This is the best part, isn't it?
I mean, looking at this still from (500) Days of Summer, you would imagine that this is just the best of, well, everything... right?
How could it not be? An attractive couple dewy with youth, expectant smiles flickering at their lips. A pulsing city serving as the glistening backdrop for their crumbly, sweet slice of Cupid's pie. Warms the cockles, don't it? Sho'nuff.
All the potential in the world -- right here in these two beating hearts.
All the potential in the world. Or so you'd hope.
And "all the potential in the world" is *exactly* why I *hate* this movie.
I hate this movie, because I care about this movie.
I think it deserved better. Better writing, better direction, better cinematography and (sorry, JGL fanatics) a better male lead performance.
I hate this movie because the scenes that *do* work flutter up full of hope and loveliness, then are quickly wrestled to the ground and waterboarded with a saccharin swill of god-awful clichés.
I hate this movie because while watching it, I kept having the sensation of "I feel like I'm watching a *movie*" -- meaning I felt like I was merely observing a synthetic experience calibrated to entertain me based on some focus group-tested sit-com recyclables.
So what? That's fair of you ask. And then you might point out that there are tons of crappy rom-coms clogging multiplexes constantly. Why pick on this one?
But. BUT. (500) Days of Summer cannot be dismissed as a crappy rom-com. Oh, if it were only that easy. It cannot be dismissed as a crappy rom-com because of its handful of terrific moments. Terrific moments that hint at a film that had... All. The. Potential. In. The. World. Potential that it let go to voicemail.
Which is why I hate this movie.
This may be a good time to point out that hate isn't the opposite of love -- indifference is the opposite of love.
I could've seen a crappy rom-com and been indifferent to it, but to see a crappy rom-com with flashes of brilliance brings out the hate in me. Like being in an abusive relationship with a guy who buys his lady really swell apology jewelry.
A lot of cinephiles (especially the fellas) seem blown away by what many of them are referring to as the "cutting" truths in (500) Days of Summer. They are able to celebrate those truths separately from the rest of the turgid pap. But for me, it is those cutting truths that hold an accusing knife up to the throat of the rest of the film, beseeching it, red-faced, "How could you?!"
"How could you?!" is what I should've shouted out at the post-screening Q & A I attended during the Los Angeles Film Festival, since that's how I felt when the lights came up. The sad truth? Hearing the writers, director and two leads elaborate on the film's production only made me lose more respect for their efforts.
For instance, one of the writers explained that the split-screen party scene -- arguably the most powerful segment of the film -- was only written in *after* the studio suits demanded more doubt in the outcome of the tale.
OK. So who cares what inspired the idea as long as it was a good one? *I* care because it illuminates the fact that one of the few winning moments in the movie occured as a matter of chance. A lucky break. Sure, that happens a lot in creative endeavors, but it holds an accusing mirror up to the three-quarters of the film that represent an all-you-can-eat buffet of boilerplate bullshit. The writers' best work was *forced* out of them, in a sense. It wasn't organically born out of an original vision.
The writer went on to say that the julienned timeline of the 500 days (which I found distracting and distancing) was never meant to be a gimmick, yet a few breaths later he revealed that he and his writing partner originally didn't think anyone would want to watch their movie if the timeline wasn't sliced and diced. So it *was* a gimmick, sir. And that's *exactly* what it feels like. And if it wasn't in place, the flaws in the film would be harder to ignore.
My beef is becoming clearer: Mediocrity and manipulation meet cute.
Then comes the uninspired direction. Another Q & A revelation shines a fog light on this criticism. The director pointed out that since Zooey has two beautiful swimming pools on her face, they themed her clothing and environs in blue to match her limpid eyes. "Blue was the only primary color in the film," he announced proudly. Wow, um. So I'm not looking for Wong Kar-Wai palettes, but c'mon! You matched the actress's eyes? This was your aesthetic vision, dude? What. The. Hell.
Now you may fairly accuse me of getting too granular in my hatred at this point. Fine. Most romantic comedies don't bother with aesthetic visions. Blue is a wonderful color. Blue never did no one no harm. Honey child, it ain't the blue. What bothers me is what that statement reveals about the lack of imagination that went into making this film. The lack of imagination that takes up the overwhelming percentage of its running time. The lack of imagination that so many will embrace and cherish.
All of which makes me a heartless douchebag, right?
