Review of SIDEWAYS

Remember me?

"Director Alexander Payne takes great pleasure in finding absurdity in the routine and picking apart the foibles of human nature, both of which are the cornerstone of that great comedy that is life. As a director Payne has moved (in the course of four films, mind you) from broad satire to specific character comedy, and Sideways is an almost perfect example of the latter. In it, Payne continues to explore the concept of a modern-day, working class Everyman, which he tackled two years ago with About Schmidt, and he finds him in the form of the hero of Rex Pickett's novel Miles Raymond, a depressed but medicated middle-school English teacher, and actor Paul Giamatti. The film takes the form of a road trip of the best sort, in which the characters talk of worthwhile things (even if they don't realize it at the time) and set off on adventures that open up their souls for our observation. Over the course of a week, these characters grow, and we're given the fulfillment of watching them evolve. This is a film that lets its characters breathe, like a fine bottle of wine that they so enjoy, and simply exist in a world shaped by their experiences."

Mark's Full Review

(LOTS OF SPOILERS HERE.)

I haven't read your entire review, just what you've writen here, and though I agree that "Sideways" continues Alexander Payne's evolution from "broad satire to specific character study", I'm not sure it's a step in the right direction. I wanted to like "Sideways" more than I did (though, to be sure, I did) because I felt it was a step backwards from the naturally satisfying "About Schmidt". Here the conclusion seemed forced, as if to say "Everyone can be a winner, even a morose little shnook like Miles."

The way it seemed to me, everyone wins, whether fairly or unfairly. Jack gets to the alter really none the worse for wear--no accountability. Stephanie, though devastated, gets to beat the living bejeezus out of Jack (which is totally in character for her). And Miles gets Maya even though he partly is responsible for the cover-up. (Wholly responsible in my wife's eyes--she felt he had no right to happiness with Maya because she knew he was a liar.) Lives that shouldn't have come together in the first place (Jack and Stepahnie) go their own separate ways at the end as if they never met in the first place.

In my opinion, Jack never grows. If he had, would he have skanked after the waitress after having his nose broken by Stephanie? Jack wanted one thing and he got it every chance he could--and will continue to get it every chance he gets, even after he becomes a spouse.

Perhaps it can be argued that Miles and Maya are the only characters that matter and their growth is what's important. But I don't think it's a natural growth--it's one borne from lessons that I'm not sure they've learned. (Maya seems to be forgiving enough to forget and look at Jack as the tortured artist rather than the liar she knows he is.)

I thought "About Schmidt" was about naturally finding your place in the universe. I thought "Sideways" was about middle-aged angst and being unable to find your way out in an honest, hard-earned fashion.

Mark, I read your full review. You did a fine job covering the plot of the film and adding your comments about the director and the performances. I would just like to add my observations:

I would just like to preface my remarks by saying I will be mentioning specific scenes in the film. Please DO NOT READ if you have not seen this movie. It will SPOIL it for you.

This entire work is not about wine but rather writing, and really good writing versus the adequate. While wine is the focus of the character, Miles, the real meat of the story happens when the characters are sitting on the shore and Miles talks about committing suicide in a hilarious scene that points out the sheer delight and poignancy of this work. Miles goes on and on eloquently describing his feelings, and then, when Jack points out he should write like that, Miles disccovers it was another author's description he had remembered. This is a film about words whose meanings go deep. Just how deep only the viewer can imagine (Jack: "Last night, man... she went deep..." Miles: a puzzled reaction). There is hilarity at its subtly, something rare in film.

Miles is the main character and really is the only character of the film where we see all sides (something only hinted at in other characters). He is the sympathetic lovable loser who has one night of bliss and is rewarded with a swift kick of reality the following day. The film's ambiguous ending gives us no resolution for Miles. His life of ups and downs will continue to go on. How sad then that toward the end, he felt his only moment of joy was in a local fast food burger joint.

