Trailer here. (http://progressive.stream.aol.com/aol/us/moviefone/movies/2004/sideways_019618/sideways_trlr_dl.mov)
Starring: Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen, M.C. Gainey, Sandra Oh
Directed by: Alexander Payne
Premise: Miles Faymond (Giamatti), a divorced middle school teacher and failed novelist, and his altar-bound friend Jack (Church) take a wine-tasting trip in California, pondering questions about their directions in life.
Release Date: October 20, 2004 (limited)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.ent4.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Ffox_searchlight%2Fsideways%2F_group_photos%2Fpaul_giamatti2.jpg&hash=3cd52af69c87c23be7806d9f797bb09b1417eec5)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.ent4.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Ffox_searchlight%2Fsideways%2F_group_photos%2Fpaul_giamatti1.jpg&hash=84ada689a85ef5b2ef99be911a981695ed5883b8)
From Entertainment Weekly:
Payne says he's made a buddy comedy. Sure, in the same way 1999's wickedly dark Election was a teen movie. And the plot, based on the novel by Rex Pickett, sounds Payne-ful: Giamatti (whose role George Clooney reportedly was interested in) is a depressed divorce who takes his altar-bound friend (Church) on a wine-tasting week that results in bachelor-party debauchery. "I play this guy who's cultivated this ersatz sophistication -- I'm a writer! A wine expert! -- but I'm just a failed writer and a drunk," says Giamatti. "We'll see if people think that's funny. Though I still say Payne should have gone with Clooney." With his fourth feature, Payne isn't messing too much with the sardonic style that's earned him acclaim -- and decent box office. In fact, there may even be a little overlap with 2002's About Schmidt. "I show my bare ass in one scene," says Giamatti. "But hopefully not in a disturbing, Kathy Bates-in-a-hot-tub way."
"Both Election and About Schmidt doubled their money," says Payne. "As long as I can keep that going, all is well."
yeah, i saw this trailer when i went to Garden State and i was really intrigued. giamatti looks great in it, but i dunno about the guy from "Wings"
Payne Alexander and Jim Taylor have been nothing but good news for me. I totally have faith that this movie will be great.
With that said, I can't help but always think that the tagline should be: "Go screw yourself... Sideways." Well, not SHOULD BE so much as could be.
Quote from: matt35mmPayne Alexander
hmm...i wonder if he has any relation to Alexander Payne. probably not.
also, i dont like the fact that it says "Paul Giamatti, Star of 'American Splendor'"
I was drunk.
at 2 o' clock? by george.
:(
It's America.
Trreeeeailer:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/sideways/
edit....also at the top of the page...yeah. :(
Looks good anyway
Quote from: HAL Duderino
also, i dont like the fact that it says "Paul Giamatti, Star of 'American Splendor'"
Why? It's not a lie
Quote from: poser(isms)Quote from: HAL Duderino
also, i dont like the fact that it says "Paul Giamatti, Star of 'American Splendor'"
Why? It's not a lie
I know that, but they don't say "Thomas Haden Church, Star of "Wings"' it's just my opinion that it's not fair.
Yeah I guess it's not fair that Giamatti gets top billing.. since all he did was star in American Splendor and Church did Wings.
Yeah.
Quote from: CinephileYeah I guess it's not fair that Giamatti gets top billing.. since all he did was star in American Splendor and Church did Wings.
Yeah.
i remember church from ned and stacey.
fun fact: Charlie Kauffman used to pen that show.
i was just watching About Schmidt and as he's driving by a movie theater the marquee says it's playing "Sideways". how bout that shit?
Quote from: lamasi was just watching About Schmidt and as he's driving by a movie theater the marquee says it's playing "Sideways". how bout that shit?
What would really blow your mind is going to see the movie and they present it sideways...
Quote from: lamasi was just watching About Schmidt and as he's driving by a movie theater the marquee says it's playing "Sideways". how bout that shit?
that must mean that About Schmidt takes place in 2004?!?!?!
what a mind scrambler!
Sideways is an adaptation of a book that will be released soon (or might be released already, I'm not sure), and Payne adapted the manuscript in 1999, and then made About Schmidt--so he planted that in with the hope that Sideways would be his next project.
Publishers originally passed on the book, but later it was sold to St. Martin's, at which point the film was greenlighted. Now they're both coming out within months of each other, so it all worked out pretty well.
Meet his latest crush
Filmmaker Alexander Payne ventures beyond Omaha to uncork 'Sideways,' a black-comic ode to aging, wine country and the restorative fruit of the vines. Source: Los Angeles Times
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2004-09%2F14385765.jpg&hash=53cbce91e89fac3247faf69149a7ee4af2c9ce06)
Driving up Foxen Canyon Road in the Santa Ynez Valley, Alexander Payne points out the picture-perfect locations for his new film "Sideways." The spreading branches of that gnarled oak tree were the backdrop for the picnic scene, he points out with boyish delight. Those sloping vineyards were filmed just as the grapes, heavy on the vines, were ready to be harvested, he says, thrilling at the memory.
The bard of Omaha — Payne's setting for his initial triptych of movies, "Citizen Ruth," "Election" and "About Schmidt" — has fallen head over heels for his first film location that isn't his hometown. "Sideways" is his screwy love letter to the Santa Barbara County wine country, a paean to its wines, its land and the restorative qualities of both.
"Place is very important to me. Real place, not fake place," says the 43-year-old Payne. "Only when I felt that I had captured Omaha, a place I know, did I feel that I had the tools of proper observation to shoot someplace else."
"Sideways" is a new direction for one of Hollywood's most admired auteurs — a romance from a guy renowned for his satirical side. Those clashing sensibilities produce a film that is more black comedy than snuggle-up date flick, yet one that loses neither humor nor heart in the bargain.
"It's my first love story," says Payne, ignoring the subversive joke hiding behind that face-forward statement. This is a filmmaker who doesn't wink at his own jokes, onscreen or off.
When Payne talks with people, he looks at them almost too directly, studying them. Referring to journalism as "the road not taken" when he left Stanford University for UCLA film school, Payne is more comfortable asking questions than answering them. Just call him a "documentarian," he says, reinforcing the idea that an unvarnished truth, not Hollywood's hyper-reality, is his aim.
When "Sideways" is released by Fox Searchlight on Oct. 20, it will join a small canon of films about wine. Alfonso Arau captured a dreamy Keanu Reeves in a California vineyard for an unlikely love affair in his period idyll "A Walk in the Clouds." Eric Rohmer went to the Côte du Rhône region of France to ruminate on love and the middle-aged woman in "Autumn Tale." And William Goldman used a bottle of rare wine — Lafite 1811 — to propel lovers from Scotland to Nice in "Year of the Comet."
For his wine sonnet, Payne goes to one of California's least pretentious wine regions to tell the story of a flabby middle-aged wine geek whose solace in life is the bottle, preferably an expensive one with the long neck and sloping shoulders of a Pinot Noir.
The pathetic Miles (Paul Giamatti) and his old college roommate Jack (Thomas Haden Church) set off on a weeklong bender through the Santa Barbara region's vineyards, a last grasp for lost youth on the eve of Jack's wedding. In a blur of fine wine and women, they crash and burn, risking a no-survivors midlife conflagration.
An unpublished novelist who is staring at yet one more failure, Miles has created an alternate self-image as a wine connoisseur. He props up his fragile ego with the wine geek mantra: "I'm as good as the wine I drink, or at least the wine I can talk about."
Miles buys rare vintages he saves for celebratory moments that never seem to arrive.
Jack isn't in much better shape. A washed-up actor whose one starring role happened an unmentionably long time ago — and he mentions it at pathetically regular intervals — Jack's salve is sex. This last week before his wedding, he intends to make himself feel very, very good.
The monumental job of humanizing this pair of losers falls on the shoulders of Maya (Virginia Madsen), a wine shaman who has tapped directly into wine's life forces, and Stephanie (Sandra Oh), an untethered spirit willing to share her love of life, and wine, freely. The inevitable conflict between the boys starts when Jack finagles dinner dates with the women, who Miles is certain will want to drink wine that undermines his carefully constructed sense of self-worth.
"If anyone orders Merlot, I'm leaving. I am not drinking any … Merlot!" screams Miles in a restaurant parking lot.
"Everyone gets that joke," says Payne, smiling proudly but quickly giving credit for the line to Rex Pickett, who wrote the novel on which the film is based. "It's the biggest laugh in the movie."
There's a little wine geek in most of us, according to Payne.
"We all know that Merlot, along with Chardonnay, are the clichéd wines of choice," he explains, somewhat impatiently. "While there are several wonderful Merlots — Chateau Pétrus is one of the greatest wines in the world, and it's 100% Merlot — most of the stuff everyone drinks is bad, flabby wine. Unimpressive, bland in the mouth, possibly over-oaked to cover up its flaws." Then, morphing from Miles to Jack in the blink of an eye, Payne notes that the second biggest laugh in the movie involves a long, addled disquisition on the Loire wine Vouvray.
'The possibilities of wine'
Payne came to his wine movie with plenty of bottles under his belt, and strong opinions. "Wine should be inclusive, not exclusive," he says, noting that it offers a "transformative" experience when shared frequently with friends. In short, the more wine we drink, the better off we are.
In "Sideways," Payne uses Maya to convey his philosophy. "When she tells Miles that wine is alive, that it is changing, evolving, and connects you to the earth and to life, I believe that too," says Payne. "Hey, I made a whole film about it." When Maya tells Miles that a super-Tuscan wine, a 1988 Sassicaia, was her initial wine revelation, that too is Payne talking. "Drinking it, I realized the possibilities of wine," he says.
The son of Greek restaurateurs in Omaha — "a 24-hour steaks, chops and seafood place that looked like Musso & Frank but felt like Canter's" — Payne says he was always aware of fine wine. But it wasn't until he signed his first Hollywood writing and directing deal in 1990 that he allowed himself to splurge on it, spending $5,000 on bottles from several top Bordeaux chateaux, some California Cabernets and a handful of Spanish wines from Ribera del Duero.
"It's an investment in your future happiness. A gift from your younger self to your old self," he says.
Calling himself an autodidact with wine and food, Payne learned to cook by watching Jacques Pepin videos. "A recipe is a recipe. Pepin teaches you technique," he says.
