The Descendants

[Alexandro]

The scene where Judy Greer's character walks in on GC at the hospital was perfectly in tone with the rest of the film

oh, most definitely. the film does not lack consistency. the scene is just as cheap and condescending as the film around it.

i also don't think "awkward realistic humor" entirely justifies the film's approach. some of the scenes may very well be realistic, but there are many other factors to consider. payne can make a fine film when he has the right ingredients (compelling characters, witty dialogue, a sensitive approach to the material, etc.) but the descendants is a kind of pseudo-humanism. it's warmth is only on the surface. every emotion is predetermined so that you know what you should be feeling well before the moment comes. the complex issues in life, such as adultery, are treated with such simple-mindedness (people who commit adultery are shameful creeps and should be treated as such) that the movie loses any relevance. an example of this is the scene where clooney and his daughters (don't even get me started on how obnoxious they are) visits his wife's lover out of spite.

clooney gets to play the straight-laced potential widower at the center of the story while most everyone around him is either deeply eccentric, villainous, or cartoonish (e.g. his daughter's painfully unfunny stoner boyfriend). payne has his reasons for doing this. clooney becomes the object of your sympathy by default and the audience can enjoy feeling superior to everyone else. this approach makes the film so cheap and easy. if a film's characters are cardboard cutouts, the intelligent humor is virtually absent, and the emotions are poorly contrived, then you're stuck with just another movie about very wealthy white people who have the privilege and luxury to tear each other down. the situations may have the potential to be serious, but payne's approach is not.

I felt the film was not funny enough or dramatic enough.

Where exactly does the film tells US that people who commit adultery should be treated in any particular way? One of the funniest pieces of the film is precisely about how Clooney overreacts about that. Yet of course this was already done way better in About Schmidt. The scene where they visit the lover is more about the juvenile impulse we all have of finding out who was the person our loved one betrayed us with. They may "put him in his place" but it doesn't solve anything for the main character. It is futile and the film makes a point in showing us that.

The stoner boyfriend is a caricature only at the beginning. He reveals himself as a much more perceptive and normal human being after a few scenes. What I liked was how they never turned him into an admirable wise young man. He ws just a kid who liked dumb jokes but had an inner life that had much more dignity than what was initially promised.

As I said, the film has it's flaws, but it¡s not cheap or condescending at all.

[chere mill]

The stoner boyfriend is a caricature only at the beginning. He reveals himself as a much more perceptive and normal human being after a few scenes.

didn't that feel so calculated though? again, you can see it coming a mile away. it's the stoner slacker boyfriend as the film's comic relief until...oh, wait! he is actually an intelligent and insightful young man. who knew?! if payne had sprinkled moments of insight about that character through other portions of the film, i might have easily accepted that scene. but it felt like a last ditch effort on the part of payne. it's too little, too late. "see? he isn't such dumbass after all!" yay for humanism!

Where exactly does the film tells US that people who commit adultery should be treated in any particular way?

of course it is never stated directly in the film, but the way in which payne handles the situation of his lead character matt king (the hero of the film, or perhaps the "king") confronting his wife's lover (whom we don't even know) with such eagerness is problematic at best. it doesn't end in an "about schmidt" way where we can clearly see that matt king has gone way over the top, and thus has his own faults. instead, the scene plays out to where king verbally attacks and intimidates his wife's lover without much rebuttal and thus "puts him in his place." it's as if payne is enjoying it. he wants to dig it.

if the idea is that matt king is just as flawed as the other characters, i don't quite buy it. payne doesn't allow him enough self-reflection so that we can fully understand him. another tool (which i also found cheap) is the use of voiceover where king blatantly states that he has made mistakes. we are told early and directly in the film so that payne doesn't have to indulge in portraying many of his flaws for it's remainder, thus jeopardizing his role as the object of our sympathy. king and his wife obviously had problems, but what exactly were they? did he do something that would risk harming their relationship? we know that she cheated and had an affair with another man (payne doesn't forget to leave out the confrontation scene for us to enjoy) but what were matt's faults? do we really know much about him? one thing is striking. matt king is one of the most charming and likeable characters payne has ever created but unfortunately, he is also the most banal.

I felt the film was not funny enough or dramatic enough.

agreed.

[Alexandro]

I just never perceived that Matt King was being portrayed in a too sympathetic light. To me it was painfully obvious that he was kind of dumb, or at least the situation he's in is clearly something he's not prepared to cope with in any intelligent way. I liked the way his character goes from shock to pain to anger and dismissal to the inevitable sincere confession of love for his wife.

I also don't mind that much if a film is "humanist" or not (there seems to be an idea around, humanism: good, cynicism: bad). I like when a film works. This one felt like it could be better.

[md]

I guess i'm confused with your definition of calculated. 

As far as the stoner character, his persona was crude and slapstick but I think it is absolutely necessary for the type of film Payne wrote and was handled masterfully.   I initially perceived him to be the boyfriend, but Payne's intentions are much more humane and fair. Never do we see him smoking pot or even making out with King's daughter.  His role is to provide comic relief throughout Clooney's crisis, and like Alexandro mentioned, reveals himself to be more 3 dimensional as the film progresses.  Payne only touches lightly on his situation and story, providing the audience an understanding of his role in both King's life without prodding or pandering.  The line about his retarded brother and Clooney's reaction is perfect in my opinion and reinforces the style of Payne is known for. 

[Reel]

Bali Dvd



John L. Sullivan Alexander Payne: I want this picture to be a commentary on modern conditions. Stark realism, the problems that confront the average man!
Lebrand Bali Distributors: But with a little sex in it

[Jeremy Blackman]

That is truly insane. Do they do that with other movies? This requires a blog.

[jerome]

French DVD for Role Models... Seann William Scott is pretty much only known for American Pie in France so, yeah.



Translates to something like "Mission: 34DD -- The big brothers"

(feel free to split this into another thread, I'm sure there are others)

[Pubrick]

Bali Dvd

Haha they were so close to getting Schmidt right.

[SiliasRuby]

The Descendants was much better and more moving than anything I've seen in the past 6 months. One of clooneys best performances in a couple of years. Thats a strange Bali DVD.