![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mar. 1st, 2005
Carmen and I went to see Sideways on Valentine's Day. Don't read anything into that - the Uptown was simply having a two-for-one ticket sale that day and I wanted to see all the Oscar nominees prior to the awards (I managed to see two of the five - The Aviator being the other one).
Anyhow, Sideways falls into an odd category of movie for me. Movies that are well made that aren't enjoyable. Rare for me because I can appreciate a movie solely for its craftsmanship. Alexander Payne is a decent craftsman when it comes to directing movies. I do have two complaints though.
First, Payne likes stories about pathetically ordinary individuals. Now he can choose any target he likes for his movies and there is a place for Death of a Salesman type stories, but after Election, About Schmidt and Sideways, isn't it about time he moved on to another topic.
That topic, for those who have been paying attention seems to be "most people waste their potential and lead petty, forgettable, lives". If Payne is trying to work out some personal demons, he should take note that he's been nominated for an academy award twice.
My other complaint is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum. Whereas he finds variety in subject matter to be too difficult, he finds variety in emotion to be too easy. All three movies run the gamut of emotions, and film techniques to elicit those emotions. Pathos and slapstick, side by side. This can work if your Chaplin. Alexander Payne is no Charlie Chaplin.
The closest analogy I can think of is the singer Kate Bush. Nobody can dispute that the young Kate Bush was a talented singer with an incredible range and a set of pipes to match. What she lacked was the wisdom to know that you don't use your entire range in every song. Listen to Wuthering Heights or Babooshka sometime to hear what I mean.
Payne uses every technique in his films and he really needs the wisdom to pick and choose. I liked Payne's directing about half the time. Specifically the half where he let his actors do their stuff instead of his ham-handed attempts to tear jerk.
Which brings me to the acting. Virginia Madsen should be getting better scripts now, and this movie proves she should have been getting them for a long time. She plays one of the most realistic characters I've ever seen in film. She imbues her character with an emotional depth that is rarely seen. Paul Giamatti should have been nominated for an Oscar. Most of his character is lying just below the surface - a huge mass of self-doubt, self-pity and destructiveness with only the thinnest veneer of control to prevent a slide into a drunken binge or suicide. That it remains largely unstated is what makes it a good performance. Their scene together in the movie, discussing pinot noir, while really talking about themselves, is the keystone of the whole movie.
The movie ends ambiguously. I choose to see a glimmer of hope in it, but I doubt that's what Payne intends.
Anyhow, Sideways falls into an odd category of movie for me. Movies that are well made that aren't enjoyable. Rare for me because I can appreciate a movie solely for its craftsmanship. Alexander Payne is a decent craftsman when it comes to directing movies. I do have two complaints though.
First, Payne likes stories about pathetically ordinary individuals. Now he can choose any target he likes for his movies and there is a place for Death of a Salesman type stories, but after Election, About Schmidt and Sideways, isn't it about time he moved on to another topic.
That topic, for those who have been paying attention seems to be "most people waste their potential and lead petty, forgettable, lives". If Payne is trying to work out some personal demons, he should take note that he's been nominated for an academy award twice.
My other complaint is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum. Whereas he finds variety in subject matter to be too difficult, he finds variety in emotion to be too easy. All three movies run the gamut of emotions, and film techniques to elicit those emotions. Pathos and slapstick, side by side. This can work if your Chaplin. Alexander Payne is no Charlie Chaplin.
The closest analogy I can think of is the singer Kate Bush. Nobody can dispute that the young Kate Bush was a talented singer with an incredible range and a set of pipes to match. What she lacked was the wisdom to know that you don't use your entire range in every song. Listen to Wuthering Heights or Babooshka sometime to hear what I mean.
Payne uses every technique in his films and he really needs the wisdom to pick and choose. I liked Payne's directing about half the time. Specifically the half where he let his actors do their stuff instead of his ham-handed attempts to tear jerk.
Which brings me to the acting. Virginia Madsen should be getting better scripts now, and this movie proves she should have been getting them for a long time. She plays one of the most realistic characters I've ever seen in film. She imbues her character with an emotional depth that is rarely seen. Paul Giamatti should have been nominated for an Oscar. Most of his character is lying just below the surface - a huge mass of self-doubt, self-pity and destructiveness with only the thinnest veneer of control to prevent a slide into a drunken binge or suicide. That it remains largely unstated is what makes it a good performance. Their scene together in the movie, discussing pinot noir, while really talking about themselves, is the keystone of the whole movie.
The movie ends ambiguously. I choose to see a glimmer of hope in it, but I doubt that's what Payne intends.