But at least I'm a heartless douchebag with enough romance in my heart to believe that we deserve better as filmgoers. And I'm digging my heels in and holding out for it.
Holding out for what exactly, you ask?
All. The. Potential. In. The. World.
19 comments:
Don't you love it when a film personally betrays you? Don't maintain a conversation or friendship with someone who asks, "Why are you taking this so personally?" Always take it personally.
I appreciate your emphasis on the Q&A. Most people would say, "Who cares?" I say hold the makers accountable.
I'll be borrowing some of your delightfully bitter turns of phrase.
Wow. Thanks, AA. You're an inspiration.
There's a lot of self-congratulatory entitlement to this rant. You're lambasting the movie for not being what you claim "it deserves" to be. Who says that version would be an improvement on the experience that it is?
The film works almost all the time for me, and if there are any "focus-group-tested cliches" (whatever that means; if anything, the presence of cliches serves to highlight how truthful the film is, not that there really are any major cliches -- not any that you bothered to mention anyway) then they didn't bother me. There's a line (SPOILER) Zooey says to JGL on the park bench towards the end that was sheer brutal violence, the kind of heart-shredding malevolence that should have earned the movie an NC-17 for bloodiness.
"I woke up one morning and I knew."
"You knew what?"
"What I was never sure of with you."
Oof. The "cliches" you vaguely whine about or the movie-ness that had been established by the early part of this film lulls one into a sense of complacency that makes this dialogue exchange even more powerful. How could a movie with a cute, wiser-than-her-years little pre-teen sister spouting relationship wisdom ever lead to a moment so emotionally violent that the audience may not recover for several hours after the screening? Well, it did.
Because (500) Days of Summer doesn't really care what someone thinks it deserves to be, or it could have been. It has something to get off its chest and it doesn't care about fitting neatly into formula or non-formula. It's not The Proposal and it's not Humpday. It is what it became, not the idealized fantasy of Diablo Cody-hating bloggers around the nation.
It's easy to hate a movie you think is so obviously terrible that it deserves pity for wasting a few moments of competence. But that's not what this film is. Anyone would agree with you if 500 Days actually embodied such an existence, but then again you'd merely be stating the obvious. This movie is penetrating not just for its few moments of brilliance, but for its overall effect from front to back. Sure it has flaws, but to quote a hipster who was talking to his friends before the lights went dark in my HUMPDAY screening tonight at the Sunset 5, "I saw (500) Days of Summer for free, and I felt so bad I wanted to pay someone for it anyway. That's how much I loved it."
Too bad he's being insincere, right? He was probably just told to feel that way by a focus group.
Ooh, thanks for sharing such a passionate response, Private Joker. I need more time to give you a worthy reply, but just wanted to say thanks first.
Since my reply to Private Joker ran so long, I have to split it into three parts.
Part 1:
Hey, Private Joker-
Since your comment was so packed with good stuff, I decided to reply point by point (with your words distinguished by * *):
*There's a lot of self-congratulatory entitlement to this rant.*
Since rants are often characterized by a certain kind of self-centered extravagance, I'll take this to mean I ranted well.
*You're lambasting the movie for not being what you claim "it deserves" to be. Who says that version would be an improvement on the experience that it is?*
Probably only the people who didn't enjoy the current version -- a group that I willingly admit is outnumbered by appreciative fans.
*The film works almost all the time for me, and if there are any "focus-group-tested cliches" (whatever that means;*
My meaning with "focus-group-tested" is lowest common denominator and/or vanilla stuff.
*if anything, the presence of cliches serves to highlight how truthful the film is,*
That's a very interesting way of spinning it, but I have to disagree. Storytelling clichés are not inherently truthful, just comforting in their familiarity and/or a shorthand way of communicating.
*not that there really are any major cliches -- not any that you bothered to mention anyway) then they didn't bother me.*
I'm glad they didn't bother you. And it seems they didn't bother most of the people who saw the film.
I won't assume you felt this way, but I think the reason a lot of rom-coms are rote in their storytelling is that people long for that kind of formula/familiarity. It's just that I have a different agenda as a filmgoer. I want to be challenged or refreshed by something real and honest or at least eye-opening. To me, the things I'm calling clichés in this film didn't hit that criteria.
