MOVIE CLUB: BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren; Eric Baker
Subject: If all else fails, blame the media

First off, thanks to Eric for mentioning yesterday's release of 'Glengarry Glen Ross' on DVD. I had intended to bring it up on Monday. It's about time Artisan got around to giving 'Glengarry' the full Special Edition treatment. The absence of a cast commentary is disappointing -- Pacino, Harris, Arkin, Spacey, any of those guys would be great -- but I'll be curious to see what director James Foley has to say in his commentary since I believe 'Glengarry' is the best adaptation of a Mamet play and/or screenplay, even better than any of Mamet's own renditions. On to 'Columbine'...I have to admit that I was just as surprised as 'Dazed and Confused' to see Sam rate 'Bowling for Columbine' as his #7 film of the year after he spent the majority of his post criticizing it. In Sam's defense, I think this apparent contradiction comes back to the issue of expectations. When you go into a movie expecting it to be great and then find that it is merely "good," or even "really good," you can't help but point out all of the flaws because that's all you noticed -- all the things that kept it from being what you hoped it would be. Jonathan Rosenbaum in the Chicago Reader called 'Columbine' Moore's "best film to date," a position that I do not share, unfortunately, although I found it to be extremely provocative and often times very funny. As Eric said, the sequence where we see the actual footage of the Columbine massacre combined with the audio from the 911 calls was very effective. I'd go so far as to call it harrowing because it made me feel uneasy watching it, even with the surveillance video from inside the school being mostly blurry and unrevealing. My problem with 'Columbine' in comparison to 'Roger and Me' is the fact that Moore's latest effort seems a tad too didactic. [I know, Michael Moore? Didactic?] With 'Roger and Me' Moore used his voice-over primarily to provide an ironic counterpoint to what we were seeing and hearing on screen. And he used the camera to show us just how bad things had become in Flint. Here he just seems to be preaching most of the time -- telling us why things are so messed up instead of showing us. What surprised me most about the movie is that it really is not at all an indictment of the NRA, as 'The Deacon fdba Judge Dredd' points out in the Feedback Forum. My feeling is that Moore may have initially had in mind a documentary that ridiculed the NRA, but as he progressed he shifted his target to a much larger, powerful and nebulous group -- the media. The NRA doesn't come off even half as dirty in the movie as the many local TV news stations Moore shows footage of. Following the lead of Prof. Barry Glassner's book, 'The Culture of Fear', Moore basically tries to pin the blame for our obsession with guns on our obsession with fear, which is caused by media outlets who try to get us to watch their newscasts by promoting stories that "just might save our life," and who devote increasing amounts of time to crime despite the fact that the crime rate in this country has been consistently declining for years. Moore almost pulls it off, too. He pretty easily refutes the usual arguments given for why Americans kill over 11,000 people a year with guns while other free nations average only a few hundred such deaths -- that our country has a more violent history (compared to whom? the Germans?) and we have more access to guns (as Moore shows, in Canada you can get a gun just as easily as you can here). And yet, something about blaming the media just rubs me the wrong way. It seems akin to blaming rockers like Marilyn Manson (who proves again in the movie, as he has in many interviews I've seen with him, just how intelligent he is; watch a clip of Moore's interview with Manson here) for kids shooting up schools. Moore clearly doesn't believe artists should be blamed for actions taken by people who listen to their music, but then isn't a CD, or book, or movie just another form of media? I understand the distinction Moore is trying to draw, but it still seems like we're blaming a bogeyman -- one who, unlike Roger Smith, can't actually be held accountable since who really is "the media"? I do want to take issues with some of Sam's comments. First, he describes Moore's tone as being "caustic." I'm not sure I agree. Moore seemed incredibly restrained to me, much more so than in 'Roger and Me' and his bits on 'TV Nation'. He appeared far less intent on making people look bad and more interested in trying to get legitimate answers to his questions. This is especially true in the over-hyped interview with Charlton Heston at the end. There's no doubt that Heston comes off as incredibly stupid and, well, old. But Sam says that Moore "bully and baits" the NRA figurehead, whereas I sincerely feel that Moore asks his questions with as much diplomacy and genuine curiousity as he can muster. 'Columbine' may lack the narrative focus that 'Roger and Me' did, but I respect Moore's ambition. I'm still thinking about certain issues he raised the next day. And hey, any movie these days that you didn't forget as soon as you exited the theater has to be pretty decent.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE CLUB: BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE
From: Eric Baker
To: Sam Hallgren; Adam Kempenaar
Subject: Happiness is a Movie About Warm Guns

Lot of chatter about this one in the Feedback Forum, and I think it might be more fruitful to start with some of the arguments posed there. First, I agree with 'South of 8 Mile' that Moore is a better filmmaker than he is writer. But I like Sam's comment about seeing the movie over a month ago, and his memory of it being scarred by certain things. His critique of the film is blatantly honest and on-target, I believe it's just a matter of whether these things bother the viewer. Myself, it was the night of my grandmother's funeral, and maybe that clouded my judgment a little, plus there had to be bad air quality in the theater, because it got a little misty in there somewhere. The movie does ramble, seemingly from one subject to another, much like my missives on this site. But I was entertained by all of them, to go full circle to Adam's original question about Moore. Moore realizes his limitations, and I think it's healthy he sets a goal of merely amusing an audience. If he starts setting out with the expressed goal, rather than just a vague hope, of changing the hearts and minds of Americans with his movies, he's bound to be disappointed, not to mention his movies won't be as funny. It's true that the best segments in the movie are when Moore is riffing on the media, interviewing people from different cultures as to what the big differences are that explain America's disproportionate amount of gun violence. But I don't know if Moore can make a whole movie on just that subject. Sam points out that the most egregious breakdowns are when Moore starts crusading, first against K-Mart and then Charlton Heston. I see this as a part of Moore's psyche: he has achieved fame, starting with "Roger and Me" and including his books and website and TV appearances (whatever happened to "TV Nation?") with his little guy against the corporate "evildoers" (nod to Bush) mindset. And when all else fails, he's going to go back to what worked for him. And it's true he did stage the K-Mart stunt, and probably the interview with Heston, just to prop himself up and get good footage for his movies. Yet like Sam, and I gather 'South of 8 Mile', I have no problem with this behavior. For one thing, no one else is doing it. And by and large, it is a fascinating watch. But the main reason comes down to the question of exploitation that has come up in several Feedback Forum posts: these are people who are used to dealing with the media. In fact, they typically use the media to push an agenda for a product or cause they support, and now Moore is just turning the tables. I don't know if the Heston interview would have been included if not for his gaffe, but I think most people understand what he was trying to say, even though he said it with his foot in his mouth. The case isn't so simple when it is Terry Nichols' brother or the "Rabbits: pet or meat" lady. These people aren't used to TV cameras in their faces and to a certain extent audiences are laughing at their shortcomings. Still, I don't get the feeling Moore is exploiting them. I don't know how many people Moore had to interview before he got these choice cuts, but from my own journalism experience I would guess hours. And sometimes subjects just say great, uncoerced quotes on the record and you can't do anything but look up to the heavens and smile. At the very least, everyone in "Columbine" added something to the grand, messy picture Moore was painting. It's exploitation of another sort when Moore interstitially splices audio excerpts and video of the actual massacre, but man is it effective. At least for me, but I can't shake Sam's initial declaration that a conservative wouldn't sit through 5 minutes of this film. I have to think he is correct, mainly because Moore is so in-your-face, though I still maintain his movies are mainly humorous. I'd like to think I'd sit through a movie on tax cuts if it was done well; you have to do something with this subject matter otherwise you've got "The Sorrow and The Pity," and nobody wants that again. I think we're all in agreement about "I Am Trying to Break Your Heart," I just don't know how much it's going to appeal to someone not familiar with Wilco's music. Jones certainly stays behind the camera, but I don't know that I'd call his portrayal objective, though it certainly is moreso than Moore's movie. And as Adam points out, I think that's a good thing. The documentarian obviously has a viewpoint, there's nothing wrong with letting the viewer know what that is. Finally, I have to mention that the DVD for "Glengarry Glen Ross," one of the greatest films of the 90s, finally came out, and if Adam doesn't already own it he has changed since he moved to Chicago. A-Always B-Be C-Closing. Always Be Closing.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE CLUB: BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar; Eric Baker
Subject: Moore Than Enough