To learn about wine, his process involved mostly reading, drinking and relying on a couple of wine merchants willing to tutor him. Before making the film, he'd visited France and Italy, but not Napa and Sonoma. He had spent only a little time in Santa Barbara, California's perennially "emerging" wine region, which finally is moving out from under the long shadow of Northern California: Jim Clendenen's Au Bon Climat and Andrew Murray's wines have gained international followings, and a new generation of young vintners is grabbing headlines with powerful Pinot Noirs and roasty Rhone Valley blends.
With Pickett in tow, Payne got acquainted with the novelist and his subject by touring every Santa Barbara County winery with a tasting room, and, of course, tasting every available wine. The two relived the novel, which loosely fictionalizes a week when Pickett acted as a wine tour guide and debauchery coordinator for one of his friends.
A filmmaker in his own right, Pickett has written and directed two independent features, and wrote the short film "My Mother Dreams the Satan's Disciples in New York," which won the 1999 Academy Award for best live-action short.
Payne and his longtime writing collaborator Jim Taylor broke with habits and stuck closely to Pickett's novel when they wrote the "Sideways" screenplay. "We were faithful to the novel," says Payne, "lifting more from the novel, both structure and dialogue, than we did with any of our previous screenplays."
The characters and most of the story lines lent themselves well to Payne's no-gloss look. There is no giggling at the kitschy windmills of Solvang. Miles and Jack stay in a charmless motel room without the slightest cinematic enhancement. The waitresses at the Hitching Post in Buellton wear the same 1970s-era uniforms they always wear.
"How could you play up the kitsch of Solvang more than they do? All you have to do is show things. Reality is always more ridiculous," he says.
The scenery, however, presented a challenge to the sharp-focused director. The rolling hills of the Santa Ynez Valley and Santa Rita Hills' steep vineyards wrapped in fog are panoramas that demand lingering, loving camera work. Reality is just plain beautiful in Santa Barbara's wine country.
The shift from severe to serene was an adjustment for Payne. "It's a side of myself [director of photography Phedon Papamichael] said I needed to embrace. The romantic side," says Payne, noting that Papamichael admonished him to slow down to let the countryside come to life.
From the earliest pre-production, Payne lived among the wineries and vineyards, making his home on a five-acre horse farm in Santa Ynez. From there, he scouted locations, cast the film and otherwise lived the wine country life.
Last September, he started the 54-day shoot. "I didn't go back often. And when I did, I couldn't stand L.A. It's a drag visiting the city when you live in the country. All of those people, clamoring and anxious."
A little local flavor
At lunch at the Los Olivos Café — the restaurant where Miles and Jack have their first dinner with Maya and Stephanie — Payne is accompanied by Sandra Oh, his wife. A bottle of 2001 Palmina Pinot Grigio is on the table. It may be one of the few local wines that isn't featured in "Sideways." (Some that are: Andrew Murray, Fiddlehead, Sea Smoke, Au Bon Climat, Sanford, Kalyra, M, Lucas & Lewellen, Whitcraft, Byron, Hitching Post.)
"It's gonzo that way. You have two guys who are drinking through the whole film," says Payne. But showing every label? "People who are interested in wine will be watching the movie, and they are going to want to know what the wine is." There was no quid pro quo for access or money, he says. "But I wouldn't mind receiving a case or two of wine from them as a thank-you," he says.
Andrew Murray was the only vintner whom Payne felt obligated to feature. Up on Foxen Canyon Road, "he let us crawl all over his vineyard for days and days without charging us anything," he says.
Murray's movie moment, however, is a bit of a knock. As Miles starts to wax enthusiastically about a Murray Syrah, Maya cuts him short, saying, "I think they overdid it. Too much alcohol; overwhelms the fruit." It's something many wine critics say about the whole region. Murray signed off on the line, admitting that it was a valid criticism.
Back in Los Angeles to edit and mix his film, Payne was determined to practice what he preaches. Every evening at 6:30 was "wine o'clock" when Payne would open a bottle featured in the film to share a glass of inspiration with his crew. If wine truly is the essence of life and drinking it is a path to enlightenment, then let the wine flow.
did anyone see alexander payne's introduction on the Dolce Vita DVD?
Quote from: Hedwigdid anyone see alexander payne's introduction on the Dolce Vita DVD?
yes, it seemed kind of strange to me. i did not like it
Very cool poster...
http://www.impawards.com/2004/sideways.html
Quote from: InsomniacVery cool poster...
http://www.impawards.com/2004/sideways.html
Indeed. Green is one of my favorite colors (see the avatar) so I am very pleased by this.
God, "Sideways," "Life Aquatic," "Huckabees," Jesus, this is going to be beautiful.
Well, I haven't seen anyone else post this in the thread yet, so...
http://www.joblo.com/movs/show-sideways.mov
Enjoy.ADMIN WARNING: MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR WORK (or may be VERY appropriate)
Quote from: matt35mmWell, I haven't seen anyone else post this in the thread yet, so...
http://www.joblo.com/movs/show-sideways.mov
Enjoy.
ok. let me tell u a story of me downloading, watching, and then reacting to that file..
so i was about to reply like "oh u mean apart from the very first thing posted in this thread?".. cos i thought it was just a reposting of the trailer. but i figured i'd check first so it wouldn't backfire..
and all i hav to say about that is.. HOLY CRAP. that is exactly, EXACTLY what a teaser should be. i mean, it is just the most hilarious 30 seconds of footage i've seen on the internet this year.
so many elements in it are brilliant, and it's stuff like this that can be judged like it matters, it's not like the first trailer which made this look about as boring as About Schmidt (which i'll admit i hav no intention of ever watching again), which is to be expected from trailers in general.
but this,, the noise giomatti makes when he steps from the curb, the "SHIT!" just before the dude hits the window, which is made funnier when the dude says "i'm fine... yeah, i'm fine" playing it off like the situation is anything but completely bizarre, the lack of explanation or pandering to the audience, it's a completely self-contained piece of comedy that really made me interested in the film.
Have to completely agree with P... that is the best teaser... wish they would just show that in the theater.
WARNING: SPOILER
No can do. There's a penis.
Director Alexander Payne on the Road Again
Alexander Payne is batting a 1,000. His previous feature films -- the abortion comedy "Citizen Ruth," the political satire "Election," and the bittersweet road trip "About Schmidt" -- established the writer/director as a skilled storyteller who created showcase roles for actors.
His simple, straightforward style celebrates the seemingly mundane, bringing characters to vivid life without becoming caricatures.
He also finds humor in the most odd yet human places: All it takes is hearing Jack Nicholson intone "Dear Ndugu" to invoke an almost Pavlovian response from a viewer.
Payne's fourth film, "Sideways," which opens Friday in limited release via Fox Searchlight, centers around Miles, a sad-sack struggling writer, and the week he spends in Central California Wine Country with his childhood friend Jack, an actor who is about to be married. As Miles, Paul Giamatti achieves sublime levels of sorrow as he alternates between self-pity and rage. Thomas Haden Church, best known for his work on the sitcom Wings, is an unapologetic but likeable cad in the role of Jack.
Rounding out the cast as the love interests for the twosome are Virginia Madsen and Sandra Oh, Payne's real-life wife. The four form a flawless ensemble in a movie that walks a fine line between sweetness and sadness, without ever stumbling.
Though "Sideways" would be considered low-budget by most standards -- it cost $16 million and was shot in 49 days -- Payne's reputation had actors clamoring for the lead roles.
Even though "About Schmidt" featured a surprisingly subtle, Oscar-nominated performance by Jack Nicholson, Payne maintains that names don't matter to him.
"In the event of a tie, I think it would go to the more famous person, because it just makes the studio breathe easier, and maybe I can get a little bit more money with which to make the film," says the soft-spoken, 43-year-old Omaha, Neb. native. "But I just see them all as one; I try not to distinguish between famous and non-famous when it comes down to making the movie. I just want to meet everyone; I want to meet a lot of people, hear their thoughts, audition them, and think who would be best."
In a case of positive nepotism, Payne also had the good sense to cast Oh, a born scene-stealer. "It was awkward for about 10 minutes the first day," he says. "Directors are always grateful when actors make it easy for us. And she is just such a pro and so good at what she does."
Payne has frequently hired non-actors in roles or discovered new talent, such as Chris Klein and Jessica Campbell in "Election," citing the freshness and reality they bring to roles.
"I've been extremely lucky," he admits. "Every once in a while somebody will crash and burn, get a little freaked out with the lighting, or smoke too much that morning. But I've had really good luck."
If an actor is fortunate enough to audition for Payne, there's only one thing he wants you to know. "I don't need to see anything approaching a finished performance," he says. "Reading from the sides is OK. You don't have to have memorized it. I know that what you present is, at best, a pencil sketch of what later will be a great oil painting. So I would encourage actors who read for me to be comfortable simply with who they are."
"Sideways" was adapted from the novel by Rex Pickett by Payne and his writing partner, Jim Taylor. This is their third adaptation, following "Election" and "About Schmidt" -- the latter of which was only loosely based a book of the same name -- and according to Payne, it is their most faithful to the source material.
When it comes to writing the script, he says there's a slight advantage to adapting an existing story instead of writing a complete original.
"In a book, you've had some basic decisions made for you in advance, some basic scenarios and characters," he observes. "Still, at least when Jim and I go to adapt, we read the book and read the book and read the book, and then we throw it away and never look at it again. Then we go in and write an original."
According to Payne, any great screenplay has to be original unto itself. He elaborates, "When you're making a movie, this material has never before been a movie. It's been a book. It's a different form; it has different criteria, different standards and manifestations exclusive to prose. Now it has to be a movie, which is way different, if it's going to succeed on cinematic terms."
Payne and Taylor are beginning work on their next script, but good luck getting him to reveal anything about the plot.
"It's about," he begins, followed by a prolonged sigh. "It's a secret. But it's an original. Jim and I will start writing it, probably in November."
One can probably assume it's not a road trip movie, as Payne has made two in a row and insists he's not even a fan of the genre. "I really hate shooting people in cars," he says.
i saw an advance screening of this at fox a couple days ago -- the trailer doesnt do it justice -- i was complelty taken aback by how different and misleading the trailer was from the actual film -- the trailer makes it look like some sentimental 40-something coming of age love story in wine country -- it had some of that -- but over all, i was releaved to see that it was a departure from the horrible trailer -- payne was there to answer questions -- the questions were idiotic as is the case with most of these things -- do you like wine? did you drink wine? did the actors get to drink REAL wine? i just left after that 3rd question. great movie, bad questions.
f u
I didn't think the trailer was all that bad (mainly due to those last three shots before the title), but other than that, I agree completely with cowboy curtis and his assesment of the film. It's a really wonderful movie, satisfying on all counts. Thomas Hayden Church should get an Oscar nod for his performance.
