posted 10.14.99
Jana McGee writes:
Dear Chick-
(Sorry I can't find your name on the homepage): I've surfed into your site several times and have enjoyed it. I read your review of American Beauty, and though I haven't seen the movie, I have a feeling it's more perceptive than most of the guy reviews I've read, who all take his lust for the cheerleader as a matter of course, rather than creepy. Anyway, also read your piece on Julia Roberts. Didn't write to trash you or her: I can see both sides. I actually like her, though I'm not a huge fan. I wouldn't touch Runaway Bride or Stepmom with a ten foot pole. And Pretty Woman is a movie I find hard to forgive ANYONE for, especially the parents who rent it for their 12 year old girls' slumber parties. The whole idea of selling prostitute as a career choice, and a kind of "feminist" one at that. Forget about it.
However, I do see her beauty and her charm. I just saw her in a PBS In the Wild series on Orangutans, and the charm and beauty seemed to be natural- no makeup, glamour clothes or star turns. At one point she washes her clothes in the river just like everyone else-and without you thinking-WOW, Julia Roberts is washing her OWN CLOTHES.
I think the reason she can get away with acting nasty in her movies is because she doesn't really seem nasty. You never actually believe she's nasty at heart. Though it is amazing how often her roles boil down to just that. Of course, in Something to Talk About, she DID have good motivation. I wholeheartedly agree about the career/ submissiveness thing. However, that's definitely what popular American culture wants in women. And a word about My Best Friend's Wedding. I only liked this movie when I saw it again on video. And though she's is being sneaky and mean, on the other hand what I found really disturbing about the movie was Dermot Mulroney's treatment of his fiancee. He's a creep, he's arrogant and on the verge of abusive. And Cameron Diaz keeps accepting the blame and begging him to love her. Now THAT'S scary. I wanted both women to dump this jerk. And I must confess to enjoying Notting Hill, though it was all cardboard: characters and romance. There's no development of any believable relationship. Anyway, I can only put the movie's appeal down to charm: Grant's, Robert's, and the director's and Richard Curtis' charm as a writer. His characters can make being an underachiever seem like a good career choice.
Anyway, if you've made it this far into my email, I think she has another appeal, and that's one of not taking her clothes off. For actresses today, this is a service they are expected to provide. Actors aren't of course. But the few actresses who don't the audience can relate to in a more old fashioned, less sexist way, the way actresses used to be seen before nude scenes/sex scenes (for women) became de riguer. A final thought-maybe the reason people can accept her characters doing nasty things is because it appeals to the not so nice side in all of us (the way George Costanza appealed to the loser), but she packages it up in a fairly harmless way. Anyway, thanks for reading one more J.R. email.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for your comments on American Beauty. I'm awfully tired of the kind of lust Lester displays being taken for cute, too.
As for Julia Roberts, the "career/ submissiveness thing" may be "what popular American culture wants in women," but that's all the more reason to protest it. I have no doubt that the characters Roberts portrays are seen as wonderfully all-American -- I just have a beef with that attitude.
The really scary thing about My Best Friend's Wedding is the idea that the jerk that Dermot Mulroney played would have not one but two women drooling all over him. *shudder*
Yes, Roberts should be commended for not taking her clothes off on film, but she is the top female box office draw in the world. I'm sure the perception among Hollywood execs is that she could wear a burlap bag and still bring people in. Of course, that might be true of other actresses, if only they were given the opportunity to prove it.

posted 10.14.99
Michael Puttre writes:
Excellent review [of American Beauty]. I agree completely that the movie is headed for classic status, and that Lester could well become an icon. My only complaint is the conceit that you alone in your audience "got it." I think audiences relate to Lester's re-adolescence as sort of a fantasy life, and a cool one at that. Let's face it: quitting a dreaded job, blackmailing the boss, smoking first-rate dope, and lusting after young blondes. It's attractive in a sweetly disturbing and dysfunctional way, and Spacey is a wonder. "I rule." Who can't grin at that? Of course audiences get a kick out of Lester. And it doesn't diminish the appreciation for Lester's emerging sense of responsibility with Angela, nor the bliss he finds in the family portrait right before the end. I assure you, many of us "got it."
Keep up the good work.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Thanks for your comments on my review of American Beauty. I didn't say, however, that I was the only one in the audience who "got it." But you illustrate my point pretty well: you seem to think that Lester's lust for Angela -- an underage girl with whom he has every intention (until the last possible moment) of committing statutory rape -- is cool. It isn't. As I said in my review, Lester keeps becoming a bigger and bigger loser until the last moments of the film.
Sure, I can appreciate the fantasy of cutting loose -- I've told off bosses and I've quit horrible jobs, too. But I think the point (one of the points, anyway) of American Beauty is that taking those fantasies too far is just as bad as living the kind of life Lester was living before. That's the part I wonder if I'm the only one seeing.
Then again, I frequently find myself wondering what the hell people are finding so funny in movies that are meant to be more bitter and ironic than laugh-out-loud funny. I'm weird that way.

posted 10.14.99
Michael Puttre replies:
Letting the condescension slide for a moment, I believe I said Lester's dysfunctional (my word) awakening had aspects the audience could relate to, not that statutory rape was cool. You may have missed the point by dwelling on your disapproval of Lester's behavior. I refer you to a brief interview with Kevin Spacey on the subject:

Kevin Spacey: I watched for the first night with an audience because I had not seen it with an audience. It was really incredible to hear the rooting quality that they're sort of cheering Lester on --even at times when he doesn't do the right thing or when he's not a good parent, or when he says the wrong thing. I think he's an ordinary guy. He's a sort of every man. I was really quite pleased when I heard as much reaction as we got the other night.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I respect Kevin Spacey as an actor immensely, but whatever he thinks about the finished film has nothing to do with my opinion of it.
My readership only continues to grow by leaps and bounds. What distinguishes my site from the hundreds of other review sites online -- what keeps people coming back for more -- is ME, my personality, MY reactions to film. My intention is not to be condescending. But I also do not intend to water down my reviews for fear of offending someone.

posted 10.14.99
Michael Puttre again:
The issue isn't a matter of "watering down," it's attitude. Look at how many times you said "me" any "my" and in CAPS no less. It tells me you are young and hungry. Those are good things. However, you really can't be the center of the universe all the time. It's a black hole.
I mean this in a friendly way, or I wouldn't have bothered to write you at all. I read zillions of movie reviews, and only write to their authors on the rarest of occasions. I believe I said I liked your review, that I agreed with your main (and insightful) point that Lester is heading for icon status, but that I took issue with your assertion that few but yourself got it. I'm just telling you it comes off as imperious. You can have a distinctive and engaging style without being imperious.
Good luck to you, keep writing, and time will tell.

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I used caps only for emphasis -- no italics in text-only email. I don't think I'm the center of the universe any more than anyone else does. And I doubt I'm as "young and hungry" as you think I am. My point was, in the vast wasteland of the Web, where anyone can get on a soapbox, the only thing that I have to offer, really, is my own distinctive point of view. Love it or hate it (I've had readers tell me they disagree with me 99% of the time but keep coming back for more), folks seem drawn to what I'm doing.
I realize that you're being friendly, and I always appreciate hearing from fellow writers and editors. And I thank you for your compliments. It doesn't particularly bother me, however, that you think I'm coming across as "imperious." The reaction I had to the audience with whom I saw American Beauty is one that other moviegoers have told me they also felt. Mine may be an elitist, minority point of view -- in fact, I'm sure it is -- but I know there are others who appreciate and can identify with my imperiousness!

[home] [archive] [new to video/dvd]
[articles] [search the site] [faq]
[join the mailing list] [reader mail] [links]
[awards] [goodies] [manifesto]

thechick@flickfilosopher.com

(Warning: I won't correct your grammar or spelling!)

Copyright (c) 1997-99
MaryAnn Johanson.
All rights reserved.