I may be wrong (and couldn't we all start every post this way?), but I would conjecture that most documentaries get made because the director already has some opinion about the subject, whether it be good, bad or conflicted. Sam Jones isn't choosing to spend months of his time with Papa Roach or Nelly or Shania Twain. Granted, it could be said that Wilco was an "important band" at an "important stage of its career," but this "importance" falls away pretty quickly when placed in a more global context. Jones spends time with Wilco because, at the very least, he respects the band. Then again, the very thing that makes "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart" so dramatically interesting, the split of Tweedy and Bennett that took place during Jones's filming, may be less "luck," as Adam describes it, and more brilliant intuition. Tweedy's break with Bennett was not his first public split with a band member. The first took place almost a decade ago, when Tweedy and present Son Volt frontman Jay Farrar split up their seminal alt-country group Uncle Tupelo after four years and three albums together. Tweedy also famously threw out the original recordings that made up Wilco's last album "Summerteeth" and started from scratch. Jones was very likely a fan of Wilco's; even more likely, he knew that he would be entering a volatile recording environment. He may have gotten more than he expected (or hoped), but I think it's safe to say that he was looking for a story, not just an opportunity to hang with his idols. I haven't seen "I Am Trying to Break Your Heart," but it's my understanding that Sam Jones stays behind the camera. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, for Michael Moore. What worked so well in "Roger and Me" has become less and less effective over the course of a decade. "Bowling for Columbine" is a frequently provocative, moving and insightful documentary; but it is undermined by Moore's sloppy, shoot-from-the-hip documentary style. What starts as an easy attack on the NRA and the gun culture it promotes, becomes an effective riff on America's media-sponsored paranoia. But then he strays from this very interesting idea to bully and bait the aging NRA figurehead Charlton Heston. The tone of the film (and of Moore) is so caustic and faux-naive that it will ten times out of ten fail to engage a dialogue between opposing sides of the gun control issue. And isn't this more important than preaching to the choir? I couldn't be a stronger advocate of gun control, and yet I found myself frequently turned off by Moore's style. Perhaps the most telling moment for me took place when, with two Columbine shooting victims, Moore goes to KMart's Michigan Headquarters and tries to return the bullets (which were originally purchased at KMart) that were still lodged in one of the boys' bodies. Moore sets up the scene as a chance to show off corporate greed and insensitivity -- while at the same time showing himself to be a public-spirited martyr. Instead, in a shocking turn of events, KMart actually agrees to stop selling bullets within x amount of months (perhaps, being on the verge of bankruptcy as they were, they had nothing to lose). Moore is shocked. If I were a cynical person, I would say that he was just as disappointed as he was shocked. And yet, despite all of my criticism of Moore and his film, I support what he does, and I liked the film more than I disliked it. Moore is doing what no one else in the big-money entertainment industry is doing. He's our big, loud, funny, occasionally irritating conscience. I think that a more effective, less-conflicted film could be made from the raw material that Moore shot, but if "Bowling for Columbine" is what we get, so be it. I don't think a single gun rights supporter would sit through more than 5 minutes of this thing; but man does it get my liberal blood boiling. For the record, and this should really irritate people in the Feedback Forum considering how much time I spent trashing this movie, it stands at #7 on my films of the year. One question: do either of you have any trouble putting documentaries in the same category as fiction films, as in the case of a year-end best list? It didn't seem fair to compare "The Bourne Identity" with "Columbine." Thoughts? Also, quickly: last night I saw "Tully" (a small independent film that has been waiting for distribution since 2000) and "Heaven" (Tom "Run Lola Run" Tykwer's first English-language feature, based on an unproduced script by Krzysztof "Trois Couleurs" Kieslowski). I wanted "Tully" to be better than it was. I tried not to have expectations, but I wanted it to be the kind of perfect small picture that reminds you how a simple story and simple acting can be so much more powerful than big budget extravaganzas. The dialogue was a little clumsy. The acting was decent, but not revelatory. And the story was a little contrived. Still, it was nice. The kind of movie that might disappear off of a TV screen if you were to rent it; but seen in a theater, projected large across a big screen, the actors voices booming out of the stereo speakers, it took on a more profound aspect, and it won me over during its cathartic last 15 minutes. "Heaven," too, was flawed; but it was also somehow perfect. Tykwer is a master filmmaker. Compared to "Tully"'s leisurely pace and leisurely direction, "Heaven" felt immediate and certain. The plot of the film, like in Kieslowsi's other films, doesn't follow any familiar logic and is really just a means of contemplating philosophical questions and ethical dilemmas. This kind of ambition could weigh down some films beyond salvation -- as it did for me in Kieslowski's own "White" and "Red" (his "Blue" I found moving an intelligent) -- but "Heaven" found a nice balance, helped immeasurably by impeccable performances from Cate Blanchett and Giovanni Ribisi. And Tykwer is a visual master. The movie looks amazing and has some of the most memorable cinematic images I have seen in some time. One of my favorite films of the year.

MOVIE CLUB: BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren; Eric Baker
Subject: All apologies

My apologies to Sam, Eric and all CinemaScoped readers, but I did not get a chance to see Michael Moore's gun-control polemic 'Bowling for Columbine' this weekend. So, I will have to just sit on the sidelines while my esteemed colleagues get the discussion going. I'll jump in first thing tomorrow after seeing the movie tonight. But perhaps I can generate a starting off point -- When asked what action he would like to see taken as a result of his film in this interview on Zap2It.com, Moore says: ""If all I did was give people two hours of watching a great film, that would be enough right there as a filmmaker, because that's what I am. If I just wanted to make a political speech, I'd run for office. If I wanted to give a sermon about the evils of this or that, I'd go back to the seminary. But I'm a filmmaker. And I think it's enough these days because most movies suck. And I see them. I go to two or three movies a week. Where's the Kubrick? Where's the Scorsese? Where's the Frank Capra?" My question is: What's worse -- that Moore compares himself, albeit indirectly, to Kubrick and Scorsese? or that saying he is just a filmmaker who wants to entertain seems slightly, if not, completely, disingenuous?

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

I AM TRYING TO BREAK YOUR HEART - Sam Jones' documentary follows the band Wilco -- full disclosure: one of my favorite groups -- through the making and tumultuous release of their fourth album, 'Yankee Hotel Foxtrot'. The film actually showed on a few screens across the country back in August, but I just saw it last weekend here in Chicago and wanted to devote some space to it for two reasons: 1) As the end of the year approaches and chatter about top ten lists grows louder, 'I Am Trying' might just figure into my list somewhere. 2) It provides a nice segue into our Movie Club discussion beginning tomorrow about Michael Moore's documentary 'Bowling for Columbine'. In his pre-preemptive post earlier today, Eric Baker posed this intriguing question in relation to 'I Am Trying': "Is it possible to make a documentary about a band without slipping into hero worship? Presumably the director has got to be close to the band to get access in the first place." [Query for Eric: Are you saying this is a bad thing? Wouldn't that qualify as a subjective documentary, like several of the best documentaries you have seen? Is there a contradiction here?] According to the film's web site, the filmmakers produced 'I Am Trying' independently. "Neither Wilco nor their record company is financially involved in the film, making it a true documentary, rather than a glorified music video or EPK," the site reports. Then again, just because Jones got no financial support from the band or its management doesn't rule out the possibility that he is a huge fan of the band. And we could debate ad nauseam what a "true documentary" is. But the implication is that Jones and his crew set out to chronicle the band in action as objectively as possible -- minus all of the "hero worship," as Eric so nicely put it. Did they succeed? I say yes, primarily because the documentary doesn't shy away from exposing the flaws of its protagonists, Jay Bennett and Jeff Tweedy (more on them in a second), and does so in a fair and balanced fashion. At first I was conflicted about liking the movie so much because one could easily argue that it is no different than the recent Phish documentary, 'Bittersweet Motel', which I had a lukewarm reaction to, in that it focuses almost entirely on just one member of the band (lead singer/songwriter Tweedy, seen below) and never really efforts to reveal who these people are when they aren't making music.

But Jones had one thing that 'Bittersweet' director Todd Phillips didn't have, something every good documentarian has to have -- luck. Like Phillips, who followed Phish on tour through parts of 1997 and 1998, Jones merely set out to document a significant period in Wilco's career -- the recording of an album, albeit one that was being hailed as a major step forward for the band even before they had finished recording it. What he ended up capturing was arguably the biggest story of the year in the music industry as Wilco's label, Reprise Records (owned by Time Warner), deemed the album unworthy of release and subsequently dropped the band from its label, only to have Wilco sell the album to another label (Nonesuch) and watch it become a relatively huge hit. And the best part of it all is that Nonesuch's parent company is, you guessed it, Time Warner -- an ironic twist that the documentary acknowledges in the end but probably doesn't fully exploit, as this Slate article contends. But the drama doesn't stop there. Shortly after the album is finished, guitarist/keyboardist Bennett, who co-wrote much of the album with Tweedy, was asked to leave the band. I read one review that described Tweedy as taking passive-aggressiveness to a new level and, well, he couldn't be more passive-aggressive if he was lobbing hand grenades while sipping kahlua from a hammock. When asked to explain Bennett's departure, Tweedy can't even admit that he's the one who asked him to leave, saying instead that "you'd have to ask Jay why he left the band." There never is any kind of knock-down, drag-out fight between Bennett (pictured below during recording) and Tweedy -- this isn't Oasis, after all -- just the typical grumblings and misunderstandings that occur between two headstrong, creative people.