I actually started to make a list of my cliché complaints while drafting the blog post, but then realized it was the big picture letdown that bothered me more. The details weren't so vital to tick off.
I will avoid listing them now for the same reason (and because I'm guessing you won't have an issue with most of them since you defend the most glaring one -- the preternaturally wise little sister). And, to be frank, my memory of individual clichés has faded, since I saw the film weeks ago at the LAFF. It crossed my mind to watch it again before posting my rant so I could list its rap sheet fresh, but I couldn't bear the thought of sitting through it one more time.
Part two of three:
*There's a line (SPOILER) Zooey says to JGL on the park bench towards the end that was sheer brutal violence, the kind of heart-shredding malevolence that should have earned the movie an NC-17 for bloodiness.
"I woke up one morning and I knew."
"You knew what?"
"What I was never sure of with you."
Oof.*
That was a great line, to be sure, and incredibly shredding (and there were other lines/moments of the same shredding kind to be complimented -- including one subtle, but incredibly withering look she gives him in the record store. Oy.). Which brings up a sidebar: The main thing I find so interesting about this film is how guys are reacting to it, since it is a rom-com told from a guy's viewpoint for a change.
What I'm getting from this is that a lot of guys who have been mistreated by women they've dated are getting their breaths taken away by a blast of painful recognition they weren't expecting while sitting and watching a rom-com. This echoes the point you made above, but where I still disagree is that the cushiness of the clichés serves the cutting truths in any fashion. I think it would've been a beautiful thing if those cutting truths were given an even more real and relatable story to live in.
*The "cliches" you vaguely whine about or the movie-ness that had been established by the early part of this film lulls one into a sense of complacency that makes this dialogue exchange even more powerful.*
I think you're giving the filmmakers way too much credit. I don't think there was strategy there at all. In the Q&A, Zooey alluded to the fact she almost didn't want to do the film at first since her character was so underwritten. Then they made some script fixes that reassured her. I just think that these co-writers are still finding their way. Hopefully in their next film project they'll build on what was terrific in this film vs. leaning on the hackneyed stuff. They're allowed to make mistakes. They accomplished an amazing thing by getting a movie made in Hollywood. And the fact that they did make a rom-com better than 95% of them out there is an accomplishment, too. They've introduced an edge to the formula that hopefully future filmmakers will build upon. And maybe since this movie will make money, even more challenging rom-coms will get a chance in the future. All very good things.
*How could a movie with a cute, wiser-than-her-years little pre-teen sister spouting relationship wisdom ever lead to a moment so emotionally violent that the audience may not recover for several hours after the screening? Well, it did.*
I think it was a lucky accident, really.
*Because (500) Days of Summer doesn't really care what someone thinks it deserves to be, or it could have been. It has something to get off its chest and it doesn't care about fitting neatly into formula or non-formula.*
Yeah, it definitely did get what it needed to off its chest. One of the writers based it on a life-changing break-up he went through. And I think that's why those cut-to-the-bone moments happen -- he is lifting it right from his bleeding ears. But I think he and his writing partner were too worried about making a film that was commercial (e.g., the time slice gimmick that they felt was necessary to make their film appealing).
OK, on one level, I can't blame them. They've been struggling in Hollywood awhile and need to make rent. I admit to you that the movie they made will make millions more in revenue than the film I'm wishing for.
Part three of three:
*It's not The Proposal and it's not Humpday. It is what it became, not the idealized fantasy of Diablo Cody-hating bloggers around the nation.*
True enough. (And, by the way, even though I love to bash Diablo, I really liked Juno. It's just everything else she's written that annoys me.)
*It's easy to hate a movie you think is so obviously terrible that it deserves pity for wasting a few moments of competence. But that's not what this film is. Anyone would agree with you if 500 Days actually embodied such an existence, but then again you'd merely be stating the obvious. This movie is penetrating not just for its few moments of brilliance, but for its overall effect from front to back. Sure it has flaws, but to quote a hipster who was talking to his friends before the lights went dark in my HUMPDAY screening tonight at the Sunset 5, "I saw (500) Days of Summer for free, and I felt so bad I wanted to pay someone for it anyway. That's how much I loved it." Too bad he's being insincere, right? He was probably just told to feel that way by a focus group.*
And a coworker told me her artistic (seems important to mention that adjective here) brother said it was the best film he's ever seen.
And a girl I overheard in the mall said she walked out without feeling crappy about being single like she does with most rom-coms.