Alexander Payne Talks About Sideways
Source: Edward Douglas October 20, 2004
Filmmaker Alexander Payne has come a long way from his Nebraska roots. His last two films have received high praise, and many well-deserved awards and nominations, making him one of those rare indie directors with mainstream credibility in Hollywood. The quality and unique feel of his previous movies, dealing with topics like abortion (Citizen Ruth), teacher-student relationships (Election) and aging (About Schmidt), have made Payne the director that every actor wants to work with. His latest movie Sideways, based on Rex Pickett's novel of the same name, is about two close friends who take a trip through California wine country. To play Miles the wine snob and his boisterous pal Jack, Payne could have chosen from the cream of the crop, but instead, he went with two popular character actors, Paul Giamatti, best known for his stint as Harvey Pekar in American Splendor and "Wings" star Thomas Haden Church. The tone of their trip is changed by two women played by Virginia Madsen and Payne's wife, Sandra Oh, best known as Rita on the HBO sitcom, Arliss. With this unconventional quartet, Payne went on location to California, ending up with a very special movie that is as funny as it is touching.
ComingSoon.net talked to Payne about his new movie, which closed the recently concluded New York Film Festival. (Note: long time writing partner Jim Taylor jumped in to help answer the last question, as well.)
CS!: Your new movie is an adaptation of a book by Rex Pickett. How did you discover it, what made you want to adapt it and how hard was it to adapt?
Alexander Payne: Michael London sent it to me in 1999. He knew Rex, who was then unpublished. The novel wasn't published until May this year, and they thought I'd be the right guy for it. I like the humanity of the characters and the comic set pieces and the wine aspect because I like wine, and those gals, and it seemed like it would be a lot of fun to make. Another big reason is that it didn't seem like the adaptation would be very hard because Rex's book was an amazing template to work from and it was pretty much laid out. Jim and my adaptation was very faithful. You always have to spend a lot of time on it to shape it into a movie, but I thought that it wouldn't be a terribly difficult adaptation. Of course, it's always hard once you start writing and have to change things. Of the two or three adaptations we've done, this was by far the most faithful one we've done. Typically our scripts take six months for a first draft. This one was four. That's a savings of two months - nothing to sneeze at.
CS!: Can you talk a bit about the casting process for the movie?
Payne: Michael London, the producer, and I had been optioning the rights to the novel ourselves, and then Jim and I wrote the screenplay on spec, and then Michael and I together paid for casting. Got an office and paid my casting director, hung out a shingle and started meeting actors. The important key to this is that there was no studio involved, so it was just us auditioning actors for a couple of months. Finally, I found the four actors who I thought would be great in the movie, and then we went to studios. It was nice eliminating the name game with studios. It was really just how I want to work, which is go out, meet and audition as many actors as I can that I think are in the right ball park and then pick the ones that I think will be good.
CS!: Since there are only four principle parts, let's talk about each specific actor and what you saw in them? Let's start with Paul, who was great in American Splendor. Is that what convinced you to cast him?
Payne: I hadn't seen that. You know, I really just go off of auditions. I'm pretty old fashioned that way. I spent a week in New York auditioning folks here then I went back but I really wanted to cast Giamatti. I had to see some other people, so I couldn't announce my decision yet, and then during that week or two, there was a screening of American Splendor. I went to it, and he was great in the movie, but it didn't affect my decision.
CS!: How about Thomas Haden Church?
Payne: I had never seen him act. I still haven't seen him act in anything else, although since shooting, I've seen about fifteen minutes of Wings when I was surfing by. I had auditioned him already for Election and About Schmidt. My then-casting director, Lisa Beech, had always loved him. He makes a big impression, he's always kind of on, he's an actor guy, but with a really big personality. I always thought of him, and here I thought he might be right. I was always hoping to cast him one day. I'll audition people and obviously I can't cast them all, but I remember them and sometimes I write it down too, and Tom's someone who always stuck in my mind. Also, he is a veteran of a couple of TV series and had relinquished to a certain segment of his career and was working on his ranch in Texas. That fit really well with the character of Jack, and I always like that kind of mirroring.
CS!: What about Virginia Madsen made you think that she'd be perfect for the part?
Payne: I really haven't seen her that much either. There's something present in her eyes, even in her eight by ten photo. She looks at you and she listens and then she thinks and she speaks. Not a lot of people do that. Plus there was something where just looking at her, she communicates some life experience. I like that, because honestly cinema is often about the close-up, and if the face says something, that's a cinematic performance. That's why you have so many lousy actors as movie stars, because their faces have something. She's got that. Then she just nailed the audition. Right before casting her I had a coffee with her. I had to be sure that she wasn't going to be doing glamour puss stuff, make sure that she would be comfortable without any makeup and playing every bit of her age, because that's what the character is. She was totally cool about that, and she was such a pro and a trooper. In fact, she has a close friend who grew up with her in Chicago together, who said to me, "You're the first filmmaker to begin to capture the Virginia I've known all my life." That was nice.
CS!: And then of course, the fourth part of the equation is your wife, Sandra Oh. What was it like directing her, especially since she has a sex scene with Thomas?
Payne: It's fine. I don't think there's much difference between if we did not know each other. Well, other than that I was f**king her. (laughter) But no, she only worked like eight or nine days on the film, so it wasn't like a deep director-actress relationship.
CS!: Was there less pressure not working with an actor on the level of a Jack Nicholson?
Payne: The problem working with Jack Nicholson isn't Jack Nicholson. It's other people's attitudes towards Jack Nicholson. He was fine and cooperative with everything except that he can't shoot before 11 in the morning, and that was fine by us. As soon as he walks on the set, everyone is deferential and quiet, but he's just a guy. I noticed that difference on this film. Because there are no big movie stars, the actors are just hanging out and wouldn't freak out the crew, so filming was lighter and faster.
CS!: Besides the low-key cast, this also seems like a more personal film then your last few, more about the people and the place.
Payne: Could be. I grew up in the 70s when movies were about regular people and regular human stories. What we see in older films and what we see in foreign films is not the ridiculously contrived plots of Hollywood films. It's not about fighting terrorists or Road Trip or any of that bullsh*t. I'm fascinated by how fantastic regular life is, and I don't need these f**king contrived plots. The whole challenge, is to get uncontrived things, to somehow capture human experience on film. And that's hard. That's what I look for. That's why I try to have place as accurately presented as I can in films. Not just human emotions and people and a sense of my experience transported into the characters, but also place. I have a certain documentarian nature to my filmmaking, both to reporting on the human heart and the physical places I see.
CS!: Is that love for 70's movie why the movie seems to have a 70's feel?
Payne: I'm certainly not alone in admiring so many American films of the 70's, It's not so much the tone, it's the look of the film. I told the cinematographer that I wanted it to have those softer colors and more of that pastel feeling of the films of the early 70's. Actually, my idea was that it would be a combination of early 70's American film and a late 50's/early 60's Italian comedy. The idea of constant jazz going throughout the film, that's kind of scoring the film, but not really.
CS!: Speaking of capturing the place, this also was your first film not shot in your home state of Nebraska. Besides the obvious reason (that it was set in California wine country), was there any other reason you wanted to get out of Omaha?
Payne: I never really set out to be the Omaha guy. It occurred to me for my first three films to shoot in Omaha, but I want to shoot all over the place and it felt fine.
CS!: What would you consider to be the tone of the film. Is it a comedy or a drama?
Payne: Tone is hard to talk about, because tone is style and style is the filmmaker's. It's just who you are and what occurs to you as being funny and dramatic and meaningful. As a viewer, I recognize that it has those things in retrospect, but in terms of how we set out how to do it, it's really just what comes out. I guess we can just say that we're always trying to make comedies, but we're always thinking about what happens next, regardless of whether it's comic or dramatic or pathetic. It all comes from the same place and we certainly don't score for comedy or drama. In fact, often when the most comic or dramatic things happen, there's no music and you bring the music in later. Another thing about tone, for us, is making sure that the audience is participating in what's funny and dramatic, and never telling the audience how to think...like Spielberg might do. How music is used in those films is used completely opposite of how we'll use music.
Jim Taylor: It's also a real testament to the actors, being able to bridge that divide and to be able to be real. They can do this somewhat broad comedy, but keep enough basis in reality that when the next moment comes along that you're still with them as human being, as opposed to characters.
Stay tuned for more with the cast of Sideways, which opens in New York and Los Angeles on Friday.
Posting news and interviews, watching better horror movies...I see what you're trying to do, Mr. Mini-Thrindle's Boyfriend.
anything to get out of this mess i'm in. :kiss:
I'm excited.
Director Payne Goes 'Sideways'
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fentertainment.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fent%2Fap%2F20041022%2Fnyet346_film_alexander_payne.sff.jpg&hash=9474a49207773d7b40c95d1cb5e79012f0a2b4a5)
"What's funnier than real-life experience?" Alexander Payne asks. That question easily could serve as the motto for the director who set "Election" in a real high school with authentic real students and plopped an au naturel Kathy Bates into a hot tub for "About Schmidt."
But in Payne's "Sideways," there's more tenderness. Like all of his films, it's carefully imbued with a sense of realism, but without his trademark biting satire.
"`Election,' `Citizen Ruth' and `About Schmidt' are more `let's examine a situation,'" Payne said in a recent interview. "We're kind of outside the world of the characters. This feels more like the story issuing from the inside of the characters."
The movie focuses on two old friends who embark on a wine-tasting trip to California's Santa Ynez Valley. Miles (Paul Giamatti) feuds with Jack (Thomas Haden Church) over their divergent expectations for the vacation. Miles, a depressed divorcee and wine connoisseur, wants nothing but to sip fine pinot noir, while Jack's self-proclaimed "plight" is to sow the last of his oats before his impending marriage.
As the two friends grapple with their middle-aged lives (one a teacher with a 700-page unpublished novel, the other an out-of-work actor) they careen between wineries, eventually returning home in a busted-up Saab.
It's Payne's first foray into making a movie anywhere but his hometown of Omaha, Neb. The 43-year-old now lives in Los Angeles with wife (and "Sideways" co-star) Sandra Oh.