If Jones really wanted to make simply a pro-Wilco documentary, he could have very easily aligned himself with Tweedy and let Bennett, who is, admittedly, kind of annoying, come across as the bad guy. As it is, Tweedy ends up looking like a little dictator, someone who can't stand anyone else sharing his credit. Although Bennett's explanation for his dismissal comes off as a bit whiny, Jones lends some credence to Bennett's claim that Tweedy is only interested in surrounding himself with sycophants by intercutting Bennett's dialogue with footage of Tweedy playing the guitar and singing in a coffee-house setting with the other three Wilco members looking on adoringly. But even with all of this drama, 'I Am Trying' is ultimately about the music and the making of one of the best rock albums in recent memory. If you don't agree with this claim, however, chances are you won't find the movie to be half as fascinating as I did.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE CLUB: 8 MILE and others
From: Eric Baker
To: Adam Kempenaar; Sam Hallgren
Subject: Loose Ends

Thought I should tie some things up before the subjects get too unwieldy for mere posts. First off, I apologize for the Brittany Murphy comments: not since Jennifer Connelly at the Oscars has someone fallen so far in such a short span of time. She looked unhealthy in a Lara Flynn Boyle kind of way on 'SNL.' She's a decent actress but without movie makeup and movie lighting, nothing's going on there. I once found her attractive, but as Ash would say, "You got ugly, baby." Moving on, I'm not sure what Adam means by cartoonish (Is she Jim Carrey?), but I don't have any problem with a transplanted Southern drawl, since both Basinger and Debbie Mathers are from the South. Hers is a flawed character, but at least it was a character. I won't rehash my feelings about Eminem's acting, but watching Rabbit throughout the movie was like looking into an abyss: there was nothing there. FYI -- Mr. Mathers will be doing lines at the West Hollywood Actors Troupe later tonight, and I'm not talking about a script reading. But then I'm too dense to grasp subtle acting (what about Brendan Fraser? He just stands there in "Encino Man.") so I could be wrong. I'm glad I've developed "fans" in the Feedback Forum. Of course, there is no qualification to blog about movies; what I write is mainly opinion, just as are your posts, and a Movie Club is a discussion, not a posting of reviews. I have listened to Eminem's songs, and I'm glad he's believable in videos (probably a tongue-in-cheek comment), though as Sam points out, that is something completely different than movies. One important comment that dovetails the believable performance/are actors lying?/why should I care thread: on a fundamental level, I think I ask myself "Is this role believable?" And hopefully most of it is. But then I do ask why should I care about this character? Granted, it's not always about an actor's performance that generates interest, but bad acting can almost certainly kill any interest I might have in the resolution of a dilemma. I think Eminem was believable but I didn't care what happened to him and I disagree with Adam about his character. I don't think Rabbit has changed a lot, except in the sense that Rocky changed, and he doesn't really overcome anything or take responsibility in the end. Perhaps it's because I've read too much about Eminem's real-life story for me to be sucked into this idealized version of it. I hope the discussion continues in the Feedback Forum after more people have seen the movie. Enough of M&M. I'll give the big boss man the first shot at dissecting 'I Am Trying to Break Your Heart' and 'Bowling for Columbine,' but I might try to anticipate Movie Club topics by asking some questions. Is it possible to make a documentary about a band without slipping into hero worship? Presumably the director has got to be close to the band to get access in the first place. Does 'Bowling for Columbine' fit into either of your top 10 lists? I don't really have a process I go through like Sam, mine is more of a gut feeling, so I am likely to be partial to films seen more recently, but I love this movie. I found myself sitting through some of it thinking "Does Michael Moore exploit his subjects?" as Adam and I have had a few discussions about this, and I really don't believe he does. I don't think documentaries have to be objective, and I think several of the best are quite subjective. Talk amongst yourselves.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

COMING UP... - Monday afternoon I'll have a review up of the Wilco documentary 'I Am Trying To Break Your Heart' along with (hopefully) some comments on two other music documentaries I recently saw, 'Tribute' and 'Only The Strong Survive'. Tuesday: The Movie Club will resume with Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker and myself discussing Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' and Brian De Palma's 'Femme Fatale.'

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

RANDOM MUSINGS - As much as I hate to interrupt this Movie Club discussion of '8 Mile' (see posts below), which has been great fun I should add, I wanted to throw out a couple of observations. First, before seeing 'Femme Fatale' Monday night -- yeah, yeah, comments are coming soon -- there were three trailers that all looked promising. I'm not sure, but that has to be a first. I don't think I've ever been to a movie where all three trailers got me intrigued. The first was for 'Dreamcatcher', a Stephen King adaptation that isn't scheduled for release until April 4, 2003. You can learn everything you want to know about the movie at Greg's Previews, but I thought the trailer was surprisingly creepy. The film stars Morgan Freeman, Thomas Jane (who was great as Mickey Mantle in HBO's '*61', Tom Sizemore (I thought he had it written in his contract he could only play soldiers or cops?) and Timothy Olyphant. It's nothing I'm going to rush out and see, mind you, but compared to more recent King adaptations, this one could be decent -- especially when Lawrence Kasdan is directing and William Goldman is writing. Watch the trailer here. The second trailer was for 'The Recruit' (Jan. 31, 2002), a spy movie featuring Al Pacino, Colin Farrell and Bridget Moynahan. Basically, Pacino plays a CIA recruiter who taps Farrell to undergo training and become a secret agent. Moynahan plays Farrell's love interest who just may or may not be a double agent. From the trailer, Pacino seemed to be restraining himself -- none of the Col. Slade braggadocio were so accustomed to now -- and I'll always give Farrell the benefit of the doubt since 'Tigerland', even though his performance in 'Minority Report' was dreadfully irritating. But as I said here, that was more Spielberg's fault, not Farrell's. My one problem is that, as usual with most trailers these days, I think it gave too much away -- too much backstabbing and deception is revealed for a trailer. Why give it all away. Check it out for yourself here. Finally, there was the preview for Spike Jonze's 'Adaptation' (12/6 limited), written by 'Being John Malkovich' scribe Charlie Kauffman. If you're familiar with the movie at all, then you know about its somewhat complicated, deliciously post-modern plot, but here is a quick version from Greg's Previews: It's based on "the nonfiction novel, The Orchid Thief, by Susan Orlean, which is itself based upon a true story. The movie is also, oddly enough, based upon Charlie Kaufman's attempts to adapt the novel. That this book in particular is the object of Kaufman's adaptation may not be coincidental, as the novel is described as Susan Orlean's own journey to tell John Laroche's story. So, this movie is an adaptation (by Jonze) of a writer's (Kaufman's) adaptation, of a novel (by Orlean), which was based upon a true story (Laroche)." Got all that? An overweight, semi-afro-headed Nicolas Cage plays a dual role as both Charlie Kauffman (yes, the actual screenwriter is the main character) and his brother Donald. Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper also star. It should be one of the best films of the year -- oops, gotta watch those expectations. Watch the trailer here. * 'Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets' is garnering the same critical adoration as the first, 81% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, with many critics saying it's better than the first. I found the 'Sorcerer's Stone' to be tedious and boring, but then I'm not the target demo. Just as he did with the original, Roger Ebert gave 'Chamber' 4 stars. "The second in a planned series of seven Potter films is brimming with invention and new ideas, and its Hogwarts School seems to expand and deepen before our very eyes into a world large enough to conceal unguessable secrets." Sorry Rog, still not going to bother.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE CLUB: 8 MILE
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar; Eric Baker
Subject: In Defense of Good Acting

Just as watching a movie is a subjective experience, watching a performance in a movie is subjective as well. I like all sorts of movies, and if there's anything my favorite movies have in common, it's that they offer some element of surprise. That "surprise" has come in countless guises and has been the work of actors, writers, directors, composers, editors and cinematographers. But particularly actors. I am always surprised by an actor's honesty, whether it be comic or tragic. Great actors tell it like it is. But even this is a point of contention. I didn't believe Eminem in "8 Mile." Many people do (including Eric and Adam). As a point of reference, I think Al Pacino "lied" his way through most of the movies he's done in the 90s, including the film he won his only Oscar for (and excluding "Glengarry Glen Ross" and "The Insider"). "Lying" in a performance is different from "phoning in" a performance. I admire Eminem's effort in "8 Mile." I think he was very brave to take it on. But I don't think he was prepared to give as much of himself as he may have thought he was. To respond to Ben's opinion in the Feedback Forum: there may be exceptions, but a performance in a video is not acting. It's a performance. And it relies completely on a performer's charisma, which, as I mentioned in my initial thoughts on "8 Mile," Eminem has to spare. There are "actors" who build their careers on charisma and I don't think there's anything wrong with that (Brad Pitt, John Travolta, Mel Gibson, John Cusak). All of these guys are usually fun to watch as long as they're playing variations of their film personalities; but put them in a film that requires an honest emotional commitment and they just can't pull it off. Acting is hard. Being an honest actor is harder still. I don't blame De Niro for taking on all of these comedies as he moves into his golden years; he probably took years off his life for his performance in "Raging Bull" alone. Besides, I love "Meet the Parents." Bring on the sequel. As to my ranking of "8 Mile" the #13 movie of the year (and I actually ranked it #11, which puts it smack in the middle of all the films I've seen this year), which Ben asks me about in the Feedback Forum: the bottom half of my list contains 7 films that that I thought stunk; the 3 films between "8 Mile" and the films that get my vote as the worst movies of the year, sit behind "8 Mile" not because I enjoyed them less -- quite the opposite in all cases -- but because they were either more deeply flawed ("Panic Room" & "Spider-Man") and/or were just un-ambitious trifles ("My Big Fat Greek Wedding"). At the risk of outstaying my welcome in this post, I want to answer some of Adam's thoughts. I completely agree with his criticism of Andrew O'Hehir's top-ten explanation. To restrict a top-ten list to films you want to see again is limiting. I thought "Happiness" was a great movie, but, even after two years, I'm still not thrilled with the idea of revisiting it. At the same time, a film like that is the exception, and it would have made it on my top-ten list. And for the record, I think "In the Bedroom" is a flawed movie with some really good performances. And I probably would have left it off my list just like O'Hehir (and maybe that's why I responded with so much enthusiasm to his explanation). One more thing: I didn't like Basinger's performance as much as Eric, but I didn't hate it as much as Adam. I thought it was fine. A "5" on the lying scale (whatever that means). And Brittany Murphy was both dirty and strangely attractive. I love the connection Eric made between Murphy and Bonham Carter in "Fight Club." Right on the money. I think Murphy's a good actress. We'll see how she does on SNL tomorrow night.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE CLUB: 8 MILE (SORT OF)
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren; Eric Baker
Subject: Lists

