WHILE YOU WAIT... - As Sam and I prepare to engage in our discussion of Todd Haynes' 'Far From Heaven', please enjoy Eric Baker's post below. Also, check out this quiz that will answer the burning question "Which John Hughes Character Are You?" Thanks to reader Joe Horaney for sending the link. I refuse to admit which character I turned out to be.

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

MOVIE CLUB: RANDOM MUSINGS PART DEUX
From: Eric Baker
To: Adam Kempenaar; Sam Hallgren
Subject: Ebert's slide

Nate 'The Yapper' Yapp brings up a subject Adam and I have discussed before after reading some of Ebert's less than scintillating reviews on the web. It's unrealistic to expect gold from the man every single review, considering he does 4-5 every week of the year. But I think that's a part of the problem: the man simply reviews too many movies. The Sun Times obviously knows they've got a hot commodity in Ebert, perhaps the most recognized name in movie criticism nationwide, and I have no doubt he gets compensated as such. They might be thinking 'we pay this guy a ton of dough, plus everyone expects the movie reviews to be Ebert all the time and he likes to do them, so why should we give a few movies to anyone else?' Look, I don't give a damn about his star ratings, as Adam points out these are completely subjective. And I'm not talking about just disagreeing with the opinions in his reviews. Sometimes as often as once a week, there are reviews where it reads like he just phoned it in. The prose doesn't flow like honey as in his Pulitzer Prize salad days (which is probably good, because then he'd literally eat his words). He didn't have the time or energy to delve into what makes the movie great/assy, so he's going to sandbag it and concentrate on the other 4 reviews he has to write that week. This doesn't jive with what Adam has already told us: that Ebert sits down and churns reviews out faster than any writer at the Sun Times. Taking notes during the movie probably facilitates this alacrity. * Does 'Die Another Day' belong as our next Movie Club subject? I can understand your dilemma. You're not going to gain any new insight into the time-space continuum watching a Bond flick, and living in Chicago, you've got so many other choices to use your time and money on, each decision is subject for a relentless Kempenaarian internal dialogue. But, I don't think we should limit ourselves to movies that sound important. What's wrong with seeing a movie that's fun? Like you have said, there is something to walking out of a movie with a smile on your face. And who knows, as my biggest fan 'Rico' points out in the Feedback Forum, 'Punch-Drunk Love' is his favorite movie of the year, and it's merely a romantic comedy. Maybe 'Die Another Day' will push somebody's buttons on this panel.

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

RANDOM MUSINGS - Tonight Sam Hallgren and I will be seeing Todd Haynes' critical darling 'Far From Heaven', with Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid (always one of my favorite actors since playing Gordo Cooper in 'The Right Stuff'). Look for our comments tomorrow. * There's been some preliminary discussion about whether we should talk about the new James Bond film 'Die Another Day' (opens tomorrow) in our Movie Club next week, but I'm having a difficult time getting excited about it. If I was back in Iowa City and could see it for free, absolutely. But when movies cost $8.50 and there are so many other movies I still need to see here in Chicago -- 'Auto Focus', 'Heaven', hell, even 'Red Dragon' -- it's hard for me to justify spending the time and money on what will no doubt be another well-made but ultimately pointless Bond flick. Then again, the only other new movies opening this weekend are 'Friday After Next' and the absymal-looking, 'Dead Poets Society' knock-off, 'The Emperor's Club'. So we really have no choice. If anyone would like to weigh in with a suggestion, please do so in the Feedback Forum. * My successor at The Daily Iowan, Nate "The Yapp" Yapp, has posed this query in the Feedback Forum: Has Roger Ebert become irrelevant? Basically, Nate takes issue with the fact that Ebert seems to be adoring movies that Nate, and, admittedly, quite a few others aren't that enamored with. Specifically, Nate can't believe that Ebert gave the newest 'Harry Potter' extravaganza 4 stars, while also giving 'The Truth About Charlie', Jonathan Demme's poorly-received (by Nate and just about every other critic) 'Charade' remake 3 stars. I haven't seen either film yet, but I, too, have noticed that he does seem to be handing out a ton of 3 1/2 and 4 star ratings lately, a lot of them to movies you might not expect to be that great. I don't know, I'm not willing to write Ebert off just yet. Let's face it, when it comes right down to it film criticism is as subjective as anything else. If he walks out of 'Chamber of Secrets' with a smile on his face, I don't know that he can really help that. * Now here's something that puts a smile on my face -- Snoop Dogg has been cast in the role of Huggy Bear, the colorful informant-pimp, in the 'Starsky & Hutch' movie to star Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson in the Paul Michael Glaser and David Soul roles, respectively (release TBA 2004). Chris Rock, Chris Tucker and even the brilliant Don Cheadle were apparently considered, but I think Snoop Dogg is an inspired choice. Would anyone go see this movie if Stiller and Wilson weren't behind it? I doubt I would. But I'd probably go see anything these guys were in together. Who knows, maybe there's room for Stiller in a sequel to 'Behind Enemy Lines'?

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

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.