Smile! You're at Mr. Smiley's
Sundance Dispatches / Dustin Rowles, Seth Freilich, and Ted Boynton
Click here for Day One of our coverage.
Ted: What a day for socalledonlycousins! We opened Day 2 at 9:15 am — a.fucking.m., after getting back from Osama at 2:30 a.m. — with the premiere of Phoebe in Wonderland, a thoughtful and entertaining film from first-time feature director Daniel Barnz. Phoebe has a helluva cast, with Felicity Huffman playing the frustrated mother of a gifted 10-year-old girl (played by Elle Fanning, of those Fannings) challenged by the onset of Tourette’s. The cast includes Bill Pullman as her loving, concerned father, Campbell Scott as a hilariously inept principal, and Peter Gerety as a gentle child psychiatrist.
But straight to fucking hell with all those people. Want to know why? Because at the end of the film, I was less than 50 yards away from my long-time actress love Patricia Clarkson, who plays Fanning’s ethereal, supportive drama teacher in the film. Patricia Clarkson of The Station Agent, Pieces of April, and various other films where Patricia Clarkson (!) knocked it out of the park. Restraining order or no restraining order, I went within 50 yards, right down to the first row of the theatre for the Q&A with Patricia Clarkson, and festival security did not bat an eye. So far, so good. There was also some guy who directed the film and some guy who did the cinematography.
This was the highlight of the week for me: the full, rich blonde hair, porcelain skin, Glenda-the-Good sharp features, curvy-sexy in her tight jeans (she just turned 49 in December). Aside from the fact that Patricia Clarkson is fucking awesome, she’s also a dead ringer for that Dunhill-smoking, ball-punching hellcat who prefers to drink her champagne from a jeroboam made of the skulls of inconsiderate drivers, whom some of you may know as Mrs. socalledonlycousins. It may interest you to know that I have never seen the two of them at the same place and the same time. There is no god but Patricia Clarkson, and She is Good.
Hi Mrs. socalled. Thank you for letting me make this pilgrimage.
Dustin: Believe it or not, there was more to love about Phoebe in Wonderland than Patricia Clarkson (though Ted’s drool-spackled chin would suggest otherwise). That “other” Fanning, Elle, turned in an incredible performance as a Tourette’s sufferer who finds solace in a grade-school production of “Alice in Wonderland.” In fact, she’s so good in Phoebe that it’s impossible to hold her lineage against her - it’s not an easy part even for an adult, but she absolutely nails it. The movie itself had the occasional lull and the fantasy sequences were not particularly necessary, but any movie that managed to keep me awake at that time in the morning after the previous night’s shenanigans had to be impressive. In fact, it elicited the first standing ovation we’ve witnessed so far at the festival. I think, too, that it has quite a bit of potential in the real world, though Ted could probably make it profitable on repeat visits all by his little self.
Seth: Yeah, what they said. I already suspected that Elle was the more talented of the Fanning sisters, having seen her in several television shows, and Phoebe in Wonderland confirmed - youngin’ can act. The rest of the performances were across-the-board solid (except for Huffman’s god awful wig), with Campbell Scott’s performance as the principal being a particular standout. The film is beautifully shot for the most part, and while it started out a little on the slow side, its eventual path held my attention and interest. As I told a friend who had heard that the movie was great - I don’t think it’s great, but it’s very good. Which, performances aside, is largely due to the fact that, although it may be hard to relate with issues surrounding Phoebe’s Tourette’s onset, it’s very easy to relate with the greater aspect of her character and dilemma, that of being the young child who is different and has trouble finding her place in the world. But I was a sucker going into this movie because of my affinity for Alice in Wonderland which, as the movie’s title would suggest, plays a central role in the film. And while Dustin felt the Alice-related fantasy scenes weren’t necessary (which I don’t wholly agree with), they were beautifully filmed in a fuzzy dreaminess which would’ve made up for this being a lesser move. Thankfully, they didn’t need to
And speaking of dreams, Sleep Dealer lives up to its title, at least insofar as Dustin fell asleep, and Ted and I both fought off the Sandman like a kid trying to stay up to catch Santa porking mommy. Holy hell was this movie dull. The background sci-fi element of the flick is that America has closed its doors to Mexican immigrants, so Mexicans now do lots of work in the states virtually, via Matrix-like hookups which allow them to control little helper robots. Following a mishap with the U.S. army which leads to a Mexican man’s death, the man’s son travels from their small village to Tijuana, so he can earn money for his family by working in one of these worker factories (which the locals call Sleep Dealers). Along the way, he meets a very yummy Mexican writer (Leonor Varela, the first of the two Martas on “Arrested Development”) and then some shit happens and some other shit happens and then a guy from the U.S. army comes to Mexico seeking his own form of retribution and some other shit happens and then the kid does a solid for his village, and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz …
Ted: … zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz …
Dustin: … zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz …
We ended the night, however, on a spectacular high note. Adapted from Alicia Erian’s brilliant novel, Alan Ball returns to familiar themes (sexuality, suburbia, race, and self-liberation) in Towelhead, which is just chock-full of sick, twisted awesomeness. Set in suburban Texas during Desert Storm, the film is about a half-white, half Lebanese 13-year-old girl, Jasira, who discovers orgasms while crossing her legs, and then experiences her sexual awakening the hard way when her suburban, redneck neighbor (Aaron Eckhart) takes advantage of her naiveté in a much more aggressive way than did Alan Ball’s Lester Burnham. Not only that, but she has to contend with a bitch of a mom (Maria Bello) and her temperamental, abusive prick of a father (“Six Feet Under’s” Peter Macdissi), who won’t let her date an African-American kid, Thomas (Eugene Jones), though that doesn’t stop Thomas from also taking advantage of Jasira’s sexual ignorance. Meanwhile, her only hope is a hippy, Our Bodies, Ourselves enthusiast (Toni Collette, who generates three films worth of poignancy in her 10 minutes of screen time), who takes an altruistic interest in Jasira. The film, like the novel, is “fearless” (as Alan Ball - who is kind of a smug, self-important jackass in person — repeatedly maintained during the Q &A). The film is dark, but situationally comic; at times intensely uncomfortable, but never grim; and exactly the sort of greatness we’ve come to expect from Alan Ball. Oh, and in Summer Bishil, Towelhead also boasts the best young actress this side of Ellen Page.
Seth: Yeah, Towelhead ain’t a warm-and-fuzzies kind of movie. It deals with some seriously dark shit. And yet, in his film directorial debut, Ball manages to portray said dark shit in a way that makes you uncomfortable without feeling wrong for watching it (although I believe Ted is going to take issue with this sentiment in a moment). Eckhart’s redneck neighbor is a sunuvabitch, to be sure, but the movie itself doesn’t judge him, leaving it up to the audience to do it, which is a refreshing thing these days. And when the movie isn’t being dark, it’s got some great comedy beats (having not read the book yet, I’ll take Alan Ball’s post-film comment, that the book is even funnier, at face value), sugar for the medicine, if you will. I think Dustin has pretty much said all I have to say about things, particularly the always wonderful Collette and the strong and daring performance by Bishil, so I’ll turn it over to Ted who, based on our shuttle-ride discussion, has some issues with the flick.
Ted: Ugh, I hate being the moralizer in the group; I’m so bad at it. But I’m getting on my high-horse. Was I the only person in the theatre troubled by Towelhead’s graphic, prurient sexualization of a 13-year-old girl, then profoundly troubled by Alan Ball’s refusal to take responsibility when questioned about it? (Note that Summer Bishil was 18 when the scenes were shot, but she very credibly plays a blossoming 13-year-old girl in the film.) Towelhead is powerful and brilliantly funny, especially Peter Macdissi as Jasira’s Lebanese father, who stole every scene he was in. Eckhart and Collette delivered really strong performances, as always; Maria Bello was basically a non-factor. But while I appreciated the difficulty of the subject matter, I was repeatedly creeped out by highly sexual scenes involving Bishil that seemed deliberately designed to titillate and provoke a sexual response from adult viewers seeing this sexually awakening child (a) masturbating and (b) experiencing predatory sexual behavior from an adult.
In the Q&A after the film, Ball insisted that he was simply being faithful to the novel, which is just a major fucking cop-out from a screenwriter as creative as Ball. (Even worse, the bleating sycophants making up 90% of the crowd applauded Ball’s artless dodge.) Film is a medium with very different emotional and visceral weaponry from a novel, and directors and screenwriters take account of those differences all the time to achieve the impact they desire. A depiction of a child’s sexual activity achieved with prose makes a very different impact from a visual depiction that appeals to the male sex drive’s primary stimulus receptor, as Ball is certainly well aware.
I’m a fan of Ball’s work generally, and Towelhead flashed the dramatic muscle and depth, as well as the humor, of American Beauty and “Six Feet Under.” But I’m going with my instincts on this one: It is artistically irresponsible to graphically sexualize a child, regardless of any alleged good intentions about the message. OK, can I go back to juvenile drinking binges and vulgar commentary about Sienna Miller’s assets?
Whiskey Baby Ninja Star T-Shirts on Sale
Sundance 2008 Day One |
| Pajiba Love 01/25/08
|
Comments
Busted link from main page.
Posted by: PissBoy at January 25, 2008 12:19 PM
WTF???? I keep getting some msg saying my comment is being filtered out for whatever reason.
Posted by: PissBoy at January 25, 2008 12:47 PM
A depiction of a child's sexual activity achieved with prose makes a very different impact from a visual depiction that appeals to the male sex drive's primary stimulus receptor
Agreed. And though this is in no way related to the discussed film, socalled's comments reminded me of why I disliked The Professional. It was subtle, but it squicked me out all the same.
Campbell Scott!!! I love him.
Posted by: Daphne at January 25, 2008 12:57 PM
Fuck this. I am posting my comment as 3 pieces if I have to.
My curiosity has been piqued by your reaction Ted. Do they get visually graphic or is more of taking the scene as far as it can go before skin is shown? The reason I ask is because the first movie that came to my mind was 'Kids' and the opening segment with Tully and the girl. That was one of the most uncomfortable scenes in the movie (ties with the scene at the end) but it didn't seem sexually charged. I can't figure if it was because it was so early in the movie and nothing was invested in any of the characters yet or was it because I knew ahead of time that it was in-your-face so my defense was already up.
Posted by: PissBoy at January 25, 2008 1:07 PM
(I think it was because I typed the R word when mentioning the last scene in Kids, cuz I changed that word to 'scene' and it worked. Anyhoo... continued below from above)
In a roundabout way I'm trying to get to the arguement of artful presentation. Was what was delivered on screen necessary? Could they have shot it like the oral sex scenes in 'Pretty Persuasion' (minus the goofy sound effects) or would that have taken away from the point? Sexualization of our youth is already a huge issue. (I don't need my 10 yr old niece wearing low-rise sweats that say "Juicy" across the ass) Do these sequences do nothing to help the situation or was it just overall uncomfortable For.You. Ted.
I know I kind of rambled above, but please excuse me. Has been a looooong week. And Julie text messaged me last night about pedophilia and Harry Potter. Couldn't sleep too well after that cuz Daniel Radcliffe prolly has a weird 'O-face.' I imagine it to looks slightly goofier than the 'Hurty-Scar-Face.'
Posted by: PissBoy at January 25, 2008 1:09 PM
Who's Frank? Are you making new friends over there?
Posted by: katy at January 25, 2008 1:47 PM
Well, you know PissBoy, Dumbledore didn't mind wands all that much...
Posted by: ScarletKnight at January 25, 2008 1:48 PM
These movies sound really good (except for that sleeper one...double pun!!!) And Alan Ball can do no wrong by me...considering American Beauty may be my favoritest movie of all time. Both Phoebe in Wonderland and Towelhead (is it this or Nothing is Private? I've seen both titles) do sound very interesting and watchable. I'm so glad we have this much of a heads up on these sort of films...it makes planning my movie-watching for the next year that much easier.
Is it bad that I think Summer Bishil may be the hottest thing on two legs I've ever seen? In her current, of-age version, of course....no Happy Potter connotations here!
Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at January 25, 2008 2:16 PM
Ooh, I can't wait for Towelhead(Their keeping the book's original title then) I LOVED 6FU, it is my favorite show and Alan Ball is a genius. Which reminds me, I need to rewatch American Beauty because it's just so awesome.
And Ted, I'd be just the same way if I got to meet Patrica Clarkson.
Posted by: Kamakazi Feminist at January 25, 2008 2:21 PM
I need to rewatch American Beauty because it's just so awesome.
"I've never done this before. But I still want to."
... and *bam,* it hits Lester (and us, the viewer) that this object of his desire and fantasies and someone the audience has heard brag about her cavalier sexual exploits is just a nervous kid. Not some brilliant, seductive goddess - just a young woman who wants (or thinks she wants) what everyone else sees in her.
God, I loved that scene, the tenderness in the characters - it hit me like a punch to the gut the first time that I saw it.
Posted by: twig at January 25, 2008 2:41 PM
Couldn't agree more twig. The last 20 minutes of that movie are the ultimate emotional rollercoaster and no matter what I get SUCKED in every time.
Posted by: PissBoy at January 25, 2008 2:55 PM
I know you boys are out there to review movies with plotlines and good actors and all that in addition to stalking Patricia Clarkson (collective sigh of rejection from the Pajiba calendar girls), but are you going to catch U23D? I just saw it in a limited release showing and the technology really is amazing. I'd love to read your take on it.
Posted by: PaddyDog at January 25, 2008 3:13 PM
Hey, Person or Cyborg Posting as Pissboy: 3+ posts with no rants and no threats of violence against self or others in Hollywood? Who are you and what have you done with Pissboy?
Posted by: PaddyDog at January 25, 2008 3:15 PM
Yes, it's me Paddy. I dunno. I'm not feeling it today. i don't know if it's because this has been a long week for me or what. I mean, there's also not much to unload about other than the dumb ass computer that wasn't allowing me to post because I used the 'R' word rhyming with 'ape' or the fact that our faithful reviewers fell asleep during a movie. But is that REALLY worth a rant, threats of violence, or uncomfortable pairings with fuel trucks at high speeds? Can i even wish something like that upon a computer? I mean, I suppose I could oblige. I was feeling some really good tourrette's humor via anecdote if that makes you feel any better.
Posted by: PissBoy at January 25, 2008 3:30 PM
I don't know Pissboy, did you not watch Office Space? Sometimes, yes, it is right to wish something like that on your computer. As long as you have a backup.
Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at January 25, 2008 3:41 PM
Seen Office Space? My whole life is a cube...bland, geometric, and unfunny, sort of like a Dilbert comic. (
...Made it ma!!!! Top of the world!!!!!
Posted by: PissBoy at January 25, 2008 3:54 PM
That's it! That's fucking it! This shit has finally made me snap. And it's all fucking Dilbert's fault. His unfunny fucking comic strip poisoned my post. Why has this site been a pain in the ass today?!!?!! Fuck that shit. I'm cuttin' a mothafucka.
...NOW.
Posted by: PissBoy at January 25, 2008 4:07 PM
um...
Does anything... uh... forcible, happen to this Towelhead character? Because I'm afraid my poor constitution can't take that sort of scene, or even off-screen audio situation. Better than caffeine for Not Sleeping For Four Days Straight.
Posted by: that bees chick at January 25, 2008 4:19 PM
And the Pissboy we know and love (and fear) is back.
Posted by: PaddyDog at January 25, 2008 4:33 PM
Indeed, PaddyDog. Once again, all is right with the world.
Although I think it wouldn't hurt the thread to have a screaming run-through by Vermillion, with Zombie TK and Zombie 'Bama hot on his heels...
Posted by: pinkcheese at January 25, 2008 5:05 PM
I'm prefacing my comment with: I understand the crucial difference between organic and gradual development of sexuality in adolescents and predatory, forcible sexual advances ON adolescents. I also understand that 10-year-olds plastering their asses with the word "Juicy" is despicable and grotesque (and not any sexuality worth growing into at all, if you ask me).
That said, there's some decent commentary on the sexualization of adolescents in this feministing piece http://feministing.com/archives/008467.html#comments.
I do believe, however, that the article includes 16-18-year-olds under the umbrella of adolescence. And yes, I do understand how that makes a difference.
Posted by: becca at January 25, 2008 5:14 PM
Pissboy and thatbeeschick: I'll respond when I have decent web access. My berry isn't up to the task. My objections are complicated. If it were an "m" word level issue that bothered me, I wouldn't even raise it, because the film was excellent in many ways. But I'm strongly in favor of expansion of capital punishment to sex crimes against children, and I felt this film went too far, and in a very harmful way. The Q/A pushed me over the edge, the arrogant pricks.
Posted by: Ted Boynton at January 25, 2008 6:02 PM
Well hell, Pissboy, PaddyDog, and others that have yet to post, plus ScarletKnight, twig, Daphne (-yeah I ain't forgot you-), Dakaron & bees chick- all of your commentaries were most pleasant and entertaining to read, as usual, and well making up for the absence of my other favorite reviewers commenting on an event that's already happened- that's what keeps me coming back, and spending hours just writing and proof-reading a Comment before I post it, so well-read as y'all are.
I wish all of the Pajiba reviewers an excellent weekend at Sundance, and all of you 'others' for your excellent posts this past year, which the Pajiban staff has so generously recognized in their communications to the exact posters who make their site that much more entertaining from literally 'picking them out from the crowd' to allowing them to actually contribute directly (elitist, my ass!) to this most excellent site.
From the choices they've made- among them Ranylt, Claude, TK, Agent Bedhead, et al, I have no reasonable argument against their selections, and have yet to find a review I deem as 'totally non-Pajiban'.
In Modern English, I'm saying all youse 'chosen' guys have gotten the Pajiba-vibe absolutely right, and it's an uplifting testament to all of the regular writers that they recognize such.
And this time, without brackets: Elitist? MY ASS!!
Hi, I'm Tony and I'm an addict. I so much want to be part of this group, please forgive if I miss a few meetings.
Just a warning, I'm still prepared to let loose on the 'Untraceable' review, featuring the goddess of all modern film, Diane Lane (I'll explain later).
Killing a (big) bottle of wine by 6:45pm is a rarity for me, but the sleep it offers ahead is most welcome nowadays. So I'll check in later...
Take care, my friends, and keep those excellent comments coming- to parphrase Frazier: "I'm reading"...
Posted by: TMax at January 25, 2008 6:50 PM
Wow. I guess I am the only one here who didn't drink the Alan Ball Kool-Aid. I find his work good but not great and certainly not worthy of unending praise. "American Beauty" has become one of those movies that I enjoyed the first time I saw it, but subsequent viewings are increasingly disappointing. Interesting to find that Alan Ball, as you described him live and in the flesh, is exactly how I imagined him.
Ted: I'm in the camp of "Kill 'em all and lot God sort 'em out" when it comes to child predators. As of your discomfort with the scenes in "Towelhead", I'll have to hold off my judgment until I actually see the movie, but my first reaction was to think of "Lolita" and Adrian Lynne's off-the-mark adaptation.
There's no reason why a filmmaker has to be insistent on regurgitating every prurient detail of a novel or a story simply in the name of "artistic integrity". I have to question whether or not their intentions were artistic or commercial-the more provocative a film the greater the publicity and in some people's mind, the more a film is worthy of laud. Think of Solondz's "Happiness". The audience was well aware of the atrocities committed by Dylan Baker's character, and Solondz (showing some uncharacteristic restraint) didn't have to splash any salacious details all over the screen.
Certainly this issue is larger and more complex than my bibble-babblings on a comment thread can address.
I feel for you on this one; when it comes to children (A girl of thirteen, even as a character in a movie, is still a child to me.) I get a little sanctimonious too. What seems to cheese me off is Ball's insistence on taking some sort of artistic high road as if the question shouldn't even arise, but it doesn't surprise me.
Finally, I am SO all about "Phoebe in Wonderland" not just because it sounds fabulous, but because I too have an Alice Affliction. A well-documented, long-standing obsession with all things Alice. I even have Alice ink.
Off to lurch about until I catch Claude.
cough. hack.
[clearing throat]
Guuuuuuhhhhhhh....
Posted by: Alabamapink at January 25, 2008 8:46 PM
I felt creeped out by American Beauty. It skeeved me to no end watching Kevin Spacey's character obsessing over the 16 year old classmate of his daughter. So I don't know if I could handle the sexual awakening of a 13 year old girl. I'm a prude. Sue me.
But I love how socalled stalks Patricia Clarkson, his wife's secret twin. I would like to think that my husband adores Halle Berry because she looks just like me. Not gonna happen.
Posted by: greer at January 25, 2008 9:24 PM
Poor Vermillion - nowhere is safe.
As for Alan Ball, I can't comment on him - never saw AB, and never had the desire. Strictly for the reasons greer stated.
Posted by: Daphne at January 25, 2008 10:21 PM
Jeebus, Aaron Eckhart! What hair colour do you call that?! It's halfway to somewhere but it's definitely not the place to stop! Make another appointment. You're tampering with your natural hotness.
Posted by: Loob at January 27, 2008 2:14 AM
You were supposed to be skeeved out by Lester openly lusting after a teenager, esp. since he does it in front of his own daughter. Because 40-something men wanting to screw teenaged girls are creepy. Sounds like Spacey nailed that one (so to speak).
RE the sex scene in the movie none of us have seen: eh, I guess I'd have to see it, or maybe just read more reviews of it, maybe from a female perspective. No offense intended. If the film featured the mutilation of some guy's testicles and female reviewers said they had no problem with that, I'd want to hear some input from people who have testicles.
Posted by: Slash at January 27, 2008 11:52 PM
Slash: I actually think the male reaction is more interesting in this particular case, because Ted seems to be saying that he (as a male) felt targetted by the scene: "This is aimed at me, this is supposed to turn me on." I obviously haven't seen the movie in question but the fact that it is the absolutely gorgeous (and not in a "what a pretty little girl" kind of way, you know) Summer Bishil performing the scenes makes it hard for me to believe that the filmmaker wasn't trying to titillate his male audience. (Or at the very least, he was aware that such a reaction was possible or probable.) Scenes of female masturbation are ALWAYS going to have that effect on many male viewers, whether they want to admit it or not - and it is irresponsible of the filmmakers to not address this.
American Beauty is a decent comp, but doesn't go far enough because there is a HUGE difference between a 16-year old and a 13-year old as far as their proximity to adulthood, in my opinion.
Posted by: S.K. at January 28, 2008 10:01 AM
RE "I obviously haven't seen the movie in question but the fact that it is the absolutely gorgeous (and not in a "what a pretty little girl" kind of way, you know) Summer Bishil performing the scenes makes it hard for me to believe that the filmmaker wasn't trying to titillate his male audience."
I guess I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that while he undoubtedly knows it would titillate (because let's face it, many men are titillated by underage girls, whether they're gorgeous or not; in fact, it seems that what many of them find most titillating is that the girls in question aren't "legal"), it's hard to portray a predatory relationship between an underage girl and an adult man in a way that won't titillate someone. If she were 5, there are undoubtedly some sick fuckers out there who would find it a turn-on.
I liked "American Beauty," loved "Six Feet Under," I'm willing to give Ball the benefit of the doubt here (again, not having seen the movie in question). I don't see why the male reaction would be more interesting. I imagine more females than males in this country have experienced predatory behavior in their teens coming from adult men and might be more able to judge, "Yeah, that's crossing a line into child porn." At least from the description, Ball seems to be portraying it as a destructive thing. He's not making the kid fucker the hero of the story, he's a creepy dude. If that's the reaction Ted had, maybe Ball succeeded. You're not supposed to feel, "She looks good, I'd like to have me some of that," you're supposed to think, "Man, what a scumbag." You're supposed to be uncomfortable. There's that fairly long space between puberty and "legal" that a lot of child molestors take advantage of. The sexualization of much younger children bothers me more than this. Mabye I'll change my mind after I see it.
Posted by: Slash at January 28, 2008 1:05 PM