I disagree with Eric's contention that Rabbit hasn't changed that much from the beginning of the film to the end. Besides the usual movie stuff about "discovering yourself," Rabbit has become a halfway responsible adult. He finally learns not to say, "It's not my fault," whenever something goes wrong in his life. As for Eric's final two points: 1) I don't know how hot she is, but Brittany Murphy is definitely the dirtiest dirty girl around now. 2) You call what Kim Basinger was doing -- with that cartoonish, transplanted Southern drawl -- "acting"? Apparently Eminem can't act because he was too subtle and beliebable for you. As for the list of the year's best, I don't usually keep track of the movies I've seen and start ranking them until the end of the year. It's such a curious and difficult process that I probably wouldn't do it at all except that the past two years I was producing them for The Daily Iowan, and this year I will surely come up with one for CS. I had never read Andrew O'Hehir's explanation of how he develops his lists -- which movies he most wants to watch again -- but I can honestly say it's the exact same criteria I use...with a slight modification: If both were on DVD at the same time and had the exact same special features, which one would I buy if I could only buy one? I actually try to envision myself in front of the DVD rack making my selection. At the same time, O'Hehir's reasoning becomes problematic because there are some movies that are so devastating to sit through that nobody in their right mind would be in a rush to see again soon. Does 'Schindler's List' not belong on a top ten list because I'm still not interested in watching it again? Same with 'In the Bedroom'. O'Hehir apparently didn't want to see it again, but when you're dealing with a movie about such weighty subject matter, you can hardly blame him. I do blame him, however, for leaving it off his list. It made mine at #3.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE CLUB: 8 MILE
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar; Eric Baker
Subject: The Best

Having fairly exhausted the subject of "8 Mile," which has proven to be a great first subject of our nascent movie club, I want to raise another subject with you guys. It was one of Eric's comments that got me thinking: that he doesn't rush out to see movies on the opening night. It got me thinking about my favorite movies of the year (which really has nothing to do with expectations or Eric's original comment). Since this past year's Oscars, I've been keeping a running tally of the films (released this year) that I've seen, and trying to keep them in a top-10 format. I've never done this before, and the more time that passes between the films I saw earlier in the year and the films I've seen recently, the more arbitrary my list seems. In order to be fair, I feel like I should see at least my top ten films all over again. Was "Roger Dodger" better than "The Dancer Upstairs" or "Punch Drunk Love"? Why was it better than "The Bourne Identity," which I enjoyed so much (and which is currently sitting at #5)? And what does it say about me that, of the two films I saw this weekend that were released in 2002 ("8 Mile" and "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"), I actually enjoyed myself more in the latter, but ranked the former three places higher (a fact I could easily, and without hypocrisy, defend)? The best explanation I've heard describing the logic that goes into creating top-ten lists was written by Salon film contributor Andrew O'Hehir. When he assembles his year-end ten-best list, he asks himself which movies would he most want to see again. He used this reasoning to defend his omission last year of "In the Bedroom" from his top-ten. I love this explanation. It may have flaws, but I have yet to hear a better one. There are 21 movies on my list. Eight of them I consider worth seeing again. I expect to see several more Oscar-eligible films before the end of February, more than enough to fill out my own top-ten. You have both assembled your own top-10 lists. Any insight on how you went about it?

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE CLUB: 8 MILE
From: Eric Baker
To: Adam Kempenaar, Sam Hallgren
Subject: The Rap's The Thing

Could I get a word in edgewise, guys? It's amazing how much Adam and I share the same brain (and probably Sam too, though I've only met the guy once). Before seeing "8 Mile" and reading the Movie Club, I had the same "Rocky"/"Raging Bull" notions, as well as thoughts of Howard Stern's "Private Parts" as a baseline for comparison. I also like the discussion about how expectations can impact how one views a film. I have gotten to the point where there isn't any movie I rush out to see on opening night, with the exception of a David Lynch film, but with all the hype surrounding movies these days, it's impossible to go into a showing with a blank slate. I got pretty much what I expected with "8 Mile," which is to say an average movie. But if it had been as good as "Punch-Drunk Love," I would be fellating the film. First things first: as Sam indicates, Eminem can't act, but he doesn't really have to. Just like Howard Stern, who also cannot act his way out of a paper bag, he's not required to do anything but be himself. And the with the short chronology of Rabbit's life we are given, it really doesn't require much depth. Is there anything more cliche than the opening scene, where the protagonist takes stock of his situation by examining himself in the bathroom mirror, splashes some water on his face to ground himself, and somehow summons the strength to move on. Perhaps not, since director Curtis Hanson uses it again later in the movie. This is certainly not Hanson's best work, but one thing he always accomplishes is taking us to a place most of us have never been before and immersing in it. Still, watching the first half, it struck me on a gut level (setup for Adam) how the movie is just like an Eminem song: nothing is original, except the precise details of the story, just like Rabbit's lyrics in his "battles." The scenes are sampled, just like Eminem's songs for the soundtrack, sprinkled with differences here and there that make them easy to listen to/watch. I have no problem with this, but I think we can all agree the best parts of the movie are the "battles," and I got the notion too many times that the rest of the film was just buildup fodder for the Rocky-like sequences you guys have already mentioned. A major problem to overcome is that these cutting contests are freestyle art forms, and you are asking actors to replicate that intensity in a movie setting. At least Eminem supposedly has experience with these battles, but there is something irresistably innocent about the documentary "Scratch" that isn't there with "8 Mile," which is perhaps the scratching opposed to hurling vicious insults at your opponent. Deep down that probably influences my opinion of this film more than I care to admit. After watching it, much like reading an article in the Iowa City Press-Citizen or the Chicago Tribune's RedEye, I have to ask 'so what; why should I care?' Because it's Eminem? Because he's famous? Because he's the only one who apparently likes his little sister (tell me that's not a transparent script choice)? Because he's the only white guy in the movie (remember suburban white kids are the target demographic)? Or is it, as I suspect, because Eminem displays the same sense of street justice that made Allen Iverson more popular after he beat his wife? It's probably a moot point for most viewers, but I see no difference between the Rabbit in the beginning of the film and the end, except that he had the cajones to step on stage and deliver. In fact, once I know the Rabbit by the end of the movie, I think he's kind of a dick, which makes me not give a damn how he does. But I suppose there's something to be said for the ambiguity of the ending, as Adam points out. Two final notes: 1) Has Brittany Murphy overtaken Helena Bonham Carter as the hottest dirty, dirty girl in movies? (Memo to Joe Horaney: Am I alone on this?); and, a point I haven't noticed either of you guys mention 2) Kim Basinger can really act in this movie. Granted, she only gets about 15 minutes of face time, but she delivers the goods.
-Peace out

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE CLUB: 8 MILE
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar; Eric Baker
Subject: Sam's Big Fat Weekend

When it comes right down to it, I don't think we disagree very much about this film. Eminem's performance worked for you; it didn't work for me. And because he's the central character, that became a very big problem for me. But I respect the film. I admire the way Hanson and Silver kept the movie from following a typical Hollywood arc, and I liked all of the other performances in the film. All of these things I think we agree on. "8 Mile" has entered my movies of the year list at #13, just behind "Changing Lanes" and "Minority Report" and just ahead of "Spider-Man" and "Panic Room." I mentioned in an email to you that I finally saw "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." If expectations can seriously impact a critic's objectivity, surely the venue and context of the viewing can have an impact as well. I saw "Fat Wedding" in bed with my girlfriend, in a four-star hotel room in the Chicago Loop (it was our two year dating "anniversary"). All films should be seen in such a forgiving environment. I thought the film was cute. I found the lead, Nia Vardalos, a little stagey (like she hadn't quite shed the character she created for the stage), but still charming. And I liked John Corbett. You mentioned in your review (9/3) that he was a little too perfect, that there was just no flaw to his character. I agree. But I liked the way he played it. He seemed to be subtlely commenting on his character's perfection, without losing any sincerity. Basically, he stayed out of the movie's way, which was his job. And it looked like he was enjoying himself. Andrea Martin as Aunt Voulna was hilarious, and made even her most schticky lines ("You're a vegetarian? I'll make lamb.") work. Martin, and the actors who played Vardalos' parents, were particularly good about playing the reality of the situation, even as the rest of the movie (including Vardalos) not infrequently moved into the realm of sketch comedy. I agree with you that it's not so surprising that the film has resonated with audiences, but it is certainly an inexplicable wonder that it has made so much money --nearly $200 million. I have heard critics bemoan the success of the film for fear of how Hollywood will respond to it. Maybe I'm missing something, but has Hollywood ever needed an excuse to make bad movies?

MOVIE CLUB: 8 MILE
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren; Eric Baker
Subject: Which one is Casey Affleck?

