Sideways

[JakeSchuster aka Ostroff]

A smart, bittersweet and hugely satisfying movie by the same people who brought us the--to me--horribly overrated and sentimental "About Schmidt".

The characters in "Sideways" are utterly believable and multilayered, the dialogue is spot-on, and Paul Giammatti really shines. Can't wait to see it again.

[phelonious]

Not to mention one of the classiest speeches of the year, and Virginia Madsen got to deliver them. You go girl!

A film about wine drinking---who'da thunk?

[whitenavel]

Can't wait to see it.
I agree, About Schmidt was a huge disappointment and overrated.
But Election was pure brilliance.

[Hairy Lime]

I enjoyed Sideways a great deal. I saw four movies this weekend and it was by far my favorite. It'll go in the DVD collection right alongside About Schmidt and Election.

I'll disagree with About Schmidt though. It wasn't sentimental at all. In fact, it was a huge f-ck you to baby boomers everywhere. I think that's what I loved about it.

[whitenavel]

Excellent work from Giamatti and, suprising, Thomas Haden Church. Sideways is a good experience at the theater, highly recommended and very satisfying.
Not as funny as Election (but I did laugh out loud a lot), but superb work from all those involved.

[cluckyburger]

finally saw this.

frigging tremendous. stupendous. there aren't enough superlatives for me to ladle upon it. see it

[Salazkin]

Agreed. Very funny, not in a side-splitting kinda way, but in an upbeat, life-affirming way. One of those films where the characters and situations seem so very real - perfectly natural and organic. The acting is first rate. Highly recommended.

[Hamboogul]

i'm reading the script. it reads fast but nothing is happening. second half better rock because the first half is so-so.

[Pencey]

I didn't think it was great but I'd still recommend it. It's a good picture with good acting.

What I really liked about it was that it got better and better from Act 1 to Act 3. Not an easy task to accomplish...

[theturnaround]

There were many things I liked about this film, the ending in particular, but it dragged at times. It took quite a while to start, and it's essentially a road trip movie, which I hate. There were a lot of car driving shots and interior/exterior transition shots that felt like filler.

Paul Giamatti, Virginia Madsen and Thomas Haden Church were all great, i would have liked to see even more improv b/c Church & Giamatti are hilarious. I certainly felt Virginia's prolonged absence at points and would have liked to see her more frequently, and the love story between Giamatti and Madsen could have been better managed.

The movie must have had a low budget b/c so many scenes were in restaurants... goodness. Without the 2 big jokes at near the end, and the satisfying ending, this would have scored quite a bit lower for me. Overall though, a nice change of pace. But I can't heap superlatives on it.

theturnaround

[Wolfy262]

I agree with Hairy. About Schmidt really worked for me on a number of levels, and it has that beautifully ambiguous ending.

[Hairy Lime]

I've now seen Sideways in the theater three times. Last time I did that was, well, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Only other film I've seen multiple times in 2004 was Napoleon Dynamite.

[kitnerboy]

Just saw this. Perfectly observed human comedy without a false note anywhere.

I laughed harder during the last half hour of this film than any 3 Adam Sandler movies put together.

[Newby]

Do we love this movie because it's about a writer who is so reluctant to prune his novel that he can't even get his own friends to read it? A writer whose appreciation of wine maybe gets in his way.... Who expects the love of a beautiful woman to change things... hmmmm.. Ah well, I loved this film too. I think the director has an incredible flair for depicting everyday life such as the high school in Election, ordinary people in a hot tub in Schmidt, wine country with telephone poles and all. Great script.

[Kelsey]

I hated it. *Wince*. Though don't mind me, because I saw it with my dad who informed me of the obvious - that I could not appreciate it on the same level as others because of my age and lack of experience in the issues that are brought forth in that film. Which I can understand. Then again, I adored "Lost in Translation."

I did, however, really like her wine description, and tried to find it online as soon as I got home. It was also a good lesson in the way dialogue should be written.

[Hairy Lime]

Kelsey. I can understand that. You might have related to LiT, because it explored the disappointment of both a 50 year old man and a 20 year old woman. Sideways explored mid to late 30s angst only.

[BayResurrected]

I really loved it as well. I haven't had any of that angst as of yet (for the obvious reason of my age) but there were some really universal themes I think many could identify it. You just gotta love Paul Giamatti and the rest of the cast. I hope they do well this award season; the film made me feel all sympathetic and fuzzy inside. :|

[AgitPropAgent9]

The Most Overrated Film of the Year (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/movies/02scot.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1104811205-3GCkQt6dj1I5i0iR7NGnwg)

[kitnerboy]

Not sure what to make of this piece....its less an attack on the film (he rather likes it i think) as it is a commentary on the lack of diversity in film critics award choices.

I don't know how much stock I'd put in AO Scott's opinions anyway. His favorite films from 2004 were The Incredibles, Farenheit 911, Kinsey and the restored Big Red One....

[JakeSchuster aka Ostroff]

Ever since Elvis Mitchell left, the Times' film reviewers have proved to be a poor lot, almost as bad as the Boston Globes. Scott's piece seemed more than a little bit of sour grapes.

If you'll excuse the expression.:p

[Salazkin]

Scott's piece seemed more than a little bit of sour grapes.Pinot grapes, no doubt. :b

[JakeSchuster aka Ostroff]

:)

[godman99]

I enjoyed this film tremendously, although it had several problems. I think the critics have been laying the praise on a litttle thick with this film. However, that is probably more emblematic of how c

[godman99]

hmm...sorry about that. Dropped the remote on my keyboard and it hit the enter key. Anyway, what I was trying to say is that the heaps of praise for Sideways show what a slow year it has been for movies. This film is very good, although I don't think it's the best film of the year. It's essentially a remake of Swingers, only with a bunch of guys in their forties instead of twenties. There were several scenes that were almost verbatim copies of Swingers, right down to the sets and dialogue. I also thought that the romance between Giamatti and Madsen was very under developed. We are never told why this beautiful woman is attracted to a complete scrub like Giamatti. The ending is also completely trite and unbelievable. It felt like it was inserted by the studio at the last minute to please test audiences with a sappy ending. However, Sideways overcomes these shortcomings with its witty dialogue and hilarious jokes. There's nothing in this movie that we haven't seen a thousand times before, but its still enjoyable. Just don't go in expecting the best movie of the year and you won't be disappointed.

[Pencey]

As usual, G-man, I am pretty much in agreement with you.

The critics are praising the movie as a must see because it's one of the only good Oscar nominees out there this year. Folks...it's not that great of a movie--just as Lost In Translation wasn't that great of a film last year but got heaps of praise for the very same reason.

Sideways is a good movie and nothing more. It has one great bit of dialogue which draws parallels between the main character and his favorite wine. Other than that, the dialogue is average.

There are no classic scenes, nothing memorable that would make most of the American public want this on DVD to view over and over again. The story gets better throughout the film but it does not build in intensity which left the film feeling a little flat at the end.

The main character's romance is thin like the previous poster stated and I didn't feel like he had much at stake which led me not to care as much as I could have about what happened with him. Also, we are given no insight into why his friend acts the way he does either. Why does he chase skirts? What's his motivation? Lajos Egri would not be happy about this...

I can respect this movie much more than Lost In Translation because this film actually had a script and a pretty good one at that. But people this is not 1999 and Sideways, albeit a good movie does not deserve the adulation it's receiving.

[Camera Obscura]

This movie touches on more human truths than any other movie last year (with THE INCREDIBLES, KINSEY and THE MOTORCYLE DIARIES close behind). Easily one of the best of 2004.

[kitnerboy]

At least now I understand how these film critics work. When A critic puts a film such as Dogville or Eternal Sunshine on their '10 worst' list, (ignoring the dozens of truly worthless films produced every year, like Catwoman, Taxi, Soul Plane, and about a hundred others) it is not really a bash against the film, but rather a dig at their co-workers (AO Scott was the only NY Times reporter not to put Sideways on his best list.)

Nice to know the newpaper business is full of the same petty office BS eveyone else deals with.

godman, the only thing i really would argue with you about is your claim that this was a weak year for movies...

You must have been thinking of last year.

Sideways is infinitely better the American Splendor (last year's Giamotti critic fave), The Aviator better than Gangs of New York, Kill Bill 2 better than Kill Bill 1, Garden State better then The Station Agent, and Eternal Sunshine better than Lost In Translation (and everything else).

[Hairy Lime]

Sideways is very much an homage to the "find yourself" films of the 1970s. Payne himself admitted as much in an interview in Filmmaker Magazine, citing Hal Ashby as his primary source of inspiration for the visual style of the film.

I also don't think it's the best film of the year, but I've seen it 3 times already and will see it a 4th on Saturday. It is undeniable that the movie that's connecting with both audiences and critics for whatever reason. You may have your own take on why it doesn't work for you, but that's what makes film art - not everyone takes the same thing away from their experience.

*SPOILERS AHEAD*

All that being said, I find godman's criticisms specious.

The subtlety of the performances was sublime. Maya's interest in Miles turned on like a lightbulb in a single moment. Her eyes lit up and her interest was kindled. Not a word spoken by her.

Jack's compulsive need for a final fling is in his backstory - he's a formerly successful actor who has begun to question his attractiveness to both the entertainment industry and to women. The entire conversation about his fiance's father being willing to set him up in real estate is not just about him seeking a new career, it's about his changed outlook on himself as a person. He no longer thinks he's desired. It was all in the subtext, baby.

The ending was perfect. He didn't take his 1961 Cheval Blanc up to Maya's apartment in a Hollywood ending. He drank it out of a styrofoam cup while eating a burger and fries. Alone. He didn't suddenly become a confident go-getter - he waited for her to call. When she finally did, he acted. We all would have. And the final scene cut at the perfect moment.

This is Alexander Payne's most mature film to date and I can't wait for his future offerings.

[Salazkin]

What Hairy said.

[sc111]

Is this script online anywhere, I