Smart People: Conflicting Reviews in the Blogosphere

This weekend I saw Noam Murro's Smart People (poster pictured left). I had anticipated this film's release for some time; in addition to being a fan of Thomas Haden Church and Ellen Page, producer Michael London (one of Smart People's fourteen producers) has consistently impressed me with his work ever since Thirteen and completely dazzled me with Sideways. After seeing the trailer for Smart People I became even more excited as I thought that the film remarkably sparked my interest without giving away too much of the plot. After seeing the film I had very mixed feelings and was curious to read the reviews of others which led me to the blogosphere. I was quickly able to find two reviews from two different blogs that I admire very much and, to make it all better, the authors have almost wholly opposite opinions. The first post that I found was at The New Republic's site and is by Christopher Orr, online film critic for The New Republic and former writer for L.A. Weekly, Salon, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New York Sun as well as having been the editor of The Washington Post, The Atlantic Monthly, U.S. News and World Report and Mother Jones. Orr's post, "The Movie Review: 'Smart People'" takes the negative position toward the film. The post in support of the film, "Smart People Review," from TheMovieBlog.com is by John Campea, editor of The Movie Blog and former client services director of Satellite Studios. Orr and Campea, both experts in their field, have almost diametrically opposed viewpoints on this film; my responses to their posts are offered below, as well as on the author's respective blog posts.

"The Movie Review: 'Smart People'"
Comment:
First, I would like to thank you, Mr. Orr, for your insightful and engaging contributions to the blogosphere. At the beginning of this comment I find it pertinent to state that I saw Smart People on the day of its release and with a genuine excitement for the film, but also knowing very little about it (or more accurately having a misconception about the film from seeing its trailer compared to seeing the actual film). You made some very astute observations about the film however, after reading your review, I was left wondering what your thoughts are about the importance of the film's message (or attempted message) and how that correlates to the film's overall quality. You label the film a "seriocomic tale about coping with loss and finding a balance between ambition and decency," after which you go into detail about the characters and plot of the film with very little mention of its message (for lack of a better word). What do you feel is the significance of the message of a film? Is it possible for the film (any film) to be high-quality based solely on the strengths of the message? And, finally, do you feel that Smart People, even with its shortcomings, conveyed the message that it intended to convey? In the last paragraph of your review you write, "The premise of Smart People is that even a complete jerk can have an attractive mind, that even a pedant may sometimes have insights to share. But the movie never grants us access to Lawrence's mind." You back this up by your examples of how his intelligence is never exhibited, though often commented on. It could be said that even with no examples of Lawrence's intelligence the messages of "coping with loss and finding a balance between ambition and decency" are still met. Your claims are well reasoned but I could not help but think that the discrediting of the characters does not inherently discredit the film as a whole. I would love to hear what you have to say about this and hope to hear from you.

"Smart People Review"
Comment:
Mr. Campea, thank you for you passionate and intelligent post about Smart People, as well as former well-informed posts. I feel it necessary to state that I saw Smart People on opening night. Like you I fond of Thomas Haden Church and Ellen Page (pictured right) very much, and think that Sarah Jessica Parker and Dennis Quaid have done excellent work many times over. Also like you I was very excited to see the film since the first time that I saw the trailer (though I do not share your love of Juno). In your review you write that "The one weakness of this film is the Sara Jessica Parker character," and you go on to explain that the relationship between her character (Janet Hartigan) and Dennis Quaid's (Lawrence Wetherhold) is forced and unnatural. However you also laud the character and performance of Quaid, as well as Ellen Page, Thomas Haden Church and Ashton Holmes. While watching the film, at many points, I felt that the characters were all a bit too one-dimensional, so much so that I found them all a bit forced and unnatural, and thought them difficult (sometimes impossible) to connect with. Your first paragraph under the heading "The Good" seems to go into detail that the themes explored in the film resonated with you so much that the film caused you to enter a state of self-reflection. This brings me to a question: you thought that the characters were all (with the possible exception of Sarah Jessica Parker's) well-developed and also you connected with the themes of the film, I thought that the characters were one-dimensional, is it possible to connect with a film's themes and not its characters? What relationship does a films characters and themes have, does appreciating one beget appreciating the other? After seeing the film and reading some reviews, it seems that Smart People destined to be one of those films that people will either love or hate. I am very curious to know any responses you have to this and hope that I will hear from you.

The Ruins: An Exploration Into the Post-Modern Horror Film

This past Friday night a friend and I went out to the movies. We had not checked show times and did not have much of an idea about what was playing at the time. When we arrived it was decided that we would see Carter Smith's The Ruins (for the sake of reputation I feel it necessary to clarify that my friend picked the movie). To be honest I was mildly excited, I had not heard or read any reviews and had not seen the trailer too many times; the experience began to remind me of what I was sure it must have been like to see movies many decades ago, before technology was so readily available to enable a movie-goer to find show times and check reviews. After the movie was over a conversation was prompted about the state of horror films in today's seemingly unshockable day and age. In theaters at the time of this post are The Ruins, Shutter and American Zombie, with Prom Night and Pathology opening later this month. As this conversation drew to a close the conclusion was reached that horror films now are suffering from a severe lack of plot, character and style.

The first point that my friend and I came up with is that horror films today are hurt due to their lack of plot. Too often have we seen movies about a group of young, good-looking twenty-somethings that have terrible things happen. The Ruins, for example, is about four American college students on a trip (presumably during spring break) in Mexico when one of them decides that they should take part in local culture so they go to explore Mayan ruins that are off the beaten path. Allow me to digress for a moment, this movie is written by Scott B. Smith and it is based on his novel (pictured left). Smith is the same person that wrote the novel and did the theatric adaptation for Sam Raimi's A Simple Plan, and Smith was nominated for (though did not win) the Oscar for best writing in 1999 for his work. This obviously accomplished writer is (partially) responsible for making The Ruins. The fact is that this movie has almost the same story as Hostel, Turistas, Wolf Creek and The Descent to name a few. The horror movies that seem to get made today fall into one of two categories: they are either American remakes of high-quality Asian horror films (as is the case with The Ring, The Grudge and most recently Shutter), or they are remakes of this one horror story (which could be traced back as far as the original The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or the first Friday the 13th, even John Boorman's Deliverance). These films' lack of plot is evidenced in the fact that they rely too heavily on shock-value and not enough on developing a truly disturbing, frightening story. The fact is that if something sudden happens on the screen, with a loud noise to accompany it, the audience will be startled. However this reaction does not compare to something like The Exorcist, which reportedly caused audience members to faint and has incited nightmares for over three decades.

These films also suffer from an abundant lack of character. Just because an actor or actress is good looking and willing to have terrible things happen to them while they are scantily clad does not replace genuine character development. In the case of The Ruins what the filmmakers seem to not understand is that if a viewer does not care about the characters then there is no reason to care about the things that happen to them. The current directors, writers and actors of horror movies make their films to appeal to people that are around my age (older than seventeen because of the R-rating they will almost certainly aim for, but not so old that they are unable to imagine themselves and their friends in these situations; both my friend and I that went to see The Ruins are twenty-two-year-old college students) but they completely fail to portray college-age people as anything but sex-starved alcoholic party-goers that act like children. Usually the actors that appear in these films make the best out of what they are given (or at least that is how I usually excuse their bad performances), but in this way The Ruins is unique. The star of The Ruins is Jena Malone, a talented actress that has proven her range in films such as Donnie Darko and Saved! Jonathan Tucker of Sofia Coppola's The Virgin Suicides and Joe Anderson of Across the Universe support Malone's performance. While watching the film I could not help but think that the on-screen talent should have opted out of doing this movie in the first place, and therefore the bad performances are inexcusable.

The style of these films (like the plots and characters) are completely generic and recycled, and are therefore of no good. As opposed to the movie being unique in any respect the filmmakers seem to just try to make their films more similar to the others, ride on the coat-tails of the success of others. A lack of atmosphere has been replaced by an excess of shadows as shocking imagery replaced development of story. Director Carter Smith, who got his start as a fashion photographer and makes his feature film debut with The Ruins, brings nothing that we have not already seen to this movie. Even the cinematography of Darius Khondji, which has been so brilliant before in Se7en, seems dated and uninspired. But this again raises a problem with the current state of horror films: they all look the same, there is not any variance to the presentation of these movies. Horror movies are no longer unique pieces of art.

To call The Ruins a complete waste of time would be an overstatement. The movie is not particularly good, but it is not exceptionally bad either. It is just another in a series of generic horror films to which audiences have been subjected. There was a time when a horror movie was more than the sum of its completely average parts; where there were hearts and souls behind and in front of the camera that had something to say, and said it using horror's techniques. But that time seems long gone as we are now inundated to the same horror movie over-and-over again with only slight variations to the one that came before it, and that is the most horrific thing of all.