"I love shooting in the Midwest, but I never want to be `The Nebraska Guy,'" Payne explained. "I'm a filmmaker, so I'd like to shoot everywhere."
That desire to set out with a camera may explain this being his second road movie in a row after "About Schmidt," but it's just coincidence to Payne.
"`Election' is a high school movie by a guy who couldn't have been less interested in making a high school movie, and `About Schmidt' and (`Sideways') are road movies made by a guy who is not really interested in road movies. ... I hate shooting in cars."
But the characters of "Sideways" made it worthwhile.
"The book (by Rex Pickett) is really real in terms you felt. You live that pain of being broken up after a divorce, and writing a novel and not finding a publisher."
Though this is only Payne's fourth film, he's already had considerable critical success. He and co-writer Jim Taylor (with whom he collaborates again here) were nominated for a screenwriting Oscar for "Election" and won a Golden Globe for their "About Schmidt" script.
"I came out of film school from UCLA and I had no idea where I was going to get my financing from," Payne remembers. "Somehow, making the films I want to make, I've been able to get financing from studios. I write and direct my own films with studio money; I have final cut.
"I have a European director's career in America. And if I can do it, then other people can."
In this, Payne is similar to several other young auteurs like Wes Anderson ("Rushmore"), David O. Russell ("Three Kings") and Paul Thomas Anderson ("Boogie Nights"). Able to make so-called "independent" cinema within the studios, they all straddle mainstream and art-house appeal.
It's a balance not lost on Payne, who thinks movies are beginning to thaw after a period of corporate blandness that the film industry "will find it can feed itself by giving some back to the human."
And there are few actors that epitomize the everyday, average human life more than Giamatti, who starred as comic writer Harvey Pekar in last year's "American Splendor." The film set, Giamatti says, was very communal and the wine didn't hurt either.
"Everyone was walking around with a glass of wine in their hand," he says. "At one point, I saw a grip holding a light in one hand and a glass in the other."
The actor says Payne is "a control freak that lets you feel like you're in charge ... He's successfully satirical in an age when there's not much satire."
Payne has much reverence for a time when satire and raw humanity was more prevalent: the fabled '70s of American cinema, memorable for films by Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Altman and Hal Ashby, among others.
That decade is significant, Payne says, for "what film language suddenly was, and we needed it then, given all the heavy (stuff) that was happening. I think we're entering a phase like that now. I think films might come off their fraudulent pedestal a little bit, and be more human again. We're certainly living in difficult political times."
I just saw this thing.
A little background: I love love love Election. About Schmidt is just okay.
Sideways is brilliant. Probably his and Taylor's best work. I was moved.
Quote from: Slick ShoesI just saw this thing.
A little background: I love love love Election. About Schmidt is just okay.
Sideways is brilliant. Probably his and Taylor's best work. I was moved.
This makes me very excited, since we have similiar tastes with Payne.
One of the most insightful, true-to-life, and poignant potrayals of the male psyche, the pain(s and joys) of existence, and the dynamics of friendship, all while being a poetic piece of Americana. Takes some bizarre (yet hysterical) and conventional (, but poignant) turns but it all works at the end of the day. Without a doubt Payne's best film to date, which I can say with confidence without having seen Citizen Ruth. Tonally, it's pitch perfect. The acting is superb; Giamatti MUST be NOMINATED at the very least, since he was overlooked for American Splendor. Thomas Haden Church gives the same performance that Dermot Mulroney gave in About Schmidt but is excellent nonetheless; again, I demand a nomination.
As I said, it's Paynes best film. It's great seeing him develop as an artist through each of his films. The drunk phone call sequence is so expertly crafted, as are a lot of things in the film but I especially like that one (that's hardly a spoiler but if one of you admins disagree...whatever). Sideways captures the finer-things-in-life, this-is-the-stuff-of-life sentiments with such elegant and delicate beauty, a mature film that not only is a reason for hope for American cinema (Manhola Dargis wrote that in her review... I feel the need to give her credit) but a reason for hope in general. Loved this movie.
P.S. Payne's use of sexuality is bold and is much appreciated, even though it hurts to watch...
Quote from: samsongFor being as ugly as she is, Sandra Oh exudes a very sexy confidence that I found very appealing.
What?!!!
Otherwise, in complete agreement. Although if only one person could be nominated, I'd go with Church.
Quote from: samsongFor being as ugly as she is, Sandra Oh exudes a very sexy confidence that I found very appealing.
This probably isn't Payne's intention, since he's married to her and probably, y'know, doesn't think she's ugly.
absolutely, perfectly exquiste and lovely, also funnier than anything this year, the golfing scene "did they hit into us?" oh boy...brilliant movie
samsong, how is thomas haden church's performance anything like dermot mulroneys in about schmidt? I see virtually no similarites, perhaps i'm blind, and if that is the case, please enlighten me.
I saw it again. I'm just in love with this movie right now.
I anticipate a backlash: too many glowing reviews equals unreasonably high expectations.
I gotta admit I've already fantasized about the DVD.
saw this tonite. very good. i prefer Schmidt and Election personally but i still had a good time here, as much as one can watching Paynes characters misery. it was A LOT about wine, moreso than i had expected. giamatti is good as usual, but nothing revelatory. he's always good but its nice to see him as a 'leading man' instead of a quirky sidekick. church was good and likable througout his despicable actions, almost like a middle aged slightly mellowed vince vaughn. the music was interesting, very jazzy through the whole beginning almost like vince guaraldi's peanuts score or something. i dont know except that i 'noticed' it and it gave it a different feel than most films you watch. interesting how guys like him (or DGG) seem to be looking to capture whats real, real people, real dirt, not false movie sentiment, but at the same time using split screen and noticable camera tricks to let you know you're watching a movie. its an interesting paradox i suppose a lot of filmmakers face. he seems to be also looking to perfect the saddest happy ending.
there was an thing in the paper today with Payne where he mentioned the next project being a larger scale and said he had been thinking a lot about Nashville and La Dolce Vita. sounds interesting....
Went to a Q&A/discussion w/ Payne and Taylor tonight, which was quite fascinating (plus there was a wine tasting to boot!). Payne is not the dick he seems to come off as in recent interviews, in fact, I found his words to be quite inspirational: here's a guy who's had bad-post-film-school times (he told budding writers to relish their despair), has stuck it out, and made a career for himself. The whole night was especially odd b/c I had Sandra Oh sitting in the aisle next to me (she's a little crazy, kept muttering things to herself, and would divide her time between script reading and wine-drinking) and Howard Hessman behind me ('Head of the Class' flashbacks kept popping in). All in all, an entertaining night. If you ever have the opportunity to see these guys in person: do it.
Quote from: samsongFor being as ugly as she is, Sandra Oh exudes a very sexy confidence that I found very appealing.
yeah, i was enjoying your review until this line.
Quote from: POZERQuote from: samsongFor being as ugly as she is, Sandra Oh exudes a very sexy confidence that I found very appealing.
yeah, i was enjoying your review until this line.
:(
well, it's gone now.
i cannot stress how great this movie is. sure, i walked in with high expectations, but i can confidently say that it easily met them. the movie surely belongs to Church, hopefully he'll get a supporting actor nod.
It's really good, but not as good as everyone here is blowing it up to be.
About Schmidt was better.
PG is incredibly talented, I'm glad he's starting to get some bigger roles. Church was better than average, but not oscar worthy, just better than average worthy (which often does mean Oscar worthy now days unfortunately).
I just caught this today and really enjoyed it. I'm pretty sure I agree with RK that it's not quite up to About Schmidt, but it's not that there's anything wrong with it, really. Very nice, loose, character-based storytelling, and plenty of laughs big and small.
Quote from: RegularKarateIt's really good, but not as good as everyone here is blowing it up to be. About Schmidt was better.
yeah.
I saw this last night, then wined and dined afterwards. My best night at the movies in a long while. Which makes this, for I, the best of the year.
I cannot articulate how please I am with this film.
spoiler
that foreshadowing about the ending via talking about the book thing was already in before sunset this year!
Friday night I saw this film. Possible spoilers. This is one of the best films of the year, and it's even better than About Schmidt. It has more staying power, more poignancy, and a universality that Schmidt didn't quite get only because Schmidt was an older man, so not everyone could relate to what he was going through. Surely one can think hard enough and put himself in Schmidt's shoes, but that's not a task everyone is willing to undertake. This is not a knock on Schmidt, because I loved that movie very much. It just seems that Payne gets better and better at conveying the bittersweetness of life, and I can't wait for Nebraska.
Virginia Madsen and Paul Giamatti should be nominated for Oscars for acting, Payne for adapted screenplay and directing, and this film for best picture. I'm on the fence about Church. While most people remember Church from Wings, I remember him from Ned and Stacey, and his character here is much more reminiscent of his character from that great show. A lot of what he does is culled from Ned and Stacey - just him playing a cad. But when he breaks down after losing his wallet, that really made his character complete, and made him deserving of any accolades he may receive.
Unlike Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, people will remember this one since it's been shown late in the year, and it has the perk that Sunshine doesn't have that it doesn't use technology as a crutch or distraction. One of the criticisms of Sunshine is that it created a cold feeling because of all of the special effects going on. It caused the viewer to become detached and not get too involved with the film. I can see where that criticism comes from, and I both do and don't agree with it. But in this film, there is none of that coldness, none of that detachment. Sunshine and this film both have truth on their side, and that's what makes them work so very well. Truth, in life, in relationships, and in how these things really are, and not in manufacturings and machinations of plot.
This film really took time to build its characters. One of the complaints I can't really fathom is that a movie is too long. Since when is a movie that's barely over 2 hrs. too long? Especially a movie as fun to watch as this one. I wanted to spend even more time with these people. The scenes people will talk about most are the scenes where Jack does something crazy, and the scenes at Stephanie's home where Miles and Maya get closer. Their monologues about wine and grapes are beautiful, even if they feel like they've been a bit scripted.
"Saturday" in this film came way too soon, and the ending scenes elevated this film from just another comedy by Payne to something truly special. From Miles' bittersweet encounter with Victoria at the wedding, to his lonely lunch in the fast food restaurant, to the beautiful answering machine message and the knock on the door, I'll play all these scenes over in my head until I can see them again.
I already want to see this film on DVD, and I would love to see Criterion release it. It just has that sensibility about it, what with the poster, the leisurely pace of the film itself, the scenic photography, and the quality of the overall craft.
sunshine is also non-linear and somewhat experimental. sideways is a completely straightforward narrative.