The journey into wine country is what is sideways about this film. Miles life has nothing to do with Jack's world. They move in different circles. That Jack has Miles as a friend is a tribute more to Jack than Miles. Jack is superficial ("He's an actor!"). His whole thing in life is pleasure, at all costs. Miles is an old haunt in wine country where he used to frequent with his ex-wife. The irony here is his wife gives up drinking and has the one thing Miles earlier states would have been a burden, a child. At that point in the film, Miles realizes that everthing he tried to create in the book he so eagerly wanted published was false, just as his life had been. Miles realizes too late, a story is more than just taking pieces of your life and putting them into a book. A story starts with great characters we, the readers, find appealing. Miles is that character in the film, but the character of Miles doesn't know that until the end. The wine is a ruse, a "Macguffin" to throw us off the real purpose of the film. This side trip off the road of life is filled with so many wonderful moments (Jack's bluntness compared to Miles' finesse in so many scenes). My friend laughed the hardest when the woman screams the line, "He's got Dr. (character's name) wallet!" The script has Oscar dripping all over it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cinemabon
At that point in the film, Miles realizes that everthing he tried to create in the book he so eagerly wanted published was false, just as his life had been. Miles realizes too late, a story is more than just taking pieces of your life and putting them into a book. A story starts with great characters we, the readers, find appealing. Miles is that character in the film, but the character of Miles doesn't know that until the end.

---

That's an interesting idea. Can you give specifics cinemabon, I didnt latch on to this idea? If I remember correctly the book is about Miles' life and a certain amount of pain associated with caring for his dying mother. Where does Miles have revelations about his present day self as a great character?

It sounds like a very plausible and good reading, I just missed it. Thanks in advance.
P

I believe that I've been taking liberties with the interpretation of the end, where Miles gets feedback from his girlfriend about the voluminous novel (seen in two large sections) part of which is about taking care of his dying (I thought it was his father?) parent. Ergo, his further slide into oblivion by taking the wine which has "peaked," and instead of sharing it with someone who would cherish its ripened flavor, he ends up swizzling it in a cheap hamburger joint by himself. Then we see him in the classroom as a student reads a passage of classical literature only to reflect further on the fact his own novel was resoundly rejected (through juxtaposition). However, this feeling begins with the "thoughts of suicide" scene on the beach, where his character states that even if he committed suicide, it still wouldn't help getting his book published. Further, in the recording Miles listens to of his girlfriends criticism, she expresses puzzlement about the plot and the ending in a way that to me reflected my interpretation. To summarize, I believe the point I was trying to make was that while the character in Miles' book (himself) was a weak character, the Miles character in the film is a "great" sympathetic character. The reason Miles novel failed was that he could not recognize that quality about himself which made him appealing to others. (Now I'm confused!)

Being a writer, I extrapolated what I was seeing (and feeling)from the film to fit my argument. My empathy was strictly with Miles (as I'm certain it was intended) from the start. The writer side of me probably prejudiced both my opinion and my hand.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cinemabon
To summarize, I believe the point I was trying to make was that while the character in Miles' book (himself) was a weak character, the Miles character in the film is a "great" sympathetic character. The reason Miles novel failed was that he could not recognize that quality about himself which made him appealing to others. (Now I'm confused!)

---

So you're saying that Miles' "character flaw", if you will, his insecurity or self-consciousness, was what prevented him from really writing "truthfully" what he thought or felt? So his writing was perhaps more wooden than it would have been if he were more confident in transfering his talent or passion to the paper.

Or, maybe he simply wasn't talented as a writer to begin with; so that the only time he actually shows some talent (i.e. the beach scene with Jack), is when he's quoting from another writer. Maybe it's that lack of talent, that mediocrity in Miles, that makes him so "sympathetic" to us the viewer. He's human.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bix171
In my opinion, Jack never grows

---

I think that's the point, and I also disagree with your conclusion on "About Schmidt". Payne has never been one to wrap things up in a tidy package at the end. In "About Schmidt", the title character was no better off in the end; in fact, his tears at the end seemed to be of frustration. He had no connection with anyone in the world except an African orphan 6,000 miles away, and he realized that his inability to connect was not going to change.

Likewise, in "Sideways", the characters change only slightly, only incrementally, if at all. That's reality, according to Payne, that's life in the real world. It may not be fair that Jack can run around and then get married scot-free, but so what? Life's not fair. He'll probably continue to cheat on his wife after they get married, and he may even get caught one day. Or he may not.

I also disagree with your conclusion that "Everyone can be a winner, even a morose little shnook like Miles." Miles doesn't "win", per se, more so he just tries to make the best of his situation. He may not be an accomplished novelist or a Hollywood movie star, but he's a fairly intelligent, sensitive guy who can probably make it work with Maya because she appreciates those qualities about him. So I do think that is a "natural growth" for his character. Does that make him a "winner"? Well, then if so, good for him.

I also disagree with your conclusion on "About Schmidt". Payne has never been one to wrap things up in a tidy package at the end. In "About Schmidt", the title character was no better off in the end; in fact, his tears at the end seemed to be of frustration. He had no connection with anyone in the world except an African orphan 6,000 miles away, and he realized that his inability to connect was not going to change.