And Ebert gave it four stars.
I guess that's what's beautiful about the movies -- our love or hate from them is so subjective. And, ultimately, neither of us is wrong. We can't be wrong because these are personal opinions about a piece of art. We can have strong points one way or the other (e.g., what's more marketable), but both of us are right. Even Citizen Kane has its haters.
I'd like to thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts on this. Part of the reason I posted that rant was to engage in a discussion on the movie and when people ask me if they should see (500) Days of Summer, I encourage them to give it a try (knowing most will enjoy it).
I realize my opinion is in the fierce minority, but I felt compelled to share its ferocity here.
I agree with the review, but not with your assertion that indifference is the opposite of love. Why do people always say this? Hate is the opposite of love. Indifference is the absence of love.
What you say makes sense.
I suppose people typically say that about hate/love/indifference because hate and love both entail an investment of time/thought re: object of love/hate and a certain intensity of emotion vs. indifference, which requires none of the above.
I'm happy to be one of the few that agree with your rant. Also, I believe hate and love are along the same lines since both invoke passion and energy whereas indifference doesn't. I'd much rather be hated by someone I loved than be treated with indifference, at least I know they still care a bit.
I was wondering where the park bench in the movie was located, does anybody know?
I *finally* saw the movie and wrote a review for you.
Short version: I liked but did not love the movie, loved the performances, and appreciated the direction a lot more than you did. I also get the feeling that's the last decent script we'll ever see from these writers unless one of them goes out and starts suffering for his art. As a writer, I'm appalled by people who only seem capable of writing well when they lift directly from real life. It's barely better than plagiarism.
Hey Tiffany-
Thanks for your comment. It's always to nice to hear someone agrees with my rant, since so few do.
I was wondering the same thing about that park in the film. It looked like it was postage stamp size. A quick Google search didn't reveal the answer.
Also, this was supposed to be a romantic comedy from the guy's point of view, emphasized by the fact that it follows Joseph Gordon Levitt's character throughout the proceedings. YET the narrator is not JGL's character (unless it's him as an middle-aged man who likes to talk about himself in the third person), and the narrator gives equal set-up to both characters in the opening minutes of the film before siding with JGL and his feelings and experiences.
So it's not really from the guy's point of view. It's from the narrator's point of view, who is a guy but not the romantic lead. So the scrambled plot, supposedly the emphasizing how one actively remembers memories of significance in a non-linear fashion (as Ebert suggested) is bullshit because it isn't being told by the person whose memories are being presented.
If only it was narrated from JGL's point of view the structure might have made more sense. If only they took out that soap box scene at the card company, where JGL quits because the cards and his obsession with "The Graduate" have made him disillusioned, and instead use the finale for him to confront those issues. Since he learned that Summer was to get married why not have him weigh whether or not he should crash it like in "The Graduate," have that be a point where he either makes choices akin to his ideals shaped by pop culture, or grow up and accept the reality that his yearnings aren't always what the world shapes itself around.
Damn, I think it's really interesting that Zooey said he almost didn't do it since her character was so underwritten. That was my big problem with the whole movie as it was (I promise I won't use your space to link to my shit, but just for reference so I don't have to take up a huge amount of space here saying what I said there).
http://msnovember.tumblr.com/post/177581933/you-really-got-a-hold-on-me-covered-by-she-him
Also, we will agree to disagree on JGL. heh.
I'd like to add my voice to the chorus of people who agree with your assessment completely. Like you, I thought the virtues of the film made the cliches all the more frustrating.
It wasn't Joseph-Gordon Levitt's performance, though that bugged me. i actually thought he was great. My issue with the film was Zoey Deschanel. I found her performance flat. She's a gorgeous woman, but that in a way was the problem: the director never let her character come down to earth enough to seem like a real person and so it was hard to care about her.
The locations of the bench, the Bradbury Building and the Barclay Hotel can all be found here:
http://u.nu/4pc53
Great critique of the narration, Joseph. If I remember right, the narration disappeared for a big chunk of the film, then lurched back in when it seemed convenient to writers. Jarring.
Thanks for the link, Ms. November. Totally agree with what you had to say about Summer on Tumblr.
Thanks for joining the chorus, Lisa.
Inkwell Bookstore - Thanks for the location link. Cool.
Post a Comment