Paul Giamatti's performance as the unsatisfied middle school English teacher is sad and poignant. This is the go-to-guy for loser roles. It was interesting how the trajectory of the film was just like Virginia Madsen's description of the life of a wine. The grapes have to be cared for tenderly, and once the wine is bottled, it tastes different each day, and it finally gets better and better until it peaks and starts its inevitable decline. Beautiful film.
This movie was awesome to me... I'm really growing fond of Alexander Payne.
Some great jokes here... Very well acted... I could say more, but I've just been thinking about since the viewing, so I need to collect my thoughts on it...
It's a really terrific movie, almost as good as About Schmidt. Paul Giamatti is awesome and the screenplay is really authentic. I kinda guessed the ending ahead of time, but it probably didn't need to end any other way.
I just got back from "Sideways" and really, really enjoyed it. Yeah, and let me tell you, "Sideways" is a little loose. I mean we just started making out, and the next thing I notice is that "Sideways" has got my pants off! Needless to say, we're going out again next week.
I thought it was funny that the audience I saw it with were all (and I mean all) above middle age. I think they still liked it, though. Where did they hear about this movie? In wine tasting mags? It has definately not been advertised on tv here.
They did sometimes seem to be on "laugh-o-pilot" when some of them giggled during the sadder scenes. I get that more and more when you go into a comedy and the audience laughs at everything, like the way the character pours their coffee. Ha ha, cream or sugar!
When I saw this, it was mostly middle aged people, too. Here's the weirdest part: the room was full. The show was practically sold out. I was extremely confused. I saw Huckabees there twice and save for a couple of other people, I'd be the only one there. This theater really sells with big name movies, and I was really impressed to see such a turn out.
The downside was I was sitting next to some old guy who fell asleep and snored quite a bit in the beginning and it was pretty annoying. Didn't ruin the movie going experience too much, but just enough to irritate me.
Giamatti's the PAPER MAN
Sideways star signs up for his next leading role in the Michele and Kieran Mulroney-helmed Paper Man.
Paul Giamatti, who just picked up an Independent Spirit Award nomination for his role in Sideways, has attached himself to the comedy Paper Man, which will mark the directorial debuts of writers Michele and Kieran Mulroney. Management 360's Guymon Casady and FilmColony's Richard Gladstein are producing the project, which should begin production in April, with Darin Friedman serving as co-producer.
In the film, which Kieran Mulroney -an actor - and his wife Michele Mulroney - who has directed theater - wrote as part of the Sundance Writers Lab, Giamatti stars as a successful novelist who has lost his inspiration as a writer and whose marriage is falling apart. Not helping matters is the fact that he still has an imaginary superhero friend who has been with him since childhood. He then goes to Cape Cod, where he strikes up a platonic relationship with a high school girl who puts the spark back in his writing.
Giamatti will soon be seen with Russell Crowe and Renee Zellweger in the Ron Howard-helmed Cinderella Man, which he will follow with Paper Man. His other recent credits include Paycheck, American Splendor and Confidence.
Gladstein recently produced Finding Neverland and The Cider House Rules.
very good film. Payne is always able to balance comedy and drama as good as anyone. I think this is a much better, more mature work than About Schmidt. This film should, and probably will, get the academy noms it deserves. It's nice to see a movie about friendship that does it well.
***** out of 5 stars, #2 film of the year (behind eternal sunshine)
I didn't expect to like it, but Payne moved me to enjoyment. I've been weary of praising Payne for previous efforts like About Schmidt and Election...I thought both were a bit too distant from the characters we were purported to care for. But here we are right with Giamatti, and towards the end, his friend. So it was endearing for me. The distance was halved and it benefitted the film enormously. Dramatic, funny, small, light on its feet and heavy at others...it even takes some visual chances with a split screen scene that I enjoyed. I think it deserves a viewing.
Just saw this tonight. Very, very funny and well done.
I knew the director's name was familiar.
:lol:
My friend is leaving the theater and he says to me, "Wow, that was really great but I don't think I wanna see it again. Kinda reminded me of About Schmidt.."
Heh.
The naked repo man was hilarious..
Alexander Payne is growing on me. Election was really good writing for a comedy, but just a comedy nonetheless. About Schmidt is beautiful if only for Nicholson's performance, but a flat observation on someone finding out his life may be over. The symbolic filmmaking really didn't allow me be involved in the story. And with a subject as general as that, you realize that the film is not only eclipsed by so many other films, but by so many other works of art, period. Now, with Sideways, Payne has ridden himself of the pretensious filmmaking gestures and allowed the story to take over. The film is so simple but amazingly deep because its really not punctual at all. Most movies, if even they don't consider themselves savants of film school ideals, still take away the story they are trying to tell by following the three act structure. Payne has moments of this, but the film is amazingly without many film tricks or ideas that there are moments through out the film that really are touching in a way I hardly get from even great films these days. Sometimes the story is all that needs to be told. Sometimes its better to remember the experience of watching a movie than the memorable moments in one added up. Payne has simply allowed for me to appreciate the experience of watching a story unfold.
Saw Sideways again last night and it just hits me how personal Payne makes his movies. I normally see it, but watching it the second time I was able to look at it even more closely.
I can't wait for more of his work.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAlexander Payne is growing on me.
gross. However, there are many Payne relievers out there.
ha ha
This was so much more profound than I thought it would be. And so much better than About Schmidt.
The writing was amazing. This
will win best screenplay awards. The directing was also noticeably excellent, especially the Dirk Diggler moments (like the hold on Paul Giamatti when he's alone in the car toward the end).
It has a Wes Anderson unpredictability. The whole thing was really massively surprising in small ways.
Also, it was about social awkwardness, which I appreciated.
And most importantly, it was 1000 times better than American Splendor (Does anyone even remember that movie? It seemed forgettable.) This must be the role Paul Giamatti was born for.
Quote from: wantautopia?Unlike Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, people will remember this one since it's been shown late in the year, and it has the perk that Sunshine doesn't have that it doesn't use technology as a crutch or distraction.
How was Eternal Sunshine's technology even remotely a "crutch" or "distraction"? The style is the substance, Ono! The style is the substance!
Eternal Sunshine did leave me a bit cold, but for different reasons (the Winslet character).
BIG FAT DRUNK SLOPPY SPOILERS
In the end, the alcoholic gets to go on with his life and be with an enabler, and the sex addict gets away with his week of infidelity. Anyone else notice that kind of stuff?
SPOILERSQuote from: MyxomatosisIn the end, the alcoholic gets to go on with his life and be with an enabler, and the sex addict gets away with his week of infidelity. Anyone else notice that kind of stuff?
Yes, but I think the Dirk Diggler scene was a sufficient apology.
And if I understand the movie correctly, it thinks he's only temporarily alcoholic (and temporarily depressed).
Possible spoilers.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanHow was Eternal Sunshine's technology even remotely a "crutch" or "distraction"? The style is the substance, Ono! The style is the substance!
Eternal Sunshine did leave me a bit cold, but for different reasons (the Winslet character).
I love both of these movies very much (I've only seen each once, though, so I don't know how much that will change). However, until I see Million Dollar Baby and decide about it (and Aviator ... I guess), Sideways will remain best of the year in my book. Just to let you know where I'm coming from, that we're in agreeance.
But I think that you need to accept that we differ on that one point here -- agree to disagree. The style, IMO, is NOT the substance. The style is the style. They are two different terms, two DIFFERENT ENTITIES. That you can't seem to understand my side of things (and I yours) shows we just look at movies differently.
There, earlier, I wasn't even entirely agreeing with that statement about Sunshine. The feeling you get while sitting through Sunshine for the first time is either one of confusion (if you aren't used to movies like these) or giddy awe. For me it was giddy awe. One of the criticisms of this movie (that I was merely pointing out) is that some people may be so overwhelmed by this use of technology that it may take them out of the movie a little bit and leave them cold and detached. I can see that, though I don't entirely agree with it. Sideways is so beautiful simply because it's so well written, acted, and directed, and none of these things rely on fancy technological tricks; a triple-threat of filmmaking excellence.
If you're gonna reply, please try not to pull a Jeremy Blackman (Stanley Spector) on me and quote every other thing I say. That kills the fun of discussing things really quickly.As for the whole Miles/alcoholic/depressed thing, he's been that way for a good long time (two years/since his divorce). It's not just a passing thing. I had to think about it afterwards, and wasn't quite sure at first what I was seeing, but he shows all the signs of someone who really is seriously troubled. It's not just a passing thing, but the end definitely points the way towards things getting better.
SPOILERSQuote from: wantautopia?But I think that you need to accept that we differ on that one point here -- agree to disagree. The style, IMO, is NOT the substance. The style is the style. They are two different terms, two DIFFERENT ENTITIES. That you can't seem to understand my side of things (and I yours) shows we just look at movies differently.
That's just black and white silliness, Ono. It's ridiculous to believe that style and substance are two different, absolute (and separate?) entities. Do they never overlap? Do they never become the same thing? Like I said before, it's a totally false dichotomy, and you can't just say "the definition is the definition, and the definition always applies," because terminology is not sacred.
Quote from: wantautopia?Sideways is so beautiful simply because it's so well written, acted, and directed, and none of these things rely on fancy technological tricks; a triple-threat of filmmaking excellence.
But is there really a huge difference between "technological tricks" and "stylistic tricks"? There are plenty of stylistic tricks in the film... and I think it flows so well
because of them (not in spite of them).
Quote from: wantautopia?As for the whole Miles/alcoholic/depressed thing, he's been that way for a good long time (two years/since his divorce). It's not just a passing thing.
It's two years, sure, but it's still temporary. According to the movie, it was caused by the divorce... it wasn't a character trait.
Quote from: wantautopia?he shows all the signs of someone who really is seriously troubled.
If you mean he's more or less permanently troubled, I agree, but I'm not sure the movie believes the same thing.
Saw this last night and loved it. I felt lukewarm about "About Shmidt" but this one I thought was another winner....I loved election by the way.
This is one movie I had to post about. I saw "Sideways" a couple of weeks ago and was moved (and scared) by the reality of the characters. It was the kind of reality that picks apart personality traits until they are glaringly obvious in front of you, yet some of us live these everyday.
To say it simply: sometimes life is suffocating. There are moments when you can feel the water rushing above your head, and you are looking up (you see the water), and you know full well, that you are drowing.
This movie captured that feeling perfectly.
Brilliant. And if anything, kudos for an honest depiction of some human experience.
She's Back!!!! If Only for a short time.
I'm really surprised to see Sideways still playing in a quite a few theaters in Dallas, TX, considering I saw it on Thanksgiving. I'm glad people are seeing this.
It actually EXPANDED again this weekend like 400 theatres. With the Golden Globes and now the obvious Oscar nominations the movie will be around for a while... at least until end of Feb :)
Yes, it actually came to my town finally. I actually had to drive to see it in New Orleans early but I got to see it again when it came here.
So...Paul Giamatti was not nominated for an Oscar in 2005...
HE WASN'T!?! WHERE DID YOU FIND THIS OUT?!
He also wasn't nominated in 2004.
I just saw this last night. It's a very, very sexy film.
Quote from: cinephileHE WASN'T!?! WHERE DID YOU FIND THIS OUT?!
like holy shit dumass its totally all ova the imdb bords!
Quote from: Walrus the PretentiousQuote from: cinephileHE WASN'T!?! WHERE DID YOU FIND THIS OUT?!
like holy shit dumass its totally all ova the imdb bords!
OMG THANK YOU
yeah, it finally came around here, too.
i guess one of the reasons i haven't been to excited to see it is because i don't think there's anyone under their late 30's in the film. i didn't know if i could relate to any of the characters.
but then again, i liked About Schmidt, so.............
Quote from: Walrus the PretentiousQuote from: cinephileHE WASN'T!?! WHERE DID YOU FIND THIS OUT?!
like holy shit dumass its totally all ova the imdb bords!
like omagosh dork face its totally totally sarcasim!
I finally got to see it last night. I thought it was great. Leaving the theater i remeber not enjoying the ending, but this morning it hit me that it was a perfact ending. I think a few scenes could have been shorter though; all around it was a great movie. Lots of laughs, lots of fun. Well written as well as directed.
Quote from: Dtm115300I finally got to see it last night. I thought it was great. Leaving the theater i remeber not enjoying the ending, but this morning it hit me that it was a perfact ending. I think a few scenes could have been shorter though; all around it was a great movie. Lots of laughs, lots of fun. Well written as well as directed.
It's all about the tow truck driver..
:lol:
Quote from: dvdanswers.comTitle: Sideways
Starring: Paul Giamatti
Released: 5th April 2005
SRP: $27.95
Further Details
Early details have begun to emerge on the region one release of Sideways which stars the likes of Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen, Sandra Oh and Marylouise Burke. The disc will be available to own from the 5th April this year, and should set you back around $27.95. I'm afraid Fox has yet to reveal the full disc specs for this one, although we can confirm that the disc is all set to carry an anamorphic widescreen transfer, Dolby Digital 5.1 track, an audio commentary with Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church, some 'hilarious deleted scenes' and much more. We'll bring you further details, just as soon as we get them. Stay tuned. Our thanks to Greg Madsen for alerting us to this information.
Bleh. Oh well, shoulda known Criterion wouldn't have had a chance at this one.
Saw this today. I won't risk blotting its perfection with a 'review', so I'll just say it was a masterpiece. And Virginia Madsen has a really beautiful face. Which is strange to say, since it seems like Payne tries really hard to make everything in his movies look really workman and normal and nonglamorous, and yet every single shot she had she just looked angelic. Oh, and last thing, it had some of the best dissolves I've seen in awhile. I'm thinking particularly of that scene when Miles phones Maya to tell her the truth about his novel, and Payne bled REALLY slowly from the wide to the CU, and then held them both at once. Great stuff.
Quirky 'Sideways' Sends Pinot Noir Sales Soaring
The pinot noir repartee between Paul Giamatti 's and Virginia Madsen's characters in the movie "Sideways" has helped spur dizzying sales of the red wine during a lingering U.S. glut, wine experts say.
U.S. consumers are salivating over the scene in which Giamatti's "Miles," a neurotic, failing author, evangelizes pinot's subtle delicacy to Madsen's "Maya" in an attempt to wow her with his wine knowledge.
"People come in and immediately say, 'Where's the pinot noir?"' said Steve Villani, manager of Columbus Circle Liquors in Manhattan. "After a while, we began to ask them if they saw the movie, and they laugh out loud and say, 'yes."'
As the Oscar-nominated film generated a buzz through the holidays, U.S. consumers bought 22 percent more pinot noir in the four weeks ending Jan. 15 than the year before, ACNielsen data show. The big winner is Constellation Brands Inc.'s Blackstone Pinot Noir from California, with year-over-year sales jumping 147 percent in the 12 weeks after the film hit theaters on Oct. 22.
"People have really latched onto the romance of the scene, which made pinot the star, no doubt about it," said Phil Lynch, spokesman for Louisville, Kentucky wine producer Brown-Forman Inc. .
HIGH-MAINTENANCE GRAPE
The pinot noir grape, a Burgundy variety, requires a notoriously huge amount of attention from the grower, which makes getting the wine's taste just right extremely difficult -- something Giamatti waxes about during the scene.
"People in the know graduate up to pinot noir as the ultimate red wine, but the buzz around this movie has helped infrequent wine consumers try it immediately," said Jon Fredrikson, president of Gomberg, Fredrikson & Associates, a Woodside, California, wine consulting firm.
Sales of pinot were up 50 percent after the movie's release for Napa Valley's Diageo Chateau & Estate Wines, a unit of Diageo PLC, but up just 10 percent for Brown-Forman.
The companies wouldn't say if the pinot sales increases cut into other varieties or affected bottom lines, but they welcome any help from Hollywood that pulls grapes from the vine and puts them into bottles.
U.S. wine producers have been hurt by a grape surplus, competition from Australian imports and such inexpensive wines as the Charles Shaw label, popularly known as "Two-Buck Chuck."
"Anything that moves cases these days is great," said Brown-Forman's Lynch. "This movie could help pinot noir replace merlot as the new hot red wine."
Constellation planned to sell 25,000 cases of Blackstone Pinot in 2004, but instead sold 46,000, said Lisa Farrell, spokeswoman.
Artwork (http://www.dvdanswers.com/index.php?r=0&s=1&c=5721&n=1&burl=)
Why couldn't they have used the artork below without the credits? The banner and the awards blurbs are ugly.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.art.com%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2Flarge%2F10135000%2F10135052.jpg&hash=ed79cd7babf6147fd152c695d47bc923b264a811)
We've all seen worse DVD covers. The marketing people, and I'm inclined to agree, don't think that people would pick up a green box with a drawing and the title "Sideways" on it.
In singing, you sing to the back of the audience. In selling, you market to the people who didn't intend to buy your product. Both of which are just a way of saying that you have to be louder, and make sure that everyone can hear you clearly.
SOME covers are butt ugly, but that Sideways one is acceptable, I think. They just added faces and awards info. They probably could've done without the faces. Plus it will almost definitely change, as its release is way after the Oscars.
the faces stripe is hideous. but it could be worse, they could be bigger. this i can deal with.
i know this might sound sort of white trashy but dont the rest of you people think that the picture of those two people in the bottle look like a balding kevin smith and a slightly over weight jason mewes?
and i thought the garden state airbrushing was bad. jesus.
I've noticed recently that some movies (such as Troy and Spiderman 2) have different covers for their Widescreen and Fullscreen editions. I think it'd be nice if they kept the artwork as Ravi suggested for the WS, and the face-stripe for the FS.
the theatrical poster is shit to begin with
Quote from: cowboykurtisthe theatrical poster is shit to begin with
i disagree...i like it a lot.
i have a couple of them is anyone wants to buy them off me.
Talk about being a Johnny Come Lately to the party. After months of not fitting in enough time, I finally ended up seeing this on the past weeked in Savannah. Talk about an interesting audience. I went along with three other friends who are still in school and we must have been the youngest people to see the movie. But I have to say I absolutely loved the movie. I'm not going to repeat what's already been said, but one thing about this movie is that the character Miles hit a little too close to home for me. I haven't had the commonality of morosity of a character's situation in life since I first saw Punch-Drunk Love. First Antoine Doinel, then Barry Egan, now Miles. Here's hoping another great movie comes along and gets me thinking about my anxiety.
talk about using "talk about" twice in one paragraph.
**Finally** got round to seeing this today. I really wasn;t sure what to expect (I hated About Shimdt), but I gotta say it: this movie was great. I think the ending would have been much cooler if they'd just ended with the last scene of him in the fast food restaurant drinking the bottle of '61. I didn't dislike the actual ending, but for me, that scene was the ending that did it.
Quote from: SleeplessI think the ending would have been much cooler if they'd just ended with the last scene of him in the fast food restaurant drinking the bottle of '61.
WHAT? NO! That would've made it a completely different movie. I just can't imagine it ending there. Plus, this movie has a fantastic ending. The WHOLE POINT of the ending is that hint of optimism. He hits rock bottom, and when you've got nothing to lose, that's when you have everything to gain.
As it is, you end up thinking, "Yep, maybe things will turn out all right for Miles." With the rock bottom ending, you'd think that maybe after the cut to black he would just go and shoot himself in the head.
People walk out of this movie with a warm smile on their face, and it's because of that last shot. I can't imagine how pissed off everyone, including I, would be if it ended on that low point. I mean, it was a very successful portrail of rock bottom. I could feel that whole lump-in-your-throat-what's-the-point-why-even-try thing very strongly, but I... I just disagree with you, I guess, about that as an ending. Instead of the feel-good movie of the year, it would've been the feel-suicidal movie of the year, and... I just have the feeling that that's not what the filmmakers were going for.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to rip into your idea, but I just disagree. I love the ending as is.
The guy is an alcoholic and the movie never once addresses him getting treatment. Instead he hooks up with an enabler. How's that for an upbeat ending?
Quote from: MyxomatosisThe guy is an alcoholic and the movie never once addresses him getting treatment. Instead of hooks up with an enabler. How's that for an upbeat ending?
I know ya jokin' (sorta), but one of the points of the movie, I thought, was that there is such a thing as the socially acceptable "classy" drunk. I mean, Miles is an asshole when he's drunk (well, more of an asshole than he is when he's sober, that is), and there's nothing classy about that. But he's a wine connoisseur, and even though he gets drunk just like everyone else, it feels strange to ask a wine connoisseur to get some treatment.
And Miles doesn't drink to get drunk, he just doesn't know his limits. He drinks and drinks and drinks. That's an economic way of telling you something about him as a person--the mofo doesn't know his limits. He's a live-in-the-moment guy who doesn't really think so much about the future, which explains why he takes Jack out on this trip despite not being able to afford it (so he steals from his mom). Jack thinks a little about his future, like what he's gonna do with Christine's dad's business and how he can move to Wine Country but still drive to auditions in L.A. etc. They're childish plans, somewhat, but he's someone who's always gotten away with childish plans (he managed to be a working actor, he manages to fuck a lot of girls, all of these childhood dreams have come true for him).
But being middle-aged doesn't stop these two from acting so childish, and that's one of the points of the movie, I think. I know it's a somewhat obvious thing for me to point out, but that's my explanation for why he drinks somewhat irresponsibly and gets to make that his lifestyle, basically. The adult world is a whole lotta pretense. Icky, icky pretense. But they're learning, and that's what the movie's about.
1.6 billion pennies
Quote from: matt35mmQuote from: MyxomatosisThe guy is an alcoholic and the movie never once addresses him getting treatment. Instead of hooks up with an enabler. How's that for an upbeat ending?
I know ya jokin' (sorta), but one of the points of the movie, I thought, was that there is such a thing as the socially acceptable "classy" drunk. I mean, Miles is an asshole when he's drunk (well, more of an asshole than he is when he's sober, that is), and there's nothing classy about that. But he's a wine connoisseur, and even though he gets drunk just like everyone else, it feels strange to ask a wine connoisseur to get some treatment.
And Miles doesn't drink to get drunk, he just doesn't know his limits. He drinks and drinks and drinks. That's an economic way of telling you something about him as a person--the mofo doesn't know his limits. He's a live-in-the-moment guy who doesn't really think so much about the future, which explains why he takes Jack out on this trip despite not being able to afford it (so he steals from his mom). Jack thinks a little about his future, like what he's gonna do with Christine's dad's business and how he can move to Wine Country but still drive to auditions in L.A. etc. They're childish plans, somewhat, but he's someone who's always gotten away with childish plans (he managed to be a working actor, he manages to fuck a lot of girls, all of these childhood dreams have come true for him).
But being middle-aged doesn't stop these two from acting so childish, and that's one of the points of the movie, I think. I know it's a somewhat obvious thing for me to point out, but that's my explanation for why he drinks somewhat irresponsibly and gets to make that his lifestyle, basically. The adult world is a whole lotta pretense. Icky, icky pretense. But they're learning, and that's what the movie's about.
This movie ends the same way Monster's Ball ends. You think all is well when the credits start rolling, but later realize that the characters aren't in much better shape than they were when the movie started. I'll write more and explain further in the article I am writing for the green room on Sideways soon.
wait, so ur writing a negative review of this for the green screen?
Quote from: Pubrickwait, so ur writing a negative review of this for the green screen?
Nope.
I'm writing why I loved the film. There's nothing wrong with an ending which doesn't tell everything.
Quote from: MyxomatosisQuote from: matt35mmQuote from: MyxomatosisThe guy is an alcoholic and the movie never once addresses him getting treatment. Instead of hooks up with an enabler. How's that for an upbeat ending?
I know ya jokin' (sorta), but one of the points of the movie, I thought, was that there is such a thing as the socially acceptable "classy" drunk. I mean, Miles is an asshole when he's drunk (well, more of an asshole than he is when he's sober, that is), and there's nothing classy about that. But he's a wine connoisseur, and even though he gets drunk just like everyone else, it feels strange to ask a wine connoisseur to get some treatment.
And Miles doesn't drink to get drunk, he just doesn't know his limits. He drinks and drinks and drinks. That's an economic way of telling you something about him as a person--the mofo doesn't know his limits. He's a live-in-the-moment guy who doesn't really think so much about the future, which explains why he takes Jack out on this trip despite not being able to afford it (so he steals from his mom). Jack thinks a little about his future, like what he's gonna do with Christine's dad's business and how he can move to Wine Country but still drive to auditions in L.A. etc. They're childish plans, somewhat, but he's someone who's always gotten away with childish plans (he managed to be a working actor, he manages to fuck a lot of girls, all of these childhood dreams have come true for him).
But being middle-aged doesn't stop these two from acting so childish, and that's one of the points of the movie, I think. I know it's a somewhat obvious thing for me to point out, but that's my explanation for why he drinks somewhat irresponsibly and gets to make that his lifestyle, basically. The adult world is a whole lotta pretense. Icky, icky pretense. But they're learning, and that's what the movie's about.
This movie ends the same way Monster's Ball ends. You think all is well when the credits start rolling, but later realize that the characters aren't in much better shape than they were when the movie started. I'll write more and explain further in the article I am writing for the green room on Sideways soon.
I would never say that all was or would have been well. I said it ends with a hint of optimism. Miles has still got work ahead of him, but he's finally giving something a shot, and that's a happy ending as far as I'm concerned. As far as Jack goes, no I suppose things aren't much better for him than they were when the movie started. But Miles is the main character, whose "arc" we're following. And not everybody in life has an arc at the same time or because of the same event, and so it's more realistic (and kinda funnier) that Jack doesn't really learn anything. He got his nose broken for fucking around and then fucked another girl That Same Night, and then bashed his friend's car in to explain the nose. But Miles is a total loser who just keeps going downhill, but finally takes that first step towards something greater. And it's not about what happens after he knocks on that door, what matters is that he got up there and knocked that door, and that's what puts the smile on people's faces.
Part of that smile is that it's not a dumbed-down ending. The audience doesn't feel like they're being insulted with an unrealistically happy ending. And there's no sense that the door is gonna open and they're gonna hug and get married and have babies and Miles is gonna be a successful author all of a sudden or anything like that, and if any of that had happened, it would have been quite the crap ending. Most of Sideways's audience has appreciated the ending a lot, though, for having just the right touch of hope that maybe, tonight, Miles won't be sitting alone, drinking his problems and pain away.
Okay, let me try to explain a little better why I liked that scene in the diner. I didn't see it as Miles hitting rock bottom, or that he had run out on the weddding reception to do so...
I interperated that as dispite the fact he'd just learnt his ex-wife was now pregnant with her new husband's child, Miles didn't freak out as he would have earlier in the film, he fought with his emotions in that scene and controlled them. I think he realised that the only way he could make his life better was to take responsibility for himself and his actions and attitudes towards life. It was the culmination of everything he had been through and learnt during the course of the whole movie.
I found that scene in the diner to be really uplifting - not at all suicidal - it was Miles' way of starting to get his life back on track. Driking the wine there was a way of showing that he doesn't have to keep his happiness bottled up on a shelf until something great happens. I paraphrase the film: "Openning a bottle of '61 *is* the cause for a celebration." It's a good thing. He's drinking a brilliant wine in an everyday place: so, everyday can be brilliant. Everyday can be the cause for celebration.
That's what I think anyway. And although I felt that's where the movie should have ended, I realise that the answer phone message was quite touching, but that ending seemed to go against the film's idea that in order for Miles' life to start to improve he has to improve his attitudes. Although in a sense I guess that by Miles later driving back up to her house it was the same kinda thing, albeit in baby steps.
Does that make sense? I think that our interpretations of the film are quite similar, just I feel that that for the message of the film to be stronger it should have finished a few scenes earlier. Although you have an equally good point, that the message may have been lost of some people had it not been for those few extra scenes.
In any case, that short simple scene is obviously the eye of the duck scene for the film. It's just so perfect.
Just to chime in. I completely get what you're saying Sleepless. I got the same interpretation from the '61 with onion rings as you. But I still think the movie is better with the full ending. Basically, you saw Miles kick his rut in the restaurant. He finally understood that he needs to live for himself. He really had no one else (wife having a child, Jack getting married, and the realization that Mya wasn't going to happen), so he decides to start living for him and not how everyone else wants him to live. Plus, he sees how the carefree life can grant happiness (he realizes that while Jack tells his fiance about the accident at the end).
But then, instead of leaving it as self-awareness and identity as its own reward, he gets a bigger payoff. He's still got the first gift, but now he's got the girl back and even more--the knowledge that he's not a failure. That someone out there got what he was trying to do.
Perfect trifecta.
Yeah, he's decided to start living rather than just 'be'.
I like what you were saying that Maya gets what he was trying to do, but it seemed to me that when she phoned up out of the blue, then everything seemed to be getting a little to easy for him.
But you're right, the scene in the diner is about Miles starting to realise, but when Maya gets in touch is because she finally understands him. Even though Miles tried to explain himself before with the pinot story, it took Maya reading his novel before she understood him.
That makes more sense now, the diner is the scene where Miles achieves peace within himself, and his reconnection with Maya is where the world finds peace with him. Which is all great, I just feel that the "self-awareness and indentity" is the bigger reward, purely because that is something he has actively taken a step towards achieving.
I think, ultimately, my biggest problem is that scene where he's bored in the classroom. It's as if he's back to his old ways, and I'm thinking "you just achieved so much in the diner! How could you let this happen to you again?!" It's because of that scene that we need the Maya ending. Don't get me wrong, the Maya ending is good, but without the classroom scene the Maya ending wouldn't really have fit in. And my problem with that is that there seems to be no real reason for the classroom scene, other than so the Maya ending fits.
I don't mean to keep writing so much about this, when I just want to emphasise that the diner scene is great, and stikes me a far more powerful ending than the Maya ending.
They're both endings, just to different strands.
you are correct sir
the wine 'ending' is nice, but had the film stopped there, i think it would have been considered by the masses to be a complete downer ending (even though i agree it is not as such.)
if we are talking about 'tacking on an ending,' I'd nominate Mr Back Zraff on Sarden Gtate -- he should have got on the plane and buggered off home, but getting off and running back felt like a HUGE afterthought, or perhaps the suits had their greasy fingers in the pot on that (well give you your little art piece with your wallpaper shirts but you give us a cheesy monologue and a hug with a long dolly out shot pleaseandthankyoupleasuredoingbusiness)
either way. miles is giving it another chance. braff is nailing portman.
roll the credits please
Quote from: bluejaytwistif we are talking about 'tacking on an ending,' I'd nominate Mr Back Zraff on Sarden Gtate -- he should have got on the plane and buggered off home, but getting off and running back felt like a HUGE afterthought,
Agreed. Him running back to her felt really forced and average.