Eric promises to deliver a post sometime this afternoon, which will be nice because the two of us have probably taken this discussion as far as it can go. It is refreshing though to see that we're no longer sharing a brain after agreeing on 'The Good Girl', 'Roger Dodger' and 'Punch-Drunk Love'. You say '8 Mile' felt "inevitable," and it definitely did -- from most of the characters (each one of Rabbit's friends could be substituted in for Will's friends in 'Good Will Hunting'; try it, it works), to the plot (the movie opens with him choking badly on stage at the battle; it doesn't take Syd Field to figure out how the movie is going to end). But despite its familiarity and predictability, '8 Mile' never felt too Hollywood to me. Hanson doesn't bludgeon us with the movie's 'believe in yourself and you shall overcome' theme, and, as I mentioned before, the somewhat ambiguous ending keeps it from being too uplifting. Two other minor points of contention: Other than sexually, you don't see why Rabbit is attracted to Alex, played with perfect trashiness by Brittany Murphy. You mean, other than the fact that they both have big dreams and want to get out of Detroit? I thought the "7:30 in the morning" line worked in that moment because that particular line of dialogue always seemed to me from the trailers to be the kind of thing nobody in real life says, but sounds great in a movie. So to soften the blow a bit, Silver decided to add some levity. It worked for me, anyway. I saw 'Femme Fatale' last night and plan to have some comments soon. I also still need to discuss the last three movies I saw at the Chicago Film Fest -- the music documentaries 'Tribute' and 'Only The Strong Survive' and Philip Noyce's 'Rabbit-Proof Fence', a movie I actually forgot that I had seen until I drove by a theater the other day and saw the poster. Crazy, too, considering how fascinating the story is.
-CS

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE CLUB: 8 MILE
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar; Eric Baker
Subject: Alcoholics and retards

I couldn't agree more with your disdain for "Oscar Winning Moments." I only use the expression to describe my feeling that Eminem's performance left no impression on me (with the exception of the performance scenes). I agree that he has charisma. But his performance seemed edited to me. They got the takes from him they needed to piece the story together, but there didn't seem to be a continuity to the performance. There was no subtlety to his performance. And this film demanded subtlety. I think he would have been a sensation as a supporting player in this film, or in another film that could take better advantage of his aggression and wit. To construct a whole film on his undeniable charisma was too much to ask. But that's my opinion. I like your "Raging Bull" homage theory. (I loved the opening scene). I recognized the boxing metaphors myself, but didn't articulate them cinematically. And maybe if I had I would have been able to stomach the face-off that took place during the final scene. It was just too long, too staged. I think Hanson is a smart director, and I appreciated the ambiguities of the story. But the movie never took off for me. I liked the "I'll never tell" girl, but didn't understand Rabbit's attraction to her (other than sexually) at the beginning, or his loyalty to her later. There was no complexity to Eminem's portrayal of the character; we were shown the people in his life, we were given a context to his misery, but unlike De Niro's performance as LaMotta, we got no sense of the origins of his irrational behavior. The part demanded complexity, and Eminem gave us surface. Charismatic surface, enough surface to tell the story, but not enough to give the story soul. Another difference between "8 Mile" and "Raging Bull" is that "8 Mile" isn't a tragedy; it's a redemption story, much more like "Rocky." In the end, it sits somewhere in the middle of the two films. Not a tragic biopic, not a redemptive, rousing drama. It felt inevitable. The drunk mom, the trailer park, the white skin, the lying, betraying friends. They seemed more picaresque than anything else. Not a real threat. Only one time did I get a hint of Rabbit's real struggle, of how close he was to giving up: he's getting dropped off at work by a friend and he says something like "Do you ever think it's time to stop dreaming up here; and start living down here." A total paraphrase, but it's a very true moment in the film, an insight into the character that I didn't see anywhere else. Instead of expanding on it, letting it sit there to have its effect on the audience, they use it as an opportunity to joke: "It's 7:30 in the morning, Rabbit." Moment lost. Reality shattered. Too bad.

MOVIE CLUB DISCUSSION: 8 MILE
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren; Eric Baker
Subject: William Goldman was right

"...a fiction that required a nonfiction context that simultaneously denied the existence of the nonfiction." Damn. I think my brain just exploded. I didn't realize your vending machine at work sold nickel bags of weed, Sam. But let's start at the beginning. Can Eminem act? You say "no." My short answer: "yes." You are absolutely right when you argue that Eminem has no "Oscar winning moments" and that he doesn't do anything really but look sullen, yell and joke around. I'd add just one more emotion/expression to that list, which is his 'lips pursed, eyes slightly-bugging out, Charles Manson face.' But what you are apparently disregarding is the fact that Eminem clearly exhibits two qualities that every good actor must have -- two qualities that have nothing to do with craft because they can't be taught. First, he is totally, undeniably genuine. I believed every moment of his performance -- his sadness, rage, and humor. Of course, he should be able to pull it off because he is really playing himself. But then Howard Stern actually played himself in 'Private Parts' and he seemed as fake as Julia Roberts holding a hot Rolex. Stern also failed to show even a hint of Eminem's other quality -- charisma. If you've seen even one of his music videos, you know that this guy is a natural performer. In '8 Mile' we are with him for almost the entire movie -- is there a single scene that isn't told from his point-of-view? -- and he never lost my attention. Plus, as you mentioned, the "battle" scenes are electric. His presence on stage and his ability to create rhymes should impress even the staunchest hip-hop haters out there. Besides, "Oscar winning moments" suck. At the risk of offending any readers, William Goldman said it best (and I'm paraphrasing): "Alcoholics and retards should never win Oscars." As for the nonfiction vs. fiction dialectic, you seem to be saying that the ending of the movie -- which we won't discuss specifically -- somehow requires you to believe that Rabbit will achieve the same stardom and success that Eminem had. But the ambiguity that Silver and Hanson leave at the end is one of the movie's greatest attributes. When Rabbit walks away, we don't know if he is going to become a big star and get away from 8 Mile -- but we don't know that he won't either. What we do know is that he has managed to exorcise about 1,000 demons throughout the movie and come to realize that he will never succeed at anything in life unless he is willing to accept responsibility for his situation. Bad mother? Live in a trailer park? Picked on 'cause your small and white? Yeah, life sucks. But you can either sit around blaming everyone or get on with your life, and he chooses the tougher path. Did I miss it, or did Hanson avoid ever actually showing 8 Mile? I don't recall seeing any highway or street signs. I loved that, as if he was showing us that 8 Mile is a dividing line that only exists in our heads. Look forward to your reply and hopefully hearing Eric's thoughts tomorrow.
-CS

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE CLUB: 8 MILE
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar; Eric Baker
Subject: Can Eminem act? Short answer: No.

More than one review that I perused before seeing "8 Mile" asked the following hypothetical question(s) that were, supposedly, being asked by American moviegoers everywhere: "Can Eminen act?", and "Is 8 Mile any good?" I won't deny that I was curious. I also won't deny that I was optimistic (and this is where we get into the fuzzy, but little-discussed area of expectations). Firstly, to choose a project like this -- as opposed to a "House Party" or a "Friday" or any of the other disposable rapper/entertainer movies that have become increasingly present over the past couple of years -- showed bravery on Eminem's part. Sure, he wouldn't be asked to stray too far from his own persona, but to make a screen debut in the starring role of a gritty urban drama directed by a well-respected director -- one that would be asked to be taken seriously by critics -- could almost be seen as lunatic. But I think the reasons Eminem decided to make the film were the very same reasons that dictate his actions in the film itself. And I think this is admirable. And there is much to admire about the film -- the supporting acting is very good; the climactic freestyle rapping scenes are terrific; and the community that the film takes as its subject is unique in mainstream Hollywood filmmaking: you do not see poor, young, urban white and black men unless there is the iminent threat of gang violence. The movie went out of its way to offer an andidote to the gang-sploitation that so many rap-centric movies celebrate. I appreciated this as well. OK. So. Back to the questions at the top. Can Eminem act? The short answer is "no." I don't think the director or the screenwiter or the editor trusted him enough to act. Aside from his time on stage (when he is irrefutably magnetic), Eminem isn't given anything to do but look sullenly at various characters, or to yell at various characters, or to joke mildly with various characters. He doesn't say more than one sentence at any one time in the entire film. There is no "Oscar winning moment." There is no acting. I'm not saying what he's asked to to is easy, but he is constantly being undermined by the script or the editor, and so what you have at the center of the film is a cipher, which amounts to nothing more than the accumulated perceptions of the audience. Instead of telling the story through the Eminem character, the film tries to build a character out of the fragmented peices of its central character's life. But this story doesn't work unless we are made to believe that THIS IS EMINEM'S STORY. But this isn't Eminem's story. At the end of the film, when Rabbit walks away --apparantly from everything and everyone -- any elation or catharsis the audience is invited to experience is completely dependent on the notion that Rabbit IS Eminem. But movie never stops reminding us that this is NOT Emimen's story (as similar as it may be). For this reason, I frequently found the movie boring. The movie was at odds with itself, a fiction that required a nonfiction context that simultaneously denied the existence of the nonfiction. It makes me think that Eminem just couldn't hold up his end. Maybe there was a movie there, and he couldn't fill the role -- a role that wouldn't exist without him. Is this ironic, or is there another word for it. I'm still rooting for this movie. I think it's great that so many people are seeing it. I think it tells a story (about urban decay; about relationships between people of different races; about loyalty, about friendship and family) that isn't being told in mainstream cinema. And the freestyle scenes are awesome. These scenes are the sugar that makes the medicine go down. And I don't think that cheapens it. Even the sugar tells a story worth hearing.

