The Squid and the Whale

[Gamblour.]

I saw a double feature of Capote and then this. While Capote sucked, this had a very refreshing, vibrant method of storytelling. I think this is about the most realistic portrayal of children ever. Walt completely mimics his father, which is so true of kids (the Kafkaesque line is amazing) and the little kid cursing a lot, well I found personal similarities there (minus all the semen). This movie had the strange quality of being particularly gross and very blunt. Gross, with all the skin and fluids. But blunt with the directness of criticisms, an ideal epitomized by Royal Tenenbaum, the character. like when he says the kids' play wasn't believable. Saying this is similar to Wes Anderson is like saying scrambled eggs are similar to egg nog. The ingredients are there, but the method is drastically different. I really really enjoyed this film. Laura Linney was better than Jeff Daniels, who seemed to be channeling Murray a bit, but I know most of it was his own and you could feel that.

[Sal]

I saw a double feature of Capote and then this. While Capote sucked, this had a very refreshing, vibrant method of storytelling. I think this is about the most realistic portrayal of children ever. Walt completely mimics his father, which is so true of kids (the Kafkaesque line is amazing) and the little kid cursing a lot, well I found personal similarities there (minus all the semen). This movie had the strange quality of being particularly gross and very blunt. Gross, with all the skin and fluids. But blunt with the directness of criticisms, an ideal epitomized by Royal Tenenbaum, the character. like when he says the kids' play wasn't believable. Saying this is similar to Wes Anderson is like saying scrambled eggs are similar to egg nog. The ingredients are there, but the method is drastically different. I really really enjoyed this film. Laura Linney was better than Jeff Daniels, who seemed to be channeling Murray a bit, but I know most of it was his own and you could feel that.

I cringed when you said Daniels was 'mirroring' Murray.  It's kind of like saying the movie mirrors a Wes Anderson film.  I thought that was sort of the point, considering Anderson co-produced it.  I saw it today and enjoyed myself immensely.  I think you're right by saying it's "gross."  Truth is the good stuff, but it's also slimey and disgusting at times. 

[Gamblour.]

I saw a double feature of Capote and then this. While Capote sucked, this had a very refreshing, vibrant method of storytelling. I think this is about the most realistic portrayal of children ever. Walt completely mimics his father, which is so true of kids (the Kafkaesque line is amazing) and the little kid cursing a lot, well I found personal similarities there (minus all the semen). This movie had the strange quality of being particularly gross and very blunt. Gross, with all the skin and fluids. But blunt with the directness of criticisms, an ideal epitomized by Royal Tenenbaum, the character. like when he says the kids' play wasn't believable. Saying this is similar to Wes Anderson is like saying scrambled eggs are similar to egg nog. The ingredients are there, but the method is drastically different. I really really enjoyed this film. Laura Linney was better than Jeff Daniels, who seemed to be channeling Murray a bit, but I know most of it was his own and you could feel that.

I cringed when you said Daniels was 'mirroring' Murray.  It's kind of like saying the movie mirrors a Wes Anderson film.  I thought that was sort of the point, considering Anderson co-produced it.  I saw it today and enjoyed myself immensely.  I think you're right by saying it's "gross."  Truth is the good stuff, but it's also slimey and disgusting at times. 

I didn't say mirroring, I said channeling. Much different, and I think Daniels is better than Murray, because Murray would've just been all mopey, whereas Daniels adds this energy and angry and strange sexuality to it.

[cowboykurtis]

Capote sucked

For me, this invalidates any of your opinions, from here on out -

[Gamblour.]

Capote sucked

For me, this invalidates any of your opinions, from here on out -

Ok fine. Can't like em all.

[modage]

Baumbach to Direct Kidman and Jason Leigh
Source: The Hollywood Reporter January 27, 2006

Noah Baumbach is reteaming with Scott Rudin for an untitled drama-comedy and is lining up Nicole Kidman and his wife Jennifer Jason Leigh to star, says The Hollywood Reporter.

The movie, which Baumbach is writing and directing as his follow-up to The Squid and the Whale will be distributed by Paramount's specialty film division, which is being run by new head John Lesher.

Although details are being kept under wraps, the film will be another multigenerational story that takes place over a weekend and follows a mom and her son who visit the mom's sister.

Kidman and Leigh are in talks to play the sisters, but no deals are signed.

Baumbach worked with Rudin on The Life of Aquatic With Steve Zissou, which he co-wrote with Wes Anderson.

[modage]

Jack Black Aboard Baumbach's Untitled Film
Source: Variety March 7, 2006

Jack Black has joined Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Jason Leigh in Noah Baumbach's untitled film for John Lesher's Paramount Classics, says Variety. Scott Rudin is producing.

Black will play the husband of a young woman who is visited at her upstate home by her sister and 12-year-old nephew. Baumbach's script originally was titled "Nicole in the Country," until that became too literal when Kidman committed.

The film begins shooting April 2 on Long Island. Baumbach wrote and directed the Oscar nominated film The Squid and the Whale.

Coming off King Kong, Black just completed the Nancy Meyers-directed The Holiday, which Columbia opens Dec. 8. Next out is Nacho Libre on June 2, followed by Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny, which New Line releases Nov. 17.

[SiliasRuby]

Jack Black Aboard Baumbach's Untitled Film
Source: Variety March 7, 2006

Jack Black has joined Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Jason Leigh in Noah Baumbach's untitled film for John Lesher's Paramount Classics, says Variety. Scott Rudin is producing.

Black will play the husband of a young woman who is visited at her upstate home by her sister and 12-year-old nephew. Baumbach's script originally was titled "Nicole in the Country," until that became too literal when Kidman committed.

The film begins shooting April 2 on Long Island. Baumbach wrote and directed the Oscar nominated film The Squid and the Whale.

Coming off King Kong, Black just completed the Nancy Meyers-directed The Holiday, which Columbia opens Dec. 8. Next out is Nacho Libre on June 2, followed by Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny, which New Line releases Nov. 17.

The above should be interesting. I weatched it yesterday and while I saw some misicule similarities between daniels and Murray, the story and the characters were fresh and I love that they went to see Blue Velvet, it really mirrored the movie in some ways. Also, it didn't seem as short as it was.

[MacGuffin]

Turturro wedded to Baumbach pic
Source: Hollywood Reporter

John Turturro has signed on to star in the untitled Noah Baumbach project at Paramount Pictures' new specialty division.

Jack Black, Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Jason Leigh already have boarded the dramedy. Turturro will play the husband of Kidman's character.
 
The story is being kept under wraps, but it is described as a multigenerational story in the same vein as Baumbach's recent effort, "The Squid and the Whale."

Newcomer Zane Pais, Flora Cross ("Bee Season") and Halley Feiffer ("Squid and the Whale") also have joined the ensemble cast.

Scott Rudin is producing.

[Gold Trumpet]

I went into this film with optimism, but the experience wasn't positive for me. Modage is usually spot on for predicting what I'll like, but this film wasn't the case. When I finally read the entire thread I'm glad a few others didn't just fall in line and love this film.

The main problem with the film is characterization. Story-wise, Jeff Daniel's character is the melting pot to the problems of his family around him. The mother has been coping for years while the children are fracturing ties and deciding what parents they each continue will with. The oldest, who has everything to prove, goes with his father. The youngest clings to his mother and tries to grow successfully out of adolescence while on the brink of sexual discovery. The crux of the story is how their problems develop and how each of them (including Daniels himself) tries to come out of the other end a better person. The film is a portrait of an entire family and the problems that are bred within it because of one man.

But, the film has no sense of character development. The film consistantly shows the volatile actions of Daniels' character. His character is a necessity to be heavily highlighted at the beginning to introduce conflicts, but as the film goes along it should recede on the focus of his character and begin to develop the objectives of the other characters and their stories. The film should begin to evolve its objective of Daniels' character as well. This film is very structured in traditional dramatics. All the characters have evolutions that require an arc in telling their stories. The film hardly makes an effort though to do so. Daniels character is consistently the leading figure and consistently acting out on the insecurities that plagued him in the first 20 minutes of the film and are already too well known to the viewer.

A similarily structured film that does well in this storytelling is Tigerland. In almost every sense Tigerland and The Squid and the Whale are different films, but both have one-dimensional characters as their dominating character. Tigerland has Colin Farrell as the clown grunt soldier who appeals to everyone on at boot camp for his constant antics that get him into trouble. For the audience, this character is easy identification and easy entertainment because the first half hour defines him by his boldness to authority. The Squid and the Whale has Jeff Daniels as the constant harrasser to his entire family. His character is easy displeasure to the audience because he is portrayed only through his outbursts to everything and everyone. But, as Tigerland moves on, the portrait of Colin Farrell in just the one dimensional tone begins to recede. The film starts to introduce other characters and other view points to develop the audiences' vantage point of Farrell's character. Then the film offers begins to dig past Farrel's antics when he performs decent favors for other soldiers. Yet, within the tone of the film, he is still the same person as before. The films offers a rounded viewpoint of his character when it only began on one note. Also, the film doesn't take forever to begin adjusting the portrayal. The transition is perfecly clockwork to the story in the film. By the end of the film the revolution in his character is complete and the film was able to do it without being forced to yield to any scenes that felt cradled, forced or sappy.

The Squid and the Whale has to yield to those scenes at the end though. The bulk of the film is consistently strained by Daniels' non stop outbursts that most of the film operates on one note. Even the story of the oldest son (the second main story in the film) is so latent with repeated examples of the character's disillusionment and anger. The film dramatically unravels only through a series of character conflicts that gets less inventive as the story goes along. The conflicts are constant reminders in 'filmic' language that relations are strained between the family. But, when an interesting angle is shown that could cartwheel the story elsewhere, the possibilities are only hinted at instead of delved into. An example is the angle of the youngest son who mysteriously rubs his semen everywhere. That angle is only hinted yet but could be a greater story because it indicates an under the table reaction a child could have to a divorce. The topics the film goes after are much less interesting.

When the supporting characters go through their emotional transitions it is at the end and only given the breath of a few scenes for each character. Daniels' character doesn't begin to even turn til after he had the heart attack. There never was an evolution to any of the characters.  When the film finally ends on the final shot being the 400 Blows homage, the trickery becomes apparent. Only short films operate on one level and try to find clarity in a final shot to give meaning to the rest of the film. The ending shot here is indeed a homage to The 400 Blows, but the best part about the ending shot in The 400 Blows is that the film didn't need that final shot. It could have ended 20 minutes before and been excellent storytelling nonetheless.

[©brad]

alright GT. i am gonna try to both:

a. boil down your long-winded review into a more manageable cliff notes version
b. refute accordingly

I went into this film with optimism, but the experience wasn't positive for me. Modage is usually spot on for predicting what I'll like, but this film wasn't the case. When I finally read the entire thread I'm glad a few others didn't just fall in line and love this film.

GT: High expectations, film doesn't live up to them, modage and him think alike but differ on this, glad other people didn't love it.
CB: okay. 

The main problem with the film is characterization. Story-wise, Jeff Daniel's character is the melting pot to the problems of his family around him. The mother has been coping for years while the children are fracturing ties and deciding what parents they each continue will with. The oldest, who has everything to prove, goes with his father. The youngest clings to his mother and tries to grow successfully out of adolescence while on the brink of sexual discovery. The crux of the story is how their problems develop and how each of them (including Daniels himself) tries to come out of the other end a better person. The film is a portrait of an entire family and the problems that are bred within it because of one man.

GT: His main problem with film-- Characterization. He gives a brief plot synopsis that does nothing to explain the problem he has w/ the film.
CB: characterization? this was arguably the best character-driven film of 2005. brilliantly written and acted across the board. i can't see how the characterization is a problem, let alone the main problem.

But, the film has no sense of character development. The film consistently shows the volatile actions of Daniels' character. His character is a necessity to be heavily highlighted at the beginning to introduce conflicts, but as the film goes along it should recede on the focus of his character and begin to develop the objectives of the other characters and their stories. The film should begin to evolve its objective of Daniels' character as well. This film is very structured in traditional dramatics. All the characters have evolutions that require an arc in telling their stories. The film hardly makes an effort though to do so. Daniels character is consistently the leading figure and consistently acting out on the insecurities that plagued him in the first 20 minutes of the film and are already too well known to the viewer.

GT: Film has no character development. Something about traditional dramatics. Daniels' character has insecurities in the first 20 minutes that don't change throughout the film, and therefore, the film is flawed.
CB: no clue what you're really saying here. you're pissed b/c you feel each character should have a traditional story arc and the film should end w/ everyone learning something and coming out better and happy for it? the film is brilliant for not doing all that. it's an ingenious, insightful observation of a family and the hardships of divorce, failure, sexual confusion... since when do you necessitate a film being tied up in a nice little bow for you?

A similarly structured film that does well in this storytelling is Tigerland. In almost every sense Tigerland and The Squid and the Whale are different films, but both have one-dimensional characters as their protagonists. Tigerland has Colin Farrell as the clown grunt soldier who appeals to everyone on base for his constant antics of getting into trouble. For the audience, this character is easy identification and easy entertainment because the first half hour defines him by his boldness to authority. The Squid and the Whale has Jeff Daniels as the constant harrasser to his entire family. His character is easy displeasure to the audience because he is portrayed only through his outbursts to everything and everyone. But, as Tigerland moves on, the portrait of Colin Farrell in just the one dimensional tone begins to recede. The film starts to introduce other characters and use their view points to develop the audiences new vantage points to begin to develop how we see Farrell's character. Then the tone's of his actions begin to slowly change and a new conflict is introduced within the story. The point of this new conflict is that the roots of it were seen in the first 20 minutes but as the story progressed and the understanding of Farrel's character moved along it came to take on a different meaning than Farrell just going up against Army regulations as the film originally started as. In the end, Tigerland remains a close personal story of experience like the Squid and the Whale does but it has some semblance in drama to know how things should change when the environment doesn't.

GT: Compares Squid the Tigerland, b/c they both have one-dimensional characters who present problems in the first 20 minutes and never change.
CB: i'm not getting the tigerland comparsion. you keep referring to Daniels as the central character.  if anyone should claim the "main character" moniker, its Walt, the older son. but really there is no main character.

Tigerland is only the story of one man. The Squid and the Whale has to follow the progressions of an entire family. The film lacks objectivity and allows a one dimensional character like Daniels' to run through the entire film without a leash to restrain him. It leaves the other characters finding their transitions in only the matter of a few scenes each and all very late in the film. Daniels' himself isn't shown in a different objective til his accident of having a heart attack. In the end The Squid and the Whale is a short film trying to be a feature length film. Its entire story operates more or less on one level and it tries find greatness in the redemption of a final shot. The ending shot is indeed a homage to The 400 Blows, but the 400 Blows was a much better film. It had a larger diversity of character conflicts and a natural storytelling that didn't rely on the themes and conflicts being so insistent.

GT: Tigerland is about 1 character, Whale is about a family. Film lacks objectivity, it's a feature-length that should be a short, ending shot is a homage to 400 blows, but 400 blows is better so Squid therefore sucks. The final shot tries to redeem a one-dimensional narrative.
CB: oh my god.

1. name me one film or documentary even that is "objective."
2. any film this witty should be short. less is more dude.
3. please stuff rocks in my pockets and throw me off a bridge if this goes on for more than another page in this thread.

[Gold Trumpet]

a. boil down your long-winded review into a more manageable cliff notes version
b. refute accordingly

You did neither, meathead. All your cliff notes did was badly interpret everything I said and all your refutals were just generalization arguments. I can't really argue them because you had no interest to argue anything I said. You had no interest to question my review to better understand where I was coming from. You entire post is a stunt only to undermine my entire review in the eyes of the rest of the board.

Also, if you notice, I've been heavily editing the review. I do that now with all my reviews after I post. When I posted my Art School Confidential review I wasn't done tinkering with it for another four hours. That four hours meant restructing numerous sentences and deleting entire paragraphs and including brand new ones. This review for the Squid and the Whale was tough because I tried writing it originally five days ago and just didn't like the results. So I rewrote it 3 more times. This version here is actually the fourth version I wrote and I still am changing up a lot of things.

See, the point is, I'm open to being criticized and am very much aware of my weaknesses when it comes to reviewing. I'm trying to be more diligent about working with my posts so you have no excuse to be an asshole. Whether you are aware or not, you were being one. Try to just fucking disagree. I don't fault anyone for not liking the movies I like so you can get off of it too.

Congrats. Another reason for me to feel at odds with the admins here. Just take a note from them and try to ignore me like they already do. I'll ignore you right back. You're still the dumbest of the bunch and the one who always comes back for more.

[Gold Trumpet]

OK, one comment was worth an argument.

you keep referring to Daniels as the central character.  if anyone should claim the "main character" moniker, its Walt, the older son. but really there is no main character.

You're right that there really is no "main" character. But, Daniels character does appear through out the film continually. The film never lessens the percentage of his screen time ever. It hinders the development of the other characters because his character is only one note emotionally.

[©brad]

Congrats. Another reason for me to feel at odds with the admins here. Just take a note from them and try to ignore me like they already do. I'll ignore you right back. You're still the dumbest of the bunch and the one who always comes back for more.

gt, you have no reason to feel at odds with any of the admins. am i the dumbest of the bunch? hah, yeah maybe. am i out to get you? nah. as much as i probably should, i do not ignore you. hey man, i honestly do respect the time and energy you put into posts, which is way more than most peeps around here. and i'll humbly admit that you've come a long way in your posting, at least from a comprehensibility standpoint.

as far as your editing technique, i say it's great to edit and edit; however, why not write your posts first in MSWord and edit them there, instead of editing when they're live on the board? the latter makes absolutely no sense at all. you should do a first draft of your posts in a word processor, get them to where you're good and happy, spell/grammar check that mo'fo', and then hit the post key. that way, you can't play the "well i was still in the midst of editing my review" card, which is an undeniably weak card to play.

as for the rest of your rebuttal, honestly, i'm really not trying to attack you. i'm just trying to understand you, b/c dude, some of the stuff you say makes no goddamn sense.

[Gold Trumpet]

as far as your editing technique, i say it's great to edit and edit; however, why not write your posts first in MSWord and edit them there, instead of editing when they're live on the board? the latter makes absolutely no sense at all. you should do a first draft of your posts in a word processor, get them to where you're good and happy, spell/grammar check that mo'fo', and then hit the post key. that way, you can't play the "well i was still in the midst of editing my review" card, which is an undeniably weak card to play.

Lets just say I do edit along all the measures you just requested that I do. Its just after I post and take into account the glaring fact everyone else will be seeing what I wrote that my brain all of a sudden clicks on another level of criticism and just notices more errors. I'm not trying to editing intentionally like this. Its just been happening lately.

But, no hard feelings. Apologies for any undeserving harsh words. I really don't know who the dumbest admin is. I just put too much strain on myself with actually doing drafts (never so many for a review here ever before) that I was ready to blow up on anyone who tried to take shots at it. Read the review again. I'm sure it at least makes more sense.