Away We Go (Sam Mendes)

[Watashi]

Trailer (http://movies.yahoo.com/premieres/12515037/)

Eh.

[Spinal]

I don't see any content here that is interesting or important enough to be made into a feature film, let alone one with a somber, moody folk song playing during its trailer. People having a baby. Big whoop.

[Sven]

It's things like this that make me hate the interests of my generation. I demand a halt on cutesy, childlike drawings (see also: every single indie album cover of the past several years), sensitive folk songs with moody vocals, movies where young adults are adorably mischievous, and Dave Eggers.

[Spinal]

There is one element of this movie that interests me: Maya Rudolph. Definitely want to see her getting some leading film roles.

[Sycophant]

It's Sam Mendes. I'll give it a shot. (Have not watched trailer.)

[Sven]

And the movie's title is totally cribbed from the last line of Punch-Drunk Love (PTA-Rudolph conxn = intensify hipster cred). Love that film, but the last line always bugged me.

However, like Spinal, one thing interests me: Janney. Though she wasn't able to get me to see Juno, so I dunno...

[Ezee E]

Sam Mendes did that? Ew.

Alison Janney looks good though.

[Spinal]

However, like Spinal, one thing interests me: Janney. Though she wasn't able to get me to see Juno, so I dunno...

Janney has one of the worst characters in Juno. But she has been pretty good in other stuff I've seen, so I'll give her a pass.

[Sven]

I think it's time to ask the question: what is the cinema of Sam Mendes? Like, what's his angle? The best I can come up with is a unified theme of expensively-lit photography.

I should probably stay out of this thread now.

[Sycophant]

I've seen Janney in bad movies playing stupid characters, but I'd never ascribe the fault to Janney.

[Ezee E]

I think it's time to ask the question: what is the cinema of Sam Mendes? Like, what's his angle? The best I can come up with is a unified theme of expensively-lit photography.

I should probably stay out of this thread now.
I'd say there's a unified theme of a character(s) disappointed with the world, and especially the people around them.

[Watashi]

I think Allison Janney has one of the sexiest voices ever.

[Watashi]

I wanna give Jarhead another go, cause I think a second viewing would be leave better marks.

Mendes still isn't gonna top Road to Perdition though.

[Spinal]

DID YOU KNOW?

Lead actor John Krasinski will go to any lengths to get himself into character for a challenging role. For this film, he grew his own facial hair!

FACT!

[Watashi]

I also love the indie trend of adding beard to main character = quirky.

[Ezee E]

I've loved everything he's done. This preview looks awful though.

[Spinal]

I also love the indie trend of adding beard to main character = quirky.

DID YOU KNOW?

In order to gain insight into the art of quirky, bearded indie film acting, John Krasinski watched Office castmate Steve Carell's turn in 2006's sleeper hit, Little Miss Sunshine!

FACT!

[Boner M]

Somebody just start a 'Movies White People Like' blog already.

[DavidSeven]

Somebody just start a 'Movies White People Like' blog already.

Entry #1: Sam Mendes's entire filmography.

Seriously, does this guy have anything interesting to say about experiences that aren't wholly exclusive to bored white people?

He should stick to making gangster films with good lighting.

[Sycophant]

Seriously, does this guy have anything interesting to say about experiences that aren't wholly exclusive to bored white people?Well, if he doesn't, then I'm glad he's not trying to.

[chrisnu]

"Indie" poop.

[Ezee E]

Entry #1: Sam Mendes's entire filmography.

Seriously, does this guy have anything interesting to say about experiences that aren't wholly exclusive to bored white people?

He should stick to making gangster films with good lighting.
Jarhead.

[Sven]

Jarhead.

Nah. While it is his best movie, it's most certainly about aggressive white young males who don't know what to do with their lives.

[Ezee E]

Nah. While it is his best movie, it's most certainly about aggressive white young males who don't know what to do with their lives.
That's sort of the military in general for most people don't you think?

[Winston*]

That looks more boring than the window wiper movie. I won't see Revolutionary Road and I won't see see this.

[Spinal]

Why are we criticizing a white person for making films about white people, bored or otherwise? Not sure what that has to do with the value of Mendes' films.

[Winston*]

Can we criticise Mendes for making movies that are overwrought and shallow?

[Spinal]

Can we criticise Mendes for making movies that are overwrought and shallow?

Absolutely. Being overwrought and shallow transcends race.

[transmogrifier]

Did I see Melanie Lynskey?

Could be good. Could be bad. Trailer doesn't give much indication. Some interesting actors though.

[Amnesiac]

In what ways are Mendes' films "overwrought"?

[Qrazy]

Only on Match-cut could individuals cite good lighting in order to slight.

[DavidSeven]

Why are we criticizing a white person for making films about white people, bored or otherwise? Not sure what that has to do with the value of Mendes' films.

Just saying his worldview is narrow, and his films tackle themes and stories that don't seem to transcend the "bored white" experience. I don't think they're very interesting. The Coens and PTA make films "about" white people, but their films actually do transcend race and are at least attempting to be more about the human experience (or, at the very least, the American experience).

[DavidSeven]

Only on Match-cut could individuals cite good lighting in order to slight.

Huh? No slight. I love Road to Perdition.

[Ezee E]

Does Woody Allen fall into the same category then? Don't say Vicki Cristina Barcelona changes anything, because it's about white women's curiosity more than Javier Bardem really.

[DavidSeven]

Does Woody Allen fall into the same category then? Don't say Vicki Cristina Barcelona changes anything, because it's about white women's curiosity more than Javier Bardem really.

I think the difference is that Allen's films carry a self-mocking tone while Mendes's films have this pretense of weightiness. If Mendes was less earnest in expressing this themes, it wouldn't be so bothersome.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think the difference is that Allen's films carry a self-mocking tone while Mendes's films have this pretense of weightiness. If Mendes was less earnest in expressing this themes, it wouldn't be so bothersome.

I think you're falling into blanket statement area here. There was no mocking in Interiors, or Match Point, or Cassandra's Dream (so I'm told), or several other of Allen's films. I think the only difference is that Woody has made comedies and Mendes hasn't.

As for this trailer, it's pretty poor, but I haven't given up hope. It has an intriguing cast. Gaffigan is a highlight for me.

[DavidSeven]

I think you're falling into blanket statement area here. There was no mocking in Interiors, or Match Point, or Cassandra's Dream (so I'm told), or several other of Allen's films. I think the only difference is that Woody has made comedies and Mendes hasn't.

I don't think Match Point is very interesting at all. Haven't seen the other two. So there you go.

Edit: in any event, I think Allen is more concerned with commenting on/criticizing the people in the status quo (a more universal viewpoint) while Mendes is concerned with commenting on/criticizing being a part of the status quo itself (a more alienating viewpoint).

[Kurosawa Fan]

I don't think Match Point is very interesting at all. Haven't seen the other two. So there you go.

Well, I thought Interiors was awful, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't self-mocking, which was your stated opinion about what separates Allen and Mendes insomuch as their films are about "bored white people".

[Bosco B Thug]

Only on Match-cut could individuals cite good lighting in order to slight. I love it. I do. :)

[DavidSeven]

Well, I thought Interiors was awful, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't self-mocking, which was your stated opinion about what separates Allen and Mendes insomuch as their films are about "bored white people".

OK. A better statement of my view is "what separates Allen's good films from Mendes's bad films is..."

[transmogrifier]

Well, I thought Interiors was awful, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't self-mocking, which was your stated opinion about what separates Allen and Mendes insomuch as their films are about "bored white people".

Interiors R0xxers my s0xxers!

[Sycophant]

I <3 Interiors and think that Revolutionary Road was about fifteen minutes of cutting away from a great film.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Interiors R0xxers my s0xxers!

Ugh. That movie was filled with shallow, phony posturing. It wasn't Bergman-lite, it was Bergman-empty.

[Sven]

Only on Match-cut could individuals cite good lighting in order to slight.

Notice the way my statement emphasized "expensive" rather than "good." Don't know if you were referring at all to my own voiced derision, but I feel I should defend my comment anyway.

[Ezee E]

OK. A better statement of my view is "what separates Allen's good films from Mendes's bad films is..."
You have a great point with the self-mocking. Even though you didn't like Match Point, it is filled with a self-mockery of the high class.

[Grouchy]

White people or not, that trailer makes the movie look embarassingly bad.

[Qrazy]

Huh? No slight. I love Road to Perdition.

Oh my mistake, that's my favorite from him as well.

[number8]

That's sort of the military in general for most people don't you think?

I don't think so. For a lot of underprivileged African-Americans and Latinos, they see the military as a way out of the ghettos and a real chance to obtaining some kind of future.

I'm not saying that couldn't be the case for white people too, but Sven is right in that Gyllenhaal's character in Jarhead is more representative of the bored and aimless white middle-class.

[Qrazy]

Notice the way my statement emphasized "expensive" rather than "good." Don't know if you were referring at all to my own voiced derision, but I feel I should defend my comment anyway.

Conrad Hall's corpse would like a word with you.

[ledfloyd]

has anyone seen this? for some reason i'm curious.

[Pop Trash]

has anyone seen this? for some reason i'm curious.
I have! It was OK. It had some tonal inconsistencies ranging from putting all the characters (minus our two heroes) up to mocking condescension then back to sentimentality and so forth. However, it is often fairly funny (especially the rather brilliant Maggie Gyllenhaal scenes) and Maya Rudolph is quite good in it.

[trotchky]

Just saying his worldview is narrow, and his films tackle themes and stories that don't seem to transcend the "bored white" experience. I don't think they're very interesting. The Coens and PTA make films "about" white people, but their films actually do transcend race and are at least attempting to be more about the human experience (or, at the very least, the American experience).

The Coens and PTA make movies that white people star in. That doesn't mean they're "about" white people. This same criticism is often leveled at Sophia Coppola and Wes Anderson it makes no sense to me. It's fine if you find movies about unhappy white people boring, but that doesn't make them any less valid. Would these directors have a less narrow worldview if they tried to tackle the "poor black experience"? I can only imagine such a film being a disaster. They make movies about what they know. There's nothing wrong with that.

Furthermore, "the American experience" is way too varied to expect a single director to encompass it in a single picture, and it's naive to think there is such a thing as a shared American experience. Why should a director try to "transcend" race? The experience of a black person in America is going to be vastly difference than the experience of a white person in America. There are things to be said about the human condition in general, but those things are no less important than the reality of a particular demographic, no matter how specific (I'm thinking of Gummo's treatment of "white trash" here).

[Lucky]

Well, that was an enjoyable film that was funnier than I expected. Aside from Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance, the syrup speech was the best thing about the movie.

[NickGlass]

It's dreadful. It's essentially a montage of absurd caricatures and cutaway deadpan reaction shots.

Sample scene:


WACKY SUPPORTING CHARACTER
I'm saying something ridiculous that an actual person would probably never say but it seems funny in this setting because--and, oh look, you got fat. Me and my spouse are so happy.

Let it be known that WACKY SUPPORTING CHARACTER and their spouse are actually not happy, but stuck in a lifeless marriage of rigid gender roles and everything that makes stupid Americans bad people.

CUT TO:

KRANSINKI and RUDOLPH staring at them, blankly and condescendingly--go go gadget deadpan!


RUDOLPH
I'm not fat, I'm pregnant.

KRASINSKI
Um, yeah. Away we go.

Repeat this scenario--in the film, it's just this stretched over 25 minutes--at least three times, mixing in an obnoxious loudmouth, an obnoxious rich liberal, and an obnoxious/despondent/confused/Canadian married couple.

[Ezee E]

Damn. If you read NickGlass' post, you've read the script for the movie, because it's dead on.

Awful, awful movie. Maggie Gylenhaal is funny at first, but then they expand that bit for fifteen more minutes than it needs to be.

Krasinski and Rudolph are not to blame here. They do what they can with the role, but it's such a silly script, that there really isn't much they can do.

Sam Mendes, what the hell? This is unlike anything he's done before. You'd think it's a completely different director.

[Mara]

This struck me as the sort of film that I would like better than most Match Cutters.

I was wrong.

[Ivan Drago]

But...it stars Jim from The Office and PTA's girlfriend. What could be bad about it?