MOVIE CLUB NOTE - Sam Hallgren promises he'll have a post up this afternoon so I'll wait for his comments before adding anything further to the '8 Mile' discussion I started Monday.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

APOLOGIES - Eric Baker won't be able to see '8 Mile' until tomorrow night and Sam Hallgren is missing in action. If there are any readers who would like to get their $.02 before I post again, please send your comments my way.
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MOVIE CLUB DISCUSSION: 8 MILE
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren; Eric Baker
Subject: Eminem Plays Jake LaMotta

Good morning, gentlemen. Thanks for agreeing to participate in this Movie Club with me; I hope we can make it a regular feature and possibly even get a reader or two involved. I know Eric was out of town this weekend and doesn't plan to see '8 Mile' until tonight, but I thought that Sam and I could get the discussion started. Sam, you may recall the conversation we had on our way to see 'Roger Dodger' during the Chicago Film Fest about the power of expectations. We talked about how sometimes we both go into movies with such high expectations that we inevitably end up disappointed, even if the movie is, in fact, good; conversely, sometimes we have low (or no) expectations and end up loving the movie (like 'Roger Dodger', for example). Then, of course, there are those instances where a movie is exactly as good or bad as we thought it would be. '8 Mile' fits into this final category for me. I expected it to be a gritty portrayal of a young man trying to transcend his lot in life through music -- 'Purple Rain' with better writing, acting and directing minus the melodrama. I also thought it could be one of the better films of the year so far, and that's exactly what director Curtis Hanson has delivered. There's been plenty of hype surrounding the movie so I don't want to waste a lot of time talking about the plot, which you can read about at the film's official site. (It also allows you to navigate your way around the area surrounding 8 Mile, the road that serves as the diving line between the white and black sections of the Detroit.) I could start by talking about the acting debut of Eminem, who essentially plays himself since the movie is based on his own turbulent upbringing in this rough section of the city. But one of the most interesting things about '8 Mile' for me was the way Hanson and writer Scott Silver appropriated Scorsese's classic (one of my all-time favorite movies) 'Raging Bull'. The opening credit sequence shows Eminem's alter ego, Jimmy Smith (aka Rabbit), preparing to "battle" with another wannabe rapper. The connection to boxing is made explicitly clear as Rabbit goes over rhymes in the bathroom before taking the stage, executing all of the hand gestures we're accustomed to seeing in rap videos like he was warming up his jab. On stage each contestant is furnished with a beat and then expected to rap over the top, spontaneously ridiculing your opponent. The rappers stare each other down and flitter about the stage just like two boxers in a ring. The boxing/battle correlation aside, where the 'Raging Bull' connection truly struck me was in the way that Jimmy's character ultimately gets betrayed by two of the people who claim throughout to be on his side. The only difference between Jake LaMotta and Rabbit is that Jake displays his paranoia about being betrayed in destructive fits, while Rabbit assumes the best even when he starts to recognize signs that something might not be right. (I'm being deliberately vague here for anyone reading this who hasn't seen the movie yet.) The key scene comes when Rabbit finally hits rock bottom: his mother wants him to move out of their trailer, a place he despises being anyway; the betrayal occurs; and he gets the hell beat out of him by a disgruntled group of rappers who call themselves the Leaders of the Free World. But instead of fighting back, he just absorbs the blows. Even when they yell for him to fight, he just stands there and takes their abuse, just like LaMotta does in the ring that final time with Sugar Ray Robinson -- though LaMotta, admittedly, takes far more punishment than Rabbit does. Did/do either of you guys see the connection, or am I just babbling after a long weekend? I suppose someone could call it theft, but since I liked the movie tremendously I'll call it homage. Looking forward to hearing your reactions. Certainly plenty more to talk about.
-CS (aka "mc white boy")

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

THIS WEEKEND - The title of Ian Rothkerch's Brian De Palma article/interview over at Salon pretty much sums up the critical divide on the sometimes controversial filmmaker, whose new film, 'Femme Fatale', opened Wednesday: 'Genius? Hack? Genius?' De Palma explains: "I get some pretty staunch, diehard De Palma admirers here in the United States. There may not be as many of them, but they are indeed impassioned." Among those impassioned De Palma fans is my friend, Scott (yes, the same Scott who didn't have the courage to go up on stage and re-enact 'The Evil Dead' with Bruce Campbell (8/5) and the original cast). Scott would be among those in the "genius" camp, who spend their Friday night's going over the museum sequence from 'Dressed to Kill' like it was the Zapruder film. (And you think I'm joking.) There is indeed a loyal De Palma fan base out there, including Quentin Tarantino who, if I recall correctly, lists De Palma's 'Blow Out' as the best film of all-time, or at least among the top. Needless to say, Scott loves 'Blow Out' as well. The "hack" contingent consists of people who tend to overlook films like 'Casualties of War', 'Scarface', 'The Untouchables' and 'Carrie', and focus on his more recent films that were almost all poorly received by critics -- 'Mission To Mars', 'Snake Eyes', 'Raising Cain', 'Bonfire of the Vanities' and even 'Mission: Impossible', which created the perception that De Palma wasn't really an auteur anymore; rather, he was just another big-gun Hollywood director. The fact is, I'm just not familiar enough with De Palma's work to really weigh in. For whatever reason he has always been just off my radar. I like all four of the films I mentioned above ('Casualties', 'Scarface', etc...) and I can certainly see why movie buffs like Scott get all giddy when they watch the technical mastery displayed in films like 'Blow Out' and 'Dressed To Kill'. But when you take a film like 'Snake Eyes', for example, which opens with an impressive extended tracking shot but then devolves into a crude 'Rashomon' ripoff, it's tough for me to get too excited about De Palma's work. 'Snake Eyes' is such a case of style over substance that it's an insult to shallow people everywhere....which leads me back to his latest high-glitz affair, 'Femme Fatale,' which I will see this weekend and review for next week. The previews have me intrigued, but I doubt I would have any interest in seeing the movie if De Palma wasn't the director. That, and as contributor Sam Hallgren so gracefully put it, "There are, however, so few opportunities to see mainstream porn." So far the critical response has been harsh with Rotten Tomatoes showing only 27 fresh reviews out of 72. The opposing reactions are along the genius-hack line discussed above: "The story the movie tells is of Brian De Palma's addiction to the junk-calorie suspense tropes that have all but ruined his career," explains Owen Gleiberman in Entertainment Weekly. J. Hoberman of the Village Voice writes, "Sustains its dreamlike glide through a succession of cheesy coincidences and voluptuous cheap effects, not the least of which is Rebecca Romijn-Stamos." Probably the most glowing review comes from Roger Ebert who gives it a staggering 4 stars: "Above all, [De Palma] is up to an exercise in superb style and craftsmanship. The movie is very light on dialogue, and many of the words that are spoken come across as if the characters are imitating movie actors (the film opens with Laure watching "Double Indemnity"--for pointers in how to be a vixen, no doubt)." I'm usually not a fan of films that are merely exercises in style, superb or not, but I'm holding out hope. Maybe I can join Scott and the rest of the De Palma cult on Friday nights as we go frame-by-frame over the establishing tracking shot at the prom in 'Carrie.' I can dream. The big movie opening this weekend, however, is '8 Mile' featuring the acting debut of Eminem. I wrote about my expectations for this movie here (9/11) so I won't say much now. Judging from the reaction so far, Curtis Hanson has extended his streak of quality, critically-acclaimed movies to three, following 'L.A. Confidential' and 'Wonder Boys' with 41 positive reviews out of 55. The only "major" critic to diss it is Rex Reed of the New York Observer, and I place major in quotes because I'm convinced Red Reed is the worst critic alive. I've always wondered how legendary film critic Andrew Sarris could stand sharing duties with Rex at the Observer, though I suppose just because they write for the same paper doesn't mean they have to go for long walks together in Central Park. Starting Monday, Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker and I will be holding a Movie Club where we will exchange thoughts on '8 Mile'. Hopefully a few of you will submit your views in the Feedback Forum.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

A DRUNKEN STROLL DOWN THE MOONLIGHT MILE - As promised, some thoughts from CS contributor Eric Baker:

I'll get to "Punch-Drunk Love" in a second, but I first I have to take issue with one of David Edelstein's earlier columns about "Moonlight Mile." He branded it "the worst movie of the year", and while it does have several problems, it's not anywhere close to the most craptastic. I originally thought this was because as a movie critic for a highly influential online magazine (Slate) who probably lives in NYC, he has access to and only has to watch movies that are generating significant buzz. Slate is supposed to appeal to a hip audience...like the people who have time to read this tripe, right? Then I saw he had to review "I Spy" the other day. Nevertheless, I can see him, and probably CS [who still hasn't seen it -ed.] , hating "Moonlight" intensely for exactly the reasons he ticks off in his column. I don't want to go into too much detail since my review of it is supposed to be posted on The Daily Iowan any day now once my editor figures out how to budget space, but amid the quagmire there are things to like. The acting, for one thing, stands out in this movie. Sarandon, though I haven't seen Igby going down on her, is as good as she's been since "Dead Man Walking." Hoffman is as emotionally dead as a father who just lost a daughter can be. Jake Gyllenhaal has become grating with his now-tired rendition of Droopy, but he doesn't ruin the movie. No, director Brad Silberling does that on his own, with an ending so bad he should be strapped down in a chair and forced to watch every episode of every TV show he ever wrote for as punishment, preferably starting with "Judging Amy." But the subject matter is great. That's what I couldn't get over -- how he couldn't make this a great movie. Yeah, dealing with death/grief has been done in "Ordinary People" and "In The Bedroom" and many others. But everyone's reaction to it is different, and the circumstances surrounding this death are so unique I can't believe that there's not more on the screen. Hell, even Alan Ball can make you pay attention for an hour and most of his stuff doesn't really deal with mortality at all. As for "Punch-Drunk Love," I have to confess it was great. I was a doubter, and posted as much quite loudly in the funhouse forum. I think I agree with Sam's post more than Adam's, in that I think it's PTA's best film, but I don't think he's necessarily doing anything groundbreaking. The use of noise rather than soundtrack in places that matched what Barry was going through, and even the use of silence, so quiet you could hear the projector in the back of the theater, was the tops. For me, there wasn't anything awkward about the narrative structure -- PTA had already immersed us so fully in Barry's world by the time things start getting wacky that we understand what's going on if we get Barry's thought process. Still, it's just a damn good film, and yes Sandler and Watson are really good. Maybe not Oscar-worthy but I don't even know what that means, so perhaps. They've certainly gone to lesser performances. I don't believe the car crash at the beginning adds a whole lot to the film, except to let you know you're going on an absurdist ride. Anything can pop into your life including love. Wow, some movie club we've got going here -- everyone agrees about all the movies. Maybe "8 Mile" will get us arguing. One final note, former FBI serial killer profiler Robert Ressler, the real life basis for Clarice Starling in "Silence of the Lambs" and technical advisor to "Copycat" and the TV show "Profiler," gave a lecture in Iowa City last night. Pretty interesting stuff, though it kind of takes the mystery out it (in the movies) when you find out what these guys do. He comes off as you would expect someone who pretty much started the criminal forensic behavior wing at the FBI back in the 70s to be: cocksure, rigid and very technical. He didn't look as hot as Jodie Foster, so that was a letdown for this particular patron. But he has talked with or helped track down nearly every serial killer or mass murderer in the last 40 years. He's not retired, though. Still raking in tons of dough with a private practice and the lecture circuit. What's with Nathan Lane's brother getting a Slate column? They're just handing them out these days.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

QUOTES OF THE DAY - Both from Slate...

It's sad to think that the quintessential Zagat couple will tonight order in "reliable" Chinese food (16) and settle down to watch A Man and a Woman (24), a "romance par excellence." Perhaps in years to come Zagat will offer a survey for what comes after. Try "cunnilingus" (23). "A "wonderful way" to show her "you'll do anything." "You won't leave hungry!"
-- David Edelstein, culturebox

Any movie featuring Hogwarts will be shown at one of the cavernous theatres in central London, most of which seat over a thousand people. I would not dream of claiming precedence over the throngs of viewers who have legitimately gained entrance ahead of me, but, to put the question delicately, who the fuck are they?
-- Anthony Lane, diary

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MORE ON 'PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE' - Sam Hallgren also saw 'Punch-Drunk Love' recently and emailed this response. I'm posting it here not because we had pretty much the same reaction (just as we did on 'Roger Dodger' and 'The Good Girl'; we're obviously drinking from the same tap), but because he found a much more eloquent way of saying it.

Whether or not people respond to this film emotionally, many are certain to respond to its narrative structure with something akin to horror. I don't know much about Aristotle myself, but I imagine it is films like these that have him spinning in his Hellenic grave. But, until more filmmakers chance to make the kind of films that PTA is making, he gets major points for originality and a willingness to explore the possibilities of the medium. I don't know enough about film history to say that he is expanding the pallette (there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he is merely pilfering), but there is something breathtaking (and sure-handed) about his embrace of the absurd. And, where I thought it was used inappropriately and distractingly in "Magnolia," his absurd emotional logic works perfectly in "Punch-Drunk Love." Like any interesting piece of art, the film creates its own sense of reality, its own logic, and by keeping faithful to that logic, he succeeds in making something original. "Punch Drunk" is like the negative image of "Hard Eight," which couldn't leave it's protagonists alone. Couldn't resist punishing them. It wouldn't give them a break. In "Punch Drunk" he still shows a predilection for broken, fucked up people; but this time he gives them every chance to be happy. It is, by far, his best film, because it seems his most honest film. To a fault, Anderson has always loved his loser characters; in this film, he creates a reality that allows him to reward them -- despite everything. If you're cursed with a love for losers, you might as well do them (and yourself) a favor -- make them happy.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE - Since Monday, New Yorker film critic Anthony Lane has been posting a diary over at Slate. Tuesday's entry about the difficulty of the writing process was particularly relevant to me for two reasons. First, while I am usually content (or semi-content) with my finished product, whether it be an article, review or essay, the actual writing process is torturous. It always has been and surely always will be. As Lane so elegantly puts it: "There is a myth at large in the general population, easily quashable yet somehow allowed to persist, that writing comes smoothly, like gas from a pump, or at least unbidden, like tears. This is bull. No decent prose is ever dashed off, especially that which appears to be effortlessly dashing." One of my former journalism profs who used to work at the Chicago Sun-Times said the only writer he ever knew who could come in, sit down, and turn out something without putting himself through pure hell was Roger Ebert, which I guess helps explain why he is able to produce more reviews every week than probably any critic on the planet. The second reason is that it's now been more than a week since I saw P.T. Anderson's 'Punch-Drunk Love' and I'm still not sure how to articulate my reaction. It's a romantic comedy/Hollywood musical that features enough surreal wackiness that it could have been directed by David Lynch -- and I found it, in a word, exhilarating. OK, "exhilarating" may be tinged with a touch of hyperbole, but there are so many movies you see and think, "That was decent. I don't ever want to watch it again, but it was decent." With 'Punch-Drunk' I'm half tempted to shell out $8 to get another look at it. I actually can't recall the last time I felt as much genuine excitement sitting in the theater, not having any clue what was going to happen next and just being along for the ride. Stylistically, Anderson legitimately seems to be breaking new ground here, although one could posit that Wes Anderson has shown us these quirky camera compositions and even quirkier characters before. As you've all surely heard by now, the movie stars Adam Sandler as Barry Egan, a shy loser who is treated with so much indignity by his six overbearing sisters that it's easy to understand why he has a problem controlling his temper. He's like Bruce Banner from 'The Incredible Hulk'; he knows that letting his feelings show will only result in destruction (of sliding glass doors, restaurant bathrooms) so he continually tries to avoid any kind of conflict. His rather mundane life as a self-employed plunger salesman is disrupted one day when a somewhat amazing car accident -- the cause and consequences of which Anderson slyly never reveals -- somehow results in a small instrument similar to a piano being dropped on the street at his feet. The instrument, he learns, is known as a harmonium, and while Anderson is perhaps being a little too obvious here -- Barry is searching for harmony in his life -- the conceit is nevertheless an effective one. But 'Punch-Drunk' is ultimately a love story. Just as the harmonium arrives, Barry meets Lena (Emily Watson), a sweet, slightly peculiar woman who works with one of Barry's sisters. Sometime CS contributor Eric Baker saw the movie last night and I'm hoping that we can engage in some kind of a dialogue about it today because I'm still at a bit of a loss when it comes to explaining why 'Punch-Drunk' had me so enthralled. What I can say is that all of the hype surrounding Sandler's performance is legitimate, primarily because he abandons all of his trademark mannerisms -- no funny voices or goofy faces, and even his fits of rage are not Sandler-esque. For me his best scene occurs late in the film when he is trying to track down Lena's phone number. He calls his sister who, of course, is unable to simply fulfill his request and give him the number without badgering him. Finally, Barry can't take it anymore and yells, "Just give me the number. Just give me the fucking number! Give it to me!" But he does not explode in anger as we've seen him do in his previous comedies. He plays it more like a kidnapper demanding a ransom. Rather than being comical, his exclamation takes on an eery timbre and you immediately understand why his sister quickly complies. Despite all the talk of Sandler not being able to act and Anderson not being able to make anything but overblown, pretentious (to some) films like 'Magnolia' and 'Boogie Nights', 'Punch-Drunk Love' proves all of the doubters wrong. It's one of the best films of the year, even though I'd probably still rank it behind Anderson's three previous efforts -- which is either a testament to how good Anderson is as a filmmaker, or just how bad most movies are these days.
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

ROGER DODGER - In my review of 'Igby Goes Down' a few weeks ago (10/3), I commented on the fact that I wasn't really buying the contention from almost every critic that writer/director Burr Steers' screenplay was all that "smart." Sure, there are a lot of pop culture references and clever insults, but rarely did the script provide any genuinely provocative moments where you learn something new about the world, or at least the way you look at it. For that, you have to go to the true "smart" movie of the year, 'Roger Dodger' (opened 10/25 in NY/LA), which I had the opportunity to see at the Chicago International Film Festival. Going in, I didn't have any expectations. I only selected the movie because I like Campbell Scott (who plays the title character) going back to 'Singles' and 'Big Night', and the synopsis on the festival's Web site proclaimed it to be "deft and humorous," while describing Roger as "a cynical copywriter who 'makes people feel bad' for money." (Note to marketing people: I'll fall for anything advertised as "deft" and "cynical.") First-timer Dylan Kidd opens the movie with a slightly 'Reservoir Dog'-esque conversation scene in which Scott's character lays out his theory about how as the human race continues to evolve, men will basically be rendered useless -- a theory that is proven correct later that night when his boss (Isabella Rossellini), with whom he has a purely sexual relationship with, decides his services won't be needed anymore. Right away it's clear that Roger is a bit of an enigma. He's basically that annoying guy we all met in college -- a didactic, abrasive know-it-all who dominates conversations displaying his infinite wisdom -- but he's so charismatic and sarcastic that you don't mind listening to him. Throughout this opening scene and for much of the film, Kidd utilizes a hand-held camera and a lot of extreme close-ups. People will walk right in front of the camera, objects in the room occasionally obstruct your view, and the whole time you never really get to see the characters in their surroundings. My initial reaction was to dismiss this technique as a slightly pretentious attempt at being artistic, but eventually I began to understand Kidd's decision. These characters (chiefly Roger) are so cerebral that their world-view doesn't really extend much further than the person across the table from them. Do you really need to see the restaurant they're sitting in? Can it really be different than any other posh Manhattan establishment you've seen before (whether in person or in the movies)? What's really bold is that Kidd makes a movie set in Manhattan that basically chooses to ignore the fact that it is set there -- unlike 'Igby' and another recent NYC movie, 'Tadpole'. After being dumped by his boss, Roger is surprised at his office the next day by his 16-year-old nephew, Nick, from Ohio. Nick is a virgin and wants desperately for his uncle to take him out on the town and teach him all the secrets of getting laid, something Roger is more than happy to do. I saw the movie with CS contributor Sam Hallgren and we were both surprised by how much we liked the movie and Scott's performance in particular. Sam writes: "Campbell Scott and Javier Bardem (in 'The Dancer Upstairs') have delivered two of the best performances I have seen all year (by far), and, really, two of the best performances I can remember seeing in some time. Both, it goes without saying, will be ignored come Oscar time. And both performances do what every "best actor" performance should do -- give the film that they're in (already good, in the best circumstances) an additional layer of meaning or reality that even the screenwriter couldn't have imagined. Campbell Scott brought a level of emotional intelligence to his role that I think very few others would have." I agree completely. Scott nails this role so perfectly that it makes you wish he was a little more visible as an actor these days. Just when you think Roger is nothing more than a cocky, misogynistic slimeball, he displays another level to his character, which is also a credit to Kidd's screenplay. I loved the irony of seeing a guy who portrays himself as always being control whine to his boss, "But, I'm your boy...I'm your boy!", in a way that reveals just how immature he truly is. On Rotten Tomatoes, 27 out 31 critics gave 'Roger' a positive review. The most accurate blurb probably comes from the L.A. Times' Kenneth Turan who writes, "Kidd has made the rare film that's more interesting and complex than it sounds, a feature that shares with its characters a willingness to take risks and ends up, like them, in places they never expected to be." CS bottom line: Intelligent and very funny with Scott delivering the most inspired performance of his career.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

POOR WOODY - A quick post on my current poll question...We're only seven votes in, but so far five of those seven have said, "When was Woody's last good film?" Being a huge Allen fan -- 'Annie Hall' is not only the definitive romantic comedy, it may be the funniest movie of all-time -- I can't tell you how much it pained me to include that as a possible answer. But I had to admit it. Woody's criticism of Hollywood (one I ultimately agree with) would be more palatable if the quality of his recent films was a little higher. You can go right down his filmography: 'Hollywood Ending', 'Curse of the Jade Scorpion', 'Small Time Crooks', are all three bad movies. The next three: 'Sweet and Lowdown', 'Celebrity', and 'Deconstructing Harry' aren't much better, but each have something I can appreciate. 'Sweet' expresses very well some of Woody's dominant themes -- the artist's struggle to achieve greatness (Penn's character can never be as good a jazz guitarist as his foreign counterpart, Django Reinhardt, much like Woody constantly defers to Bergman and Fellini among others); intellectualism vs. emotion (the egghead Uma Thurman character vs. Samantha Morton's mute). I never could quite get past the fact that Penn is obviously not playing the amazing guitar lines his character is improvising. Admittedly, I play the guitar so I have some idea what it would look like to play those notes, but I'm still surprised that Woody, an accomplished jazz musician, would film such obviously fake playing. 'Celebrity' is great for Kenneth Branagh's Woody impression, something that most critics were turned off by. And 'Deconstructing' shows us Woody's vulgar side and an amazing capacity to poke fun at his own public persona, not to mention those artsy jump cuts that Woody hasn't used since the mock documentary 'Husbands and Wives.' But the bottom line is that Woody probably hasn't made a very good picture since 1994's 'Bullets Over Broadway'. His last truly great movie? 1989's 'Crimes and Misdemeanors'. Before that, 'Hannah and Her Sisters' (1986). As much I respect his prolific ouvre and the fact that he continues to make a movie a year, I don't get that rush of excitement I used to get in anticipation of his next movie. Judging from the poll response, neither do most of my readers...if they ever did to begin with.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

GREGORY BATESON LIVES AND NO BABYSITTER = NO MOVIE - Wow...if you haven't checked the Feedback Forum lately, you're really missing out on something amazing. It seems that famed anthropologist, social scientist, and cyberneticist Gregory Bateson has stepped up to defend colleague Margaret Mead's dismissal of 'Punch-Drunk Love' (or, its star and marketing campaign, anyway), despite the fact that both have been dead for over 20 years. I'm truly honored. Anyway, the esteemed Mr. Bateson writes: "The core of Sandler's fans are 11-22 year olds, but that's not all of them. You don't have to be a fanatic to know who he is, and you're forgetting the critics have to watch all his movies, so they certainly are familiar with his reputation. And I consider myself a perfect example: I'm not a Sandler fan in the least, but the fact that he's in the movie gives it instant recognition. And I think the choice by Anderson...of Sandler is for that very reason." I don't dispute for a second that Anderson knew he would get some extra mileage in the press for casting Sandler -- and yes, possibly even sell a few more tickets at the box office. But Margaret's contention was that Anderson was motivated by greed, and by saying he agrees with her, Gregory is implying that he, too, feels Anderson's intentions were less than honorable in some way. I just don't buy it. Anderson is far too serious a filmmaker to waste his time casting someone in a lead role simply to sell more tickets. If Anderson really cared about being a hit at the box office, his three previous films would have been a lot less artistic, and a lot more "audience friendly" than they were. And if Anderson was going for box office gold, he certainly didn't do his math very well because 'Punch-Drunk' has only made $6 million in three weeks of release. Apparently, Sandler's legion of fans are, in fact, staying home. Stars, and fans allegiances to them, are a fickle thing. Just because Harrison Ford was in 'K-19: The Widowmaker' didn't keep it from being a gigantic flop. Sandler's previous hits all cleared $100 million at the box office; 'Little Nicky', meanwhile, made just $38 million. Why? Because even his die-hard fans could tell the movie was going to suck. Sandler alone wasn't enough to get them to go. Bottom line: 'Punch-Drunk's' final gross will be only slightly higher than it would have been without Sandler, and one could even argue that Sandler's presence will hurt its take. What about all of the serious movie snobs out there who have decided not to see the movie simply because Anderson would stoop so low as to cast Adam Sandler? There's got to be a few out there...

As for my review of 'Punch-Drunk,' well, a funny thing happened on the way to the multiplex that I think is worth sharing. Of course, I don't know how many of my readers have children, or really even like kids, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. Having an infant son, our first, means my wife and I don't get to movies nearly as often as we used to -- that, and, as I've written before, I saw movies for free in Iowa City. In Chicago, I have no connections and movies are really expensive. (This all party explains why I haven't been as diligent in my blogging over the past month.) Anyway, being new to our quaint little suburb means we have yet to procure a babysitter. As such, Holden gets to come to movies with us. Now let me explain something before I get too much further: I cannot stand any noise during a movie. And it's not just talking that bothers me -- chomping on popcorn, tapping your foot, any kind of repetetive noise drives me nuts. Fortunately, Holden usually just sleeps through the whole movie, and if he does start to get fussy, one of us immediately takes him into the lobby. So back to the story...We go to buy our tickets for 'Punch-Drunk' this weekend and the dragon lady at the counter informs me that "No children under six are allowed into Rated R movies." At first, I thought her/the theater's concern was about kids seeing "mature content," so I said, "Even with his parents? He's 7-months-old." No dice. Theater policy. Dejected, we walked away and it occurred to me that the real concern was about children being obnoxious and making too much noise during movies intended for and populated by adults. Considering my aversion to any kind of noise whatsoever, I certainly understand the policy. At the same time, my wife and I wouldn't bring our child to a movie if we didn't know that he wouldn't be a disruption. I've never had this problem come up at any other theater. Even the Chicago Film Fest allowed babies into movies. You're going to tell me the random crowd down at the multiplex is more serious about movies than the festival crowd? I'm still angry about it, but I'm curious what all of you think. Is it ridiculous for me to bring a 7-month-old to 'Punch-Drunk Love'? Needless to say, I'll be seeing it by myself tonight with a review for Wednesday. Review of 'Roger Dodger' tomorrow.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum