to a relationship continually threatened by Cleveland’s omni-sexual wanderings and destructive emotional nihilism. For his part, Art eagerly enters a complex orbit around these fiercely burning twin suns, all the more entrancing for their constant threat of supernova. While the film pivots on Art’s fears about his father, his future, and, ultimately, his own ambiguous sexuality, Jane and Cleveland provide the essential gravity giving weight to those themes.

Developing an artistic work from the existing effort of another artist necessarily involves risks inherently distinct from the creation of a wholly original expression, particularly where the adapted work is as well-regarded as Chabon’s. Capturing the spirit of the original work presents a delicate balance between hewing too closely to the original in rote recitation and creating an entirely separate work hampered by the inchoate feeling of a missing limb. Although one might expect that narrative media would be easily transposed, introspective novels in the genre of The Catcher in the Rye are notoriously difficult to adapt to cinema because their ruminative nature doesn’t readily lend itself to the “don’t tell me, show me” rubric of cinema. An important feature of both media, however, is the frequent presence of richly drawn supporting characters who become more interesting than the protagonist. Thurber succeeds in translating the spirit of Mysteries by zeroing in on the nitroglycerin river of Cleveland and Jane’s relationship. In Chabon’s novel, Cleveland and Jane occupied a secondary but critical subplot catalyzing the elements of Art’s other relationships. Thurber simmers the components of Mysteries into a rich broth in which Cleveland, Jane and Art occupy the same spaces envisioned by Chabon but with a streamlined narrative suitable for cinema.

Mysteries comes to life through the competition among Cleveland, Jane, and Art’s father, in all of their various motivations, for Art’s soul. Foster, a relative unknown whose prior work consists largely of television drama, delivers a competently unshowy performance as Art; he’s hardly inspiring, but the film doesn’t need him to be, as his primary assignment is to offer a blank slate to the more interesting players, then get out of the way. Sarsgaard is riveting, naturally, delivering a twist on his signature queasily likable thug (see, e.g., Garden State) by building facets of vulnerability and despair into Cleveland’s sexual omnivore. Far more surprising is Sienna Miller’s impressive performance as Jane; with the exception of a wandering accent that can’t decide whether it’s from Savannah or Los Angeles, Miller does excellent work balancing a chippy party-girl façade against an affectingly subtle hunger for connection. Outwardly brushing aside Cleveland’s indiscretions while inwardly suffering a seemingly doomed love, Miller’s tawny light illuminates and softens Sarsgaard’s high-functioning outlaw, forming a single magnetic personality that would doubtless attract a drifting, sensitive intellect like Art. Nolte also shines as a flint-hearted career criminal whose protective love for his son can’t overcome his alpha male demands for obedience and loyalty above such adolescent trifles as spiritual satisfaction.

Mysteries is by no means perfect, and aside from Foster’s flat lead, a number of narrative flaws occasionally threaten to derail the film. Thurber skirts the DMZ of moody, introspective films by dabbling in voiceover exposition, flirting with a “don’t tell me, show me” violation of his own. This narration, which works fitfully only because of the quality of the writing, gains nothing from Foster’s dull intonation, though the story still coheres well. More troubling is the treatment of Phlox (Suvari), Art’s primary love interest in Chabon’s novel, whom Thurber reduces to an empty, tragicomic cipher. Where Chabon created a hazy, romantic dreamer well-suited to Art’s unmoored confusion, Thurber’s Phlox offers little more than an apparent effort at comic relief and a slight narrative impetus when the story needs a plot turn. While re-conceiving the story without Phlox could work well, the character is really an all-or-nothing proposition, best excised altogether in lieu of a lip-service salute to the original storyline. As it stands, her presence adds nothing to the film but creates a significant distraction for those familiar with the book. Suvari is also the weakest element in an otherwise solid cast, though one hesitates to lay the blame entirely on her.

These foibles don’t distract substantially from the film’s successes, however, largely because the writing, both Chabon’s and Thurber’s, is solid. Thurber’s dialogue clunks a little here and there, but the apple didn’t fall far from the tree: Chabon’s novel succeeded miraculously well despite the occasionally stilted manner in which its characters conversed. Having never been to Pittsburgh, I can’t say whether Mysteries truly captures the city’s individuality, but the film brings with it a distinct sense of place and time, credibly funneling the story into a poignant third act that avoids overt sentimentality while still getting Art to the church on time.

In light of the film’s themes, there is little doubt that the facile and ubiquitous critical description of Mysteries will be that it is a “coming-of-age” story. Relying on this descriptor is both trite and reductive, missing the dramatic underpinning of both Thurber’s and Chabon’s contemplation of what it truly means to mature. The Mysteries of Pittsburgh is a story of becoming open to self-knowledge, even at the price of significant pain; of acknowledging that family and upbringing are an accident outside one’s control, and that one can choose how to be influenced; and of refusing to exist in a particular box simply because that is what is expected.

Ted Boynton is a dedicated sot who plans to leave his barstool to stalk Whit Stillman, now that someone has found Whit Stillman. Ted also manages to hold down a job and a wife, three hours each per day, whether they need it or not. Readers may scold, hector, admonish or taunt Ted by e-mailing him at thecarygrantrules@hotmail.com.


Wolverine Slurpee | Dragonball Evolution Review





Comments

Am I alone in being utterly unimpressed by Sienna Miller?

Posted by: Hurp Durp at April 10, 2009 2:13 PM

My one question is "Will the movie be as gay as the book?" If it's a Hetero-centric version of the book I'll probably give it a pass.
You know, as hard as it is, I'm not feeling this. And judging by the trailer, the book and movie seem like parallel opposites in a bad way. I freaking loved the book and was totally surprised by how good it ended up being. But shifting characters around and having the original story go along with it seems unnecessary. Arthur was a truly intriguing character, and when I heard Peter Saarsgard would be taking the part I was thrilled. But I can clearly remember that he wasn't omnisexual in the book, it was pretty much clear he only had eyes for the guys.
I probably sound like a nitpicky book nerd, but I haven't been impressed with what I've seen so far of the movie. Maybe it is as good as you say it is, I can only hope.

Posted by: Kamikaze Feminist at April 10, 2009 2:17 PM

I made myself a promise to actively AVOID anything with this Sienna person in it, I stand by that, the fact that I get to avoid Mena Suvari as well, is a bonus.

/will never see this

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 10, 2009 2:24 PM

Am I alone in being utterly unimpressed by Sienna Miller?

No. I think that (or probably even something more severe) is the prevailing view around these here parts.

Other than Layer Cake, in which she played a very small role as a smoking hot girl (and played it very well, if I may say so), I don't think I've seen her in anything.


Heh Heh. Mysteries of Shittsburgh is more like it, right Sienna?

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at April 10, 2009 2:26 PM

Sarsgaard plays the character Cleveland from the book. The character Arthur Lecompte is not mentioned here or in the IMDb listing, so I'm assuming he's gone?

Posted by: rikkitikkitavi at April 10, 2009 2:28 PM

I don't think I've seen her in anything.

Forbiddendonut did you see Stardust?

Posted by: mswas at April 10, 2009 2:30 PM

mswas, no I did not see Stardust. It's in my Netflix que, though, and has been for like... ever.

Is Sienna Miller in it? She any good?

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at April 10, 2009 2:33 PM

HA! Stardust should have called Adventures of the Fornicating Manstealing Homewreckers considering the other degenerate that starred in it.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 10, 2009 2:40 PM

Phlox was the only character in the book I really wanted to hang with (i.e., fuck). I'm not sure how the book came to be "much-loved." I'm from Pittsburgh, so it was easy to envision where this all was taking place, but other than that, I couldn't make much connection with these people. Maybe because my life as a young adult had some focus, however small.

So I'm probably skipping, so if you see this, do me a favor and count the number of times someone says "yinz." If it's fewer than two, then the dialect and idioms of Pittsburgh are the real mystery to the people who made this.

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at April 10, 2009 2:54 PM

Forbidden - she's in a small role and is not bad.

BarbadoSlim a bit bitter, eh?

Posted by: mswas at April 10, 2009 3:01 PM

Am I alone in being utterly unimpressed by Sienna Miller?

Sheeeeit, I had to wrestle control over myself to stop complaining about a big upcoming role of hers.

Posted by: Jay at April 10, 2009 3:21 PM

"that breathless sensation of jumping blindly from the familiar, guided only by the trusting embrace of one’s sense of self."

I remember doing that. Was it really so long ago? *sigh*

Posted by: duane at April 10, 2009 3:40 PM

why was arthur lecompte totally left out of this movie? in the book, cleveland wasn't omni-anything. he was just a charming/scary/motherfckin loser. why make him kinda-gay when the book already had a full-on homo with arthur 2?

Posted by: clarevoyance at April 10, 2009 5:20 PM

I'm not sure how this will work without Arthur 2 and Phlox reduced to a bit part (not to mention being played by Mena fucking Suvari). The crux book for me was how Arthur 1 was torn between wanting to be a badass like the Cleve, gay like Arthur 2, or in a real relationship with Phlox with all 3 options being unacceptable to his father. I still want to see it to see how it plays out, and to see Sarsgaard, which seems like perfect casting, but I'm not hopeful, despite the surprisingly favorable review. Also, Nick Nolte as the Egg? For real? He was buttoned up and Jewish in the book, not the first 2 adjectives that come to mind when describing ol' Jack Cates.

Posted by: Emcee Peepants at April 10, 2009 7:42 PM

I think Sienna is a classic case of untapped potential. She will be apearing on Broadway this Fall, perhaps out of frustration at her career arc. Anyway, Broadway is a true test - the ultmate crucible - of talent (No names) so it wil be interesting to see how well she does there. (I think it's a tough Patrick Marber play)

Posted by: Tom at April 11, 2009 7:56 PM

Every once in a great while something passes by here and I have no earthly clue what the fuck anyone is talking about (okay, the Sienna Miller hate I do get) -- except to note that it must be "serious" since the handful of participants seem so impassioned.

I just felt compelled to throw in because I find it a travesty that any of Boozehound's posts would have so few comments...

Posted by: Che Grovera at April 11, 2009 8:55 PM

seriously, she wasn't a bother in stardust, at all. they let her be a twat for a couple of quick scenes which was appropriate for "plot developement" but not long enough for your thoughts to turn to murder.

honestly, i was at the video store one day and a clerk was telling a woman how wondermous factory girl was. and i *chorted*.

Posted by: gp at April 12, 2009 2:08 AM

Hm. I think I'd like to see this- maybe "first" it on my Netflix queue- but why all the SM hate? The tabloids may catch her in all her trashtastic failure-bowl glory, but in Factory Girl, I wanted to be her friend. And borrow her earrings.

Is that so wrong?

Posted by: Sweetie Dahling at April 13, 2009 11:49 AM





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