I disagree with your disagreement. I contend that the conclusion to "About Schmidt" was indeed tidily wrapped up and that Schmidt, whose primary concern was finding his connection to the universe, finds his place precisely in the correspondance with the African orphan, finally touching someone, even 6,000 miles away. If the main character in a story goes from darkness to light, this is precisely what Schmidt does and I believe the tears are a result of that.

Miles doesn't "win", per se, more so he just tries to make the best of his situation. He may not be an accomplished novelist or a Hollywood movie star, but he's a fairly intelligent, sensitive guy who can probably make it work with Maya because she appreciates those qualities about him. So I do think that is a "natural growth" for his character. Does that make him a "winner"? Well, then if so, good for him.

You're right--he's not accomplished and he's just an average guy; he's decent (although he helps Jack in his cover-up, something, as I've said before, my wife says a woman could not condone because it destroys trust) and he's a good fit for Maya. She will help him in his quest to overcome his insecurity, depression and help him find his lot in life, which is more than he had, or had reason to expect, before he met her. I think that allows him to claim victory in life and you're right again--good for him.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bix171
I disagree with your disagreement. I contend that the conclusion to "About Schmidt" was indeed tidily wrapped up and that Schmidt, whose primary concern was finding his connection to the universe, finds his place precisely in the correspondance with the African orphan, finally touching someone, even 6,000 miles away. If the main character in a story goes from darkness to light, this is precisely what Schmidt does and I believe the tears are a result of that.

---

Very interesting. I think Payne intentionally left it ambiguous precisely for the reason of encouraging such discussion. I'd like to hear interpretations from others here on this topic.

I stand by my contention that his were tears of frustration and not of joy. He had spent his entire adult life centered around his wife, his daughter, and his job. Then his wife dies (and he learns she was having an affair), his adult daughter is someone he can't understand or relate to, and his job has gone on just find without him. He's a nobody. He's gone from darkness to darkness. And, in the end, he realizes the cruel irony that the only person whose life he any impact on is the African orphan, someone he will certainly never meet face-to-face. That's a harsh reality.

I agree with your other comments on "Sideways".

Originally posted by JustaFied
he realizes the cruel irony that the only person whose life he any impact on is the African orphan, someone he will certainly never meet face-to-face.

Ah, but it is an impact on someone--anyone--and now he belongs to the heavens he gazes upon on top of his Winnebago.

Alienated by those around him (his adulterous wife, his co-workers who forge on without him) or alienating those around him (his daughter, his future son-in-law, his future mother-in-law), he at last finds someone who he can touch without fear of being relegated to nothingness. It's small conceptually but has a world of meaning to him.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bix171
Alienated by those around him (his adulterous wife, his co-workers who forge on without him) or alienating those around him (his daughter, his future son-in-law, his future mother-in-law), he at last finds someone who he can touch without fear of being relegated to nothingness. It's small conceptually but has a world of meaning to him.

---

Yeah, but it's pathetic and it's sad, and I think he realizes this. He simply cannot relate to anyone he meets person-to-person. He's more than just emotionally awkward, he's socially and emotionally inept. He's akin to the Billy Bob Thorton character in "The Man Who Wasn't There". And if he ever by chance does meet the African orphan in person, I think it'll be an awkward interaction as well. I know people like this, people who don't get joy from human interaction, people without real human empathy or understanding. The question is: is it an innate characteristic or a simply a product of the environment? Was Mr. Schmidt born like this, or did he turn out this way because Omaha is such a dull and uninspiring place?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JustaFied
......in "Sideways", the characters change only slightly, only incrementally, if at all. That's reality, according to Payne, that's life in the real world. It may not be fair that Jack can run around and then get married scot-free, but so what? Life's not fair. He'll probably continue to cheat on his wife after they get married, and he may even get caught one day. Or he may not.

---

I agree with you here and on some of the other points you've made while responding to bix171's comments, but, why are we celebrating this film like it's a Citizen Kane or a Godfather? Okay, so there's a slight narrative arc constituting character development, a tight screenplay, some good performances but how about repetitiveness and juvenile humor. Every 10 minutes we have a showdown between Miles and Jack in the hotel room and they both dwell on the same repeatedly which frankly halters any further growth that they might've experienced. Car missing the tree while being destroyed further; explicit description of the sexual acts between Jack and the overweight waitress and the events afterwards; Miles dumping a bucket of wine on himself; the incident on the golf course and many others belong in our average teen comedies that we all love to hate. HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm also comes to mind more than once. The nihilistic attitude is shared by both Miles and Larry David, along with some physical traits. In About Schmidt I didn't like the comedic use of the name "Ndugu." Here we have a dumb Armenian woman who's getting screwed along with her parents, not to mention the Asian woman with a White mother and a Black Kid. Payne doesn't seem to know much about any of them.

