« In the past few years, the suburbs have reemerged as the favorite whipping boy of the hipoisie, from the adolescent temper tantrum of « Happiness » to the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing contempt of the sterile objet d’art « American Beauty. » These movies revel in two clich�s to which movie critics are particularly susceptible: the clich� of suburbs as stultifying traps of conformity, allowing critics the luxury of feeling superior to the people on-screen, and the clich� that a pessimistic film is inherently truer and more daring than one that admits even a flicker of hope, allowing critics to paint themselves as able to face the hard, dirty truth.
Filmmakers and novelists have tended to treat the physical surface of the suburbs — the houses that look the same, the well-tended lawns and gardens, the post offices and schools and churches and supermarkets — as if they were indistinguishable from the emotional lives of the people who live there. And when they’ve allowed that the inner life of suburbanites might not be as placid or cheerful as their surroundings, they’ve often used inner turmoil as evidence to show that suburban life is based on a lie. (Presumably, urban neurotics are more honest for choosing a locale that approximates the chaotic uncertainty in their heads.) »
By Charles Taylor in Salon. I really wish Taylor would do more movie reviews for Salon.
Having recently seen ‘Little Miss Sunshine’ and ‘Brick’, I was going to write a post on this. Now I don’t have to–cheers.
I loved « Little Miss Sunshine », especially the dialogue and the acting, but I was annoyed at the confusion in the style of the members of the family. The mother as she was written, both in her personality and in the way she dressed, wouldn’t have married a man like her husband and would never dress her daughter the way she did (or let her dress that way). The house where they lived seemed to belong to another family in terms of style. They weren’t white trash in their look. Why was the house such a white trashy kind of place? Even the van they drove didn’t fit them but seemed to be there just to personnify « quirkiness ».
I wonder if it was a writing problem or simply bad art direction decisions. Still, it’s a great film and no one should miss it!
Sur le th�me de la banlieue, puis-je vous recommander l’excellente s�rie am�ricaine (oui! oui!) WEEDS.
�a se mange tout seul…
Quelle belle d�couverte! Une autre sc�nariste dans la blogosph�re! Je connaissais l’autre blonde, l� je d�couvre la version brunette! ;0)
MCT26: J’avais quelques �pisodes de Weeds sur mon Tivo mais comme j’avais rat� les premiers j’ai fini par les effacer. C’est sur ma liste de location chez Zip.ca par contre!
Madame Une Telle: bienvenue!
I hate the clich� as well (Andrew Potter and Joe Heath did a good job deconstructing those kinds of movies in The Rebel Sell), because it’s a lazy shorthand. Conversely, the entire play / movie phenomenon of Rent, which fetishizes an NYC urban neighborhood, was equally as lazy in its central-casting soi-disant hipness. (not to mention the trad-broadway score was gratingly incongruous — compared to Hedwig and The Angry Inch’s *actual* rock songs, for instance.)
That said, my real issue with suburbs-in-film is the fact that the « culture/class war » hoopla obscures any chance of discussing real urban planning issues, like car dependence, public transit, energy use, water use, tax base erosion from the central city, sprawl, overextended infrastructure, true local economies, the loss of local farmland to development, the overextended consumer credit that pays for it all….etc.
� once used to think negative people like charles taylor (very negative critic, not like Ebert or Saltz (art critic)) were very funny and good, i didN’t have a problem with how they were very on point in their criticism. thing is i have a problem now becos i think there is a fundamental disprencany in anyone hwo doesnt know what its like to make films and someone who critiziess them. yes, im very academic competennt and i can easily do observations like those charles made, it’s easy to think in those ways, and it’s as if he gets props for that, but the thing is it’s completleyed detatched from film making, and alot of it is in his attitude, very bitter, a guy like Ebert would say the same but suggest something better, or u’d leave the review with a sense of redemption, this guy is too bleak, it’s a problem becos it pretends to be insightful and smart but its not, its very judgemental, its possible to be a critic without being judgemental, all u have to do is be conversational, matthew collings does it in art, u know, i really would punch that guy if is aw him, think he doesn’t know anyhting about the world, life or people ! YEP THATs IT!!!!! stupid fuck. im really sorry, but i think people like martine really fall for this ceap trikc, this intellectual trick, very easy.
« That said, my real issue with suburbs-in-film is the fact that the « culture/class war » hoopla obscures any chance of discussing real urban planning issues, like car dependence, public transit, energy use, water use, tax base erosion from the central city, sprawl, overextended infrastructure, true local economies, the loss of local farmland to development, the overextended consumer credit that pays for it all….etc. »
are you joking? pop down to the the centre of architecture in montreal, or something, dude.
rent was a brillint film and fetishzation of things like rent admittedly is, can be very good and worthwhile, when people take a stance against movies or anyhting they are so selfish, people love this movie, if u dont, fine, but u have to realize everyyhing exists without you, no relation to you, it just exists, and to judge it like you do, u think its created for u! ITS NOT. u can give me an acedmic break down of how it is (economy, etc. audience theory) but im giving u zen lesson here so its up to you to listen, buddy.btw my name is KRISTIAN ANDERSEN! In case u hate on my anonymity! U Kno? u can check me out at hopeshecalls.blogspot.com –
Thank you dear Anonymous for your « zen lesson », though if this is your vision of zen, I really don’t want to hear the koans you might produce.
Yowser. How frustrated you sound.
I like life, I like people and I like it when movie critics are allowed to be smart and don’t have to tone down their intelligence to suit the « up with life » bores of this world.
Movie criticism is different from filmmaking. Some bad movie critics just sound like frustrated directors or screenwriters. That’s true. But true and smart criticism is an art in itself. Sometimes the text that is produced by a good critic ends up having very little do to with the movie it originally reviewed and yet it offers a take on life that’s enlightening and transcendent.
Now that’s zen for you.