As far as Sideways goes, I don't think there is anything wrong with the ending. Just that, it doesn't really tell us what happened after he and Maya hook up. It's interesting to me that some movies paint the picture of addiction with a rosy ending. Sideways would make us believe that he and Maya lived happily ever after, but I think the greatness of the movie is really that he's got a long road ahead of him.
Quote from: bluejaytwistperhaps the suits had their greasy fingers in the pot on that (well give you your little art piece with your wallpaper shirts but you give us a cheesy monologue and a hug with a long dolly out shot pleaseandthankyoupleasuredoingbusiness)
they didnt. at the screening i was at braff basically just said he likes happy endings.
Quote from: themodernage02
they didnt. at the screening i was at braff basically just said he likes happy endings.
well then that is fine, and i accept that as the gospel.
my new opinion, based on this revelation, is that the last 30 pages of the script were flawed
i agree completely.
Quote from: MyxomatosisAs far as Sideways goes, I don't think there is anything wrong with the ending. Just that, it doesn't really tell us what happened after he and Maya hook up. It's interesting to me that some movies paint the picture of addiction with a rosy ending. Sideways would make us believe that he and Maya lived happily ever after, but I think the greatness of the movie is really that he's got a long road ahead of him.
the ending was really warming the first time i saw it; the second time i saw it - looking a bit closer - it looked as if nobody was home in the house.....
HAHAHAHA, now THAT would've been the perfect ending.
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: bluejaytwistperhaps the suits had their greasy fingers in the pot on that (well give you your little art piece with your wallpaper shirts but you give us a cheesy monologue and a hug with a long dolly out shot pleaseandthankyoupleasuredoingbusiness)
they didnt. at the screening i was at braff basically just said he likes happy endings.
The best story he told at the screening I was at was about how they got the shot of the dog masturbating. I don't remember him saying anything about the ending though...
Finally got around to seeing this. I enjoyed it, it was a lot of fun, but I felt my expectations were too high due to the hype. Paul Giamitti was underwhelming in my opinion and almost annoying. I agree with him not getting an oscar nod, some parts of his performance were straight up cheeze. Such as when he says "If anyone orders merlot we are leaving! I am not drinking any merlot!" it got on my nerves. As well as the part after he finds out about his ex getting remarried and takes the wine bottle and dashes downhill swigging. Just seemed like cheeze. Dude's good though, no doubt. I just think he was overhyped for me. Alexander Payne is a filmmaker that is an aquired taste I think. His last two movies are really documentaries. Nothing REALLY our of the ordinary happens, it's just people living life dealing with SIMPLE circumstances. The part in sideways where Miles heads to get Jacks walllet was out of place I felt. It just didn't work for me. It felt like Payne felt he needed to add a scene of ACTION just to keep the audience interested, when I myself was perfecty fulfilled with the normalcy of the whole film up to that point. Wow, this sounds like im bashing the flick, but I don't write much about a film unless I enjoyed it or absolutely hated it. Sideways is a fun flick that I reccomend. It was simple and kind hearted and just a smile bringing flick. Miles on the surface is the saddest character in the whole film, but if you dig deeper, he's also the hero of the whole film. He's got problems, but nothing compared to what the others are dealing with. Things aernt bad for Miles, and alot of the film he mopes around feeling sorry for himself, but in the end I feel he realizes he's got it made and has to make it happen with Mya. The ending was fitting. Good movie. Actually, great movie, just overhyped.
About Schmidt and Sideways in particular remind me of documentaries, cause nothing too out of the ordianry ever happens, much like in real life. All the big plot points and twists and turns are things that are only slightly out of the ordinary. You're right though, it is a breath of fresh air.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1387%2Farticle.jpg&hash=2a89082a1f24ca78f289e5d2a395e3e0b5c9047d)
Alexander Payne is the handsome young director of the films as Citizen Ruth, Election and About Schmidt. His latest picture is Sideways starring Paul Giamatti and Payne’s wife Sandra Oh.
Sideways is the story of Miles Raymond [Paul Giamatti], a failed writer who teaches junior high school English. He takes his best friend, former hot actor Jack [Thomas Haden Church] on a weeklong drive up to wine country in California. There they explore the nature of their failures and question their relationships. Jack, about to get married, has an affair and wonders whether he should call it off. Miles, recently divorced, questions whether or not he made the right choice.
Daniel Robert Epstein: How did the book, Sideways, get to you?
Alexander Payne: The book was unpublished but the producer, Michael London, had the rights. A lot of books get to me unpublished, it makes me feel special. Maybe they aren’t published because they are uncommerical and these days uncommerical may mean interesting.
DRE: You had a small success with Citizen Ruth and since then you’ve been adapting books. What is the reason for that?
AP: When you finish a film you wonder if you will ever think of another movie idea. So it’s nice to get a book where you like the characters and the situations. The most important thing in a film is the flash of the idea. If the idea is good that’s what the audience responds to. From the filmmaker’s point of view that idea is what gives you the feeling that you will be able to see it through for two, three even four years with having to work on it every single day. There has to be something interesting otherwise you’re fucked. There is something about considering a novel because the idea is still there even if you change it for the film. It’s good to have a milieu set of characters and situations. You enter a dialectic with the material by taking what we like and leaving out what we don’t then adding on scenes as well. Don’t forget that with someone like Kubrick who is very much a personal filmmaker, 95 percent of his work was adapted from books.
DRE: You’re part of this generation of filmmakers that everyone wants to work with like PT Anderson, Spike Jonze, Wes Anderson and David O. Russell. Are you aware of that?
AP: That started in 1999 when Election, Being John Malkovich, Three Kings, Rushmore and Magnolia came out. I’m really good friends with David Russell. Spike and I know each other but not very well. I met Paul Thomas Anderson once and he’s not a team player though he’s a perfectly nice guy. We met at Cannes but he sticks to himself. Spike and Sofia [Coppola] were always very nice and friendly.
DRE: Do you see commonalities between your films and theirs?
AP: Well they are all 35mm, 24 frames per second in color and stereo. We’re all around about the same age within ten years.
DRE: How important were the locations when making Sideways?
AP: Very important. As much as I make fiction films I still have a very documentary sensibility both in trying to get the reality of people and the area. It’s about observation almost reportorial observation. I really want the place to be accurately presented. I went to live in the wine country of California for four months before we started shooting to take notes and to make it feel accurate. The spilt screen of them driving through the country and the wine tasting was to make a postcard triptych of that area. I like things to feel right.
DRE: How did you find the house where Paul’s character has to get back his friend’s wallet?
AP: We spent a lot of time looking for that house. It’s in Landford California.
DRE: Paul Giamatti has said it was originally a meth lab.
AP: I wouldn’t say that but it’s owned by a nice lady whose two sons are local gang guys and might be in prison. The cops that were supervising our set mentioned that they had knocked in the door of the house. I like to use found objects more than creating so rather than pick some house and make it low rent we found a genuine low rent house. When we use locations the crew has strict orders to leave it better than we found it. The general rule is to never let a crew shoot in your house but if people need the cash we try to make a good experience.
DRE: Were you into wine before you did this film?
AP: Yes I was. I’m not a connoisseur or an expert but I always liked wine, especially in the last 10 or 15 years when I began to learn more about. I thought it would be fun to get into with this film.
DRE: How was it directing your wife for the first time?
AP: She made it easy because she’s a pro.
DRE: Thomas mentioned that you seemed to get frustrated at them because they couldn’t make his and Sandra’s sex scene sensual enough?
AP: I think they were doing it in a cartoony fashion and it should be real. It’s slightly exaggerated but I want it real. They did it for at least those three seconds you see it in the film.
DRE: Did all of the actors audition for this film?
AP: Except for Sandra, we used the casting couch at home.
DRE: [laughs] How was the audition process?
AP: It was the first film since Citizen Ruth where there was no studio looking over my shoulder. It was just me and the producer. I just work the way I always want to which is meet a ton of actors then select those that I feel are most appropriate whether they are famous or not. Had I picked movie stars, which I could have, I would have had more money to make the film but it doesn’t matter. When you make comedies you can’t screw around with casting and slap some famous person in there as an insurance policy for the studio because it will screw up the movie. The very element that makes the studio breathe easier is what will sink the movie. I understand their desire to have someone as famous as possible but I understand comedy more and this is the cast that will hit the tone right. We don’t need a cinema which continues to lie to us.
DRE: Thomas Haden Church and Paul Giamatti are so natural together. How did that happen?
AP: I cast them singly then insisted they spend some time together beforehand and they wanted to as well. We went through the 140 page script together. I told them that I didn’t want to make a two hour and 20 minute movie so they have to talk fast. They needed to practice their dialogue and hang out together. If the audience didn’t believe their friendship then the movie would really stink.
DRE: How is this movie personal for you?
AP: It has my sense of humor and pathos. It’s not autobiographical exactly but it’s personal in that it’s exactly the way I would make a movie at this point in my life. There aren’t compromises in it. It hits me as a filmmaker because when you are allowed to make a film with a lot of control it’s a very intimate experience.
DRE: What did you learn from Jack Nicholson about dealing with actors?
AP: The first thing that comes to mind is what he had learned from Jeff Corey, a teacher of his in the 50’s, when you approach a role you must have the confidence that you are 80 percent of the character you’re playing. It’s not that you are like that character but that you are 80 percent of that character. All you have to create is that 20 percent. Before I directed Nicholson I called Mike Nichols, since he had directed Jack four times, so I asked him for advice. Mike said to just tell him the truth. I thought that was liberating. I talk to a lot of film students and the students always say they think they know everything but how to talk to actors. When you take directing class they tell you to say activable verb and there is just all this pressure when it comes to actors when you just want to say “Do it fucker!”
Actors always scold directors by telling them to take acting class because then we will know how to deal better with actors. I tell them to take a directing class because then you will know how frustrated we are with them. There are some idiot actors you have to manipulate but I try to avoid that. It’s nice when you say cut and you can go up to the actor and say “That sucked, could you do it better?” In our first week I would say to Nicholson “Everything you’re doing is great but because of the circumstances there needs to be more urgency” and he would say “Oh you mean faster?”
Quote from: MacGuffinDRE: Do you see commonalities between your films and theirs?
AP: Well they are all 35mm, 24 frames per second in color and stereo. We're all around about the same age within ten years.
whoa, someone's testy.. :roll:
Quote from: MacGuffin(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1387%2Farticle.jpg&hash=2a89082a1f24ca78f289e5d2a395e3e0b5c9047d)
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=161779&highlight=#161779