I realize that I've focused on the negatives but for the life of me I can't understand all the top ten lists and the victories at various film societies.

Quite possibly our most humble and mild-mannered critic, A.O Scott of the NY Times recently wrote an article on Sideways. He wrote that "....the reaction to "Sideways" is worth noting, less because it isn't quite as good as everyone seems to be saying it is than because the near-unanimous praise of it reveals something about the psychology of critics, as distinct from our taste. Miles, the movie's hero, has been variously described as a drunk, a wine snob, a sad sack and a loser, but it has seldom been mentioned that he is also, by temperament if not by profession, a critic," and he went to say, "In "Sideways," a good many critics see themselves, and it is only natural that we should love what we see. Not that critics are the only ones, by any means, but the affection that we have lavished on this film has the effect of emphasizing the narrowness of its vision, and perhaps our own. It both satirizes and affirms a cherished male fantasy: that however antisocial, self-absorbed and downright unattractive a man may be, he can always be rescued by the love of a good woman.

A.O. Scott's article harkens back to a similar response last year to Lost in Translation, 2003's "most overrated film". Something about how middle-aged male critics loved seeing Bill Murray, a man about their age, flirting around with Scarlett Johannson, a lovely lass young enough to be his daughter. I liked the movie for reasons beyond this, but that was the argument at least.

Scott also goes on to point out that Before Sunset and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, "both variations on the theme of a moody, cerebral fellow graced by the kind of romantic love he probably doesn't believe in and can hardle be said to deserve", are, unsurprisingly, also favorites with such critics.

Right, similar issues were raised last year but I don't recall that Lost In Translation ever became the phenomenon Sideways has. Scott's article is pretty mild actually; a few other critics aren't so generous but I also don't agree with the stance that Sideways is an abomination. However, as I stated earlier, its success is incredible to me. I believe that there was more to Lost than what met the eye, while the opposite is true for Sideways.

I believe the fascination with this film is one of characters. There are an abundance of bright wonderful characters that help to carry the plot. Someone mentioned the two continue to end up in the hotel room rehashing the days events, but I didn't feel that slowed the film at all (as if the hotel room were a respite in the pacing). I liked the informality with the bartender who always knew to leave the bottle and not just a glass. He was in sharp contrast to the bartender who only left a sip of wine at the end, with the hilarious results that followed. The laughs don't seem as forced as Lost in Translation, where Murray pushed the laughs through his discomfort. Sometimes, the New York crowd just doesn't get it. They want their "art" films a certain way. This film has mass appeal not just from its main character as the average joe (though he carries most of the film), there are other examples, too. Like the oriental girl who seems as shallow in her quick choice of boyfriends as her parenting skills; the waitress who appears to be so sweet and innocent, when we later see her down and dirty with her biker husband; and then there is the comic relief of the side kick, Hayden Church, who has the best lines in the film and is a hoot! How often do we get to say these wonderful things about movies, instead of witnessing hordes of armies attacking CGI cities or silly models turned actresses spout drivel in their designer clothing?

I mention Sideways when people ask me to recommend films currently playing because it has wide appeal, and I myself found it worth my time and money. On the other hand, if I were to compile a top 10 of 2004 films I've seen so far (I'll be catching up until the end of January), Sideways would not be on the list. This is based on a single viewing. I feel compelled to watch it again, if only for the film's notoriety (does anyone doubt it'll get an Oscar nom for best picture, displacing worthier movies?).

Mark's glowing review at the top of the thread seems too common. He states: "Over the course of a week, these characters grow, and we're given the fulfillment of watching them evolve". Like bix said "Jack never grows". So the movie is about Miles, a character used by Payne in several slapstick, comedic scenes designed for cheap laughs (or is it Giamatti "overacting"? Both?). Scenes that coexist with others (thanks cinemabon) that dig deep into the psychology of the character and his relationships with others.

I find the conjecture that this is a movie that middle-age, male critics find psychologically comforting quite interesting and worth examining. I've decided not to begrudge Payne for choosing not to showcase the "ethnic" characters. I know American cinema rarely bothers with highly successful "ethnic" characters (like the Armenian family very briefly seen in Sideways). And if you ask me, I'm fucking tired of Latinas as maids in Hollywood trash. Miles is a rich enough character to build a film around, but the resulting film has flaws that render it unworthy of unreserved praise.

Oscar: You seem to be in agreement with me on most issues.

(does anyone doubt it'll get an Oscar nom for best picture, displacing worthier movies?).

I've no doubt at all that much more deserving films like Before Sunset and especially Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind will be overlooked.

I definitely agree with you and should've given you credit for pointing out flaws in Sideways that others choose to disregard. The much superior Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind received high praise from crits upon release last spring. Could it be that these scribes have serious memory problems? Is it a handicap to have a great film released early in the year?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind received high praise from crits upon release last spring. Could it be that these scribes have serious memory problems? Is it a handicap to have a great film released early in the year?

---

I think you'd agree that almost every year, there are worthy films that get overlooked simply because of their release dates. On the other hand, a few lesser films benefit from being released later in the year as they also get the proper exposure during the late festival and "holiday" seasons. I don't believe the problem lies with our best critics per se (most of them here in NY) as they haven't forgotten about the likes of Eternal Sunshine or even Kill Bill Vol. 2 and these film have made their top 10 lists; instead, other film industry associates who represent the majority in terms of voting for the major awards seemingly do have some "serious memory problems" as you said. Any other films you can think of?

I agree it is a very good film. However, I am more inclined to say
-- it has a very good cast (and characters portrayal)
-- it has a very good script! (It gets better as the movie goes on).

HOWEVER, I am NOT willing to award it the Best Picture of 2004.
I am still wondering why so many critics readily do so ...
-- At times, I wonder is it simply to prove that they are a cut above "mediocre" movie goers? ha ha ha
;PPP

As I have mentioned in another thread,
... If I were to tell my friends overseas that this is the best film of 2004, they will be like "huh?! what?!" ... baffled ...
... I am more inclined to vote for "Million Dollar Baby" or "The Aviator".
;)

Originally posted by arsaib4
I don't believe the problem lies with our best critics per se (most of them here in NY) as they haven't forgotten about the likes of Eternal Sunshine or even Kill Bill Vol. 2; instead, other film industry associates who represent the majority in terms of voting for the major awards seemingly do have some "serious memory problems" as you said. Any other films you can think of?

You're right. Other films I liked released early? I liked Dogville very much. (#2 in Hoberman's list, #9 in Film Comment's poll, not a chance of any noms). And I liked a modest film titled We Don't Live Here Anymore which nobody watched. I think it's at least as good as the notorious Closer, with which it shares thematic elements. It features very good perfs by Mark Ruffalo, Laura Dern and Naomi Watts. As you know from our heated exchange on another site, I'm not a big fan of Kill Bill.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
You're right. Other films I liked released early? I liked Dogville very much. (#2 in Hoberman's list, #9 in Film Comment's poll, not a chance of any noms). As you know from our heated exchange on another site, I'm not a big fan of Kill Bill.

---

As you probably know by now, I'd much rather watch an ambitious film which might even divide critics and audiences as long as it brings out passionate responses from both sides (I'm sure I can say the same about you); and I believe that's the case with both Dogville and Kill Bill Vol.2. Probably more so with the former for obvious reasons. Jim Hoberman, the mathematician, went to work analyzing just that in "Take 6 poll" and reported, "The Top 10 movie that, as quantified by the Village Voice nerdometer known as the Passiondex™, inspired the greatest devotion among its voters was Dogville, over Before Sunset by a hair. (The Passiondex™ divides a film's total points by the number of its voters and then multiplies this average by the percentage of those voters who ranked it first.) Measuring the intensity with which critics championed a particular film, the Passiondex™ distinguishes between those movies with real partisans and those that, typically filling out the lower slots in a critic's list, are consensus choices."

I loved Dogville and it will surely be on my combined (American and foreign) top ten list.

Hoberman also mentioned that, "Such was Sideways, a movie with many friends but few lovers, finishing dead last in the Passiondex™ ratings." I think that this says a lot about the film.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
And I liked a modest film titled We Don't Live Here Anymore which nobody watched. I think it's at least as good as the notorious Closer, with which it shares thematic elements. It features very good perfs by Mark Ruffalo, Laura Dern and Naomi Watts.

---

No, I haven't seen it, but I know it's buried somewhere in my Netflix queue. For this film, I remember Hoberman giving the ultimate compliment to Watts by comparing her to the great Isabelle Huppert. A little later they both ended up in I Heart Huckabees.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by arsaib4

instead, other film industry associates who represent the majority in terms of voting for the major awards seemingly do have some "serious memory problems" as you said.

---

I think 'serious memory problems" aren't really applicable when awards not presented are critics are handed out. I think "serious monetary considerations" are what awards not presented by critics are what we such be talking about. Either the movie made a lot of money or cost a lot of money. "Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World" took up a spot that should've been held by a more deserving film. "The Two Towers", much as I loved it, probably did too; if "The Fellowship Of The Ring" didn't win, you knew sure as daylight that "The Two Towers" wasn't gonna either and that everyone was just waiting to reward "The Return Of The King". (And if I remember correctly, "The Two Towers" didn't receive another major nomination.)

I'll bet that when the Oscar nominations are announced--when? next week, right?--"Sideways", for better or worse, will be there but so will some unworthy film be there too, like possibly "Collateral" or "Kinsey".

*The meter created by Village Voice to measure voters' devotion to a specific film is very helpful, but let's not forget "Take 6" is an alternative press poll. I don't think we can apply Hoberman's conclusions to the critical community in general. I'm afraid mainstream critics are more enamored of Sideways. Jonathan Rosenbaum seems to be aiming the comments below at those folks who write for the major dailies:

"I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's not that I have anything against comedies, last year Down With Love was second on my ten best list. Besides, Sideways has a dark side_its infantile hero steals from mother, and his infantile sidekick, who's about to be married, compulsively cheats on his fiancee. If my colleagues who love this movie are implying that it contains valuable life lessons, I wish they'd tell me what they are. Giamatti is an acerbic loser hero who's eventually given a ray of hope, like the Woody Allen hero of 20 or 30 years ago but without the wisecracks. So, is regressing to that moviemaking model the proudest achievement of world cinema in 2004? Stumped, I watched again. An utter waste of time. It has no secrets to yield, no mysteries to clear up_except the meaning of its title. I have to admit it's flawlessly executed_in the same way that a Fig Newton can be flawless. Alexander Payne has nothing to say about over-the-hill males that we don't already know or couldn't find in a sitcom."

**I love Naomi Watts. Wish she got some type of recognition this year but she won't.

***Huckabees is the single film of 2004 that I couldn't make up my mind about. I'm glad those responsible had the gumption to make it, but I don't know if it's any good.

****Monetary considerations are certainly an important variable. As far as earning noms and awards, how much money a given studio is willing to spend pushing their films and filmmakers is probably most important.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bix171


I think 'serious memory problems" aren't really applicable when awards not presented by critics are handed out. I think "serious monetary considerations" are what awards not presented by critics are what we should be talking about. Either the movie made a lot of money or cost a lot of money.

---

Of course, I think the money issue is a given. Along with Master and Commander, the nominations Pirates of the Caribbean recieved was only because of the fact that it did extremely well at the B.O. But I still believe that if a film like Eternal Sunshine was released within the last couple of months, there'd be more of a push to get it nominated.

I'll bet that when the Oscar nominations are announced--when? next week, right?--"Sideways", for better or worse, will be there but so will some unworthy film be there too, like possibly "Collateral" or "Kinsey".

I think the date is January 25th, but I could be wrong. There's no question in my mind that Sideways will be among the 5 finalists for Best Picture. I'm hoping that films like Collateral and Kinsey aren't with it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
I have to admit it's flawlessly executed_in the same way that a Fig Newton can be flawless. Alexander Payne has nothing to say about over-the-hill males that we don't already know or couldn't find in a sitcom."

---

Rosenbaum makes an interesting point. It is a very tight film, but what about it is new? I would argue the tone and the particular characterizations are somewhat new. Beyond that? I dont know, and maybe that's not enough to be the best of 2004. Although its sure looking like the critical favorite.

Just a few words in defense of "Sideways", which seems to be in the midst of a Critical backlash....First of all, I think Rosenbaum's crititicism of the film is a bit unfounded, particularly in that he heaps so much praise on "Million Dollar Baby" in the same breath (a film with characters that are borderline two-dimensional and a premise that is rather formulaic).

"Sideways" is a film about human neuroses, frustrations, and relationships, among other things. I'm not sure what about that is "new", but then again what would be "new"? These are themes that have been around for ages, hurdles in life that we as humans never seem to be able to fully clear.

Also, what's frustrating to me about criticism of this film is that the focus seems to be strictly on the two main lead characters. Sure, they're the center of the the story, but many other characters in the film are equally well-realized, both in the screenplay and in the screen performances. The character of Stephanie could have been drawn up just to show Jack's selfish, delusional nature; but instead we also see its impact on her, not just in her violent outburst, but also in her more tender mannerisms, her budding hope about their future together.

This film is more than just a "buddy movie" or another film about a road trip, and I think it's unfair of critics to box it into those classifications. At the same time, it's not so bogged down in its own self-importance that it feels heavy-handed. Payne is a realist; he tells a story in a straight-forward manner and leaves it to the viewer to pass judgment.

[I'm coming into the discussion rather late because I put off writing about the movie after I first saw it in November. As you'll see I've read Rosenbaum, but I had not read all of this thread when I penned the following.]

Alexander Payne: Sideways (2004)

By Chris Knipp

It's good, but what's all this fuss about?

"'This is my favorite movie of the year,' I realized," Bay Area food writer Meredith Brody begins a food column -- "as I watched Sideways for the third time with the same sense of delight and pleasure as I had the first time, six weeks earlier, at the Toronto Film Festival."

Brody's most certainly not alone, but there are prominent dissenters. Here's Jonathan Rosenbaum, beginning his own annual Ten Best list to explain why Sideways isn't on it: "Ten film critics' polls in Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Toronto, and Washington, D.C., have named Sideways the best movie of the year. I don't know whether to laugh or cry... Stumped, I watched it again. An utter waste of time. It has no secrets to yield, no mysteries to clear up -- except maybe the meaning of its title...I have to admit it's flawlessly executed -- in the same way that a Fig Newton can be flawless...but as art, aside from some first-rate acting and swell casting (Church, Giamatti, Virginia Madsen), it's almost completely without interest. As entertainment, it's OK -- the sort of thing people can fall asleep watching on late-night cable. As social observation, it's knowledgeable yet familiar...Director and cowriter Alexander Payne has nothing to say about over-the-hill males that we don't already know or couldn't find in a sitcom. Overall the film is unoriginal and unchallenging -- unless one considers an obsession with wine a daring subject." He concludes by pointing out that while critics may like the movie so much because they identify with the "infantile" "loser" wine devotee Giamatti plays, since a connoisseur is a kind of critic (as A.O. Scott proposed, reacting to the exaggerated praise), the public has voted differently -- Sideways is down at 115th on the Variety box office chart. Still, Sideways is tops with a certain kind of "thoughtful" viewer, especially around here in California.

My reaction differs from both Rosenbaum's and the "thoughtful" viewers'. I was simply glad to find anything at all to like in the movie. Likewise with Wes Anderson's The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou -- which, however, I liked much better. Anderson and Payne are viewed by many as America's bright young auteurs, so one wanted to like them. But Royal Tennenbaums seemed nauseatingly precious, and About Schmidt was self-satisfied and mean-spirited. Anderson's new movie, The Life Aquatic, was something of a revelation, mainly through Bill Murray's genial portrait of another American loser -- arguably a much more accomplished one -- who finds a kind of redemption. This time Anderson's quirkiness made sense.

Sideways makes sense too, but it's far less winning. Its success is in its precision, its social and psychological specificity. Alas, Rosenbaum is right: there's nothing especially profound about the observations. But the details of Payne's new West Coast mileu (he's happily left Nebraska, which had obviously lost its charm for him), while not original, are spot-on, and the acting, as Rosenbaum admits, is very fine. Like Rosenbaum, I watched Sideways a second time, and that acting was what I saw. It's a special pleasure to watch Giammati. He always hits his mark. He's a splendid movie actor. In every scene, he gets the precise effect. But why do we want to watch these two men? That isn't clear to me. Giamatti's character, as Rosenbaum notes, is given a ray of hope (the other, Church's, merely appears to have gotten away with his gross pre-nuptial misbehavior). It's only a ray. It serves to soften the portrait. If Virginia Madsen's warm, beautiful character can see something to like in him, so can we. But so what?

By zeroing in on a couple of middle-class white male mid-life losers spending a self-indulgent week in the wine country, Payne has gotten specific about California without totally trashing it and softened his clear eyed portrait of his flawed characters enough to leave at least one of them with a mildly hopeful future. There is, arguably, more keen specificity -- but only a little -- in Payne's social portraiture than you'd get in a good sitcom. That's enough to make you watch, and that acting doesn't pall. But like Rosenbaum, I can't see going back to watch again. Note that Brody found "the same sense of pleasure and delight" on re-watching Sideways. That's not how it works with great art. With The Life Aquatic -- not that that's great art, but it's a better movie -- there's such a rich panoply of detail that it all looks different on re-viewing. Not so with Sideways. It's finely observed, but it's no masterpiece. 2004 was a good year for movies. There's a lot of equally watchable stuff out there. Unlike Rosenbaum, I'd put it in the top ten US (not worldwide) movies of the year. But it's not the best by any means.

Reprinted with my review of Closer here http://www.cinescene.com/knipp/notsoclose.htm

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
he's happily left Indiana, which had obviously lost its charm for him

---

Omaha, Nebraska, actually, not Indiana. Same thing, though, right?

Once again, I don't understand the argument about this movie not being "profound" or "new". It's a good story, a slice-of-life character study about a certain group of people. That subject matter in and of itself is not "profound". Is this story inferior to, say, the films of Altman like Short Cuts and Nashville, and if so, in what way?

One more thing, have you seen Million Dollar Baby yet? I'm really curious as the the response this film will get from the "regulars" on this board. I wonder if others think it deserves all the accolades it's getting.

Dumb me. I've corrected it to Nebraska. I guess it was just easier to spell Indiana (joke).

Well, it's odd you pick Short Cuts and Nashville. Do you really want to compare little Sideways with works of such ambition and narrative complexity?

Yes I have seen Million Dollar Baby and will write about it soon. But that's another thread.

Please note that I really like Sideways. My "review" is perhaps misleading. Had I written about it earlier what I'd have said would've been different. I'm really more commenting on all the critical response to the movie. I would not list Sideways as "overrated" because it's a very good movie. I simply don't get, any more than Rosenbaum does, why it's being universally chosen as the anointed No. 1 best auteur movie of the year, because there are other good ones.

My annual best lists are alphabetical; I look on all the movies in each category as being of equal value.I personally balk when I see people giving movies precise ratings like A- or B+. I'm more a PASS/FAIL grader when it comes to movies and Sideways is a HIGH PASS. As everybody has been saying, it's very "tight," very well acted and cast, and its social satire hits the mark. But when people keep saying it's the best of the year, you start to think, well, what does it really have to say? Did it bring me joy, did it rock my world? Other movies this year have more grandeur, more beauty, more excitement, more emotional depth than Sideways, make you laugh more or take you to darker places. Some people must just think that because Payne's stayed good and Giamatti's emerged as a top quality actor we have to put the movie up on a pedestal.

My American best list would place Undertow, Collateral, Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator, Before Sunset, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Kill Bill II, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and yes, Napoleon Dynamite on the same level as Sideways, -- and Kinsey, Primer, The Woodsman, and Finding Neverland (British subject of course but American director and star) not far behind. And then there are all the good foreign films, and the documentaries, and the things that are too unique to put in an ordinary list, that were shown in theaters this year.

My 2004 best lists in all categories are here: http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/vi....php?p=393#393. (Let me know if you find typos or other mistakes.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Well, it's odd you pick Short Cuts and Nashville. Do you really want to compare little Sideways with works of such ambition and narrative complexity?

---

No, probably not. Altman was just the first thing I thought of when I was trying to come up with an American director primarily focused on character-study. Those two Altman films certainly are more ambitious and multi-layered than "Sideways", but at the same time, I don't think it's fair (or accurate) to categorize "Sideways" as a sitcom or to compare it to a fig newton.

When Rosenbaum compared Sideways to a fig newton he was after all describing its flawless execution. Remember Gorodesh describing how to make a tartine (bread and butter) in the movie Diva? A simple thing done perfectly is often as good as life gets. As for a sitcom, what aspect of American life cannot be filtered through one? Aren't Six Feet Under and The Sopranos basically triumphantly weird and edgy sitcoms, and aren't they better than most movies?

All this comes down to whether it's okay to hold up Sideways as the American movie of the year, without a moment of protest, without looking at anything else. Even if Sideways comes up on critics' lists more often than anything else, there is that lack of enthusiasm, Sideways' low Passiondex™ rating mentioned by arsaib4, whom I'm in agreement with here: it'd warm my heart infinitely more if Eternal Sunshine or Before Sunset got the little statue rather than the clever, adept, but soulless and wan Sideways.

Your post is so perfect I could almost forget you listed Collateral among the best American movies of 2004.

Not a popular one with the critics, and I know you don't love it. I'm with Manohla Dargis--whose taste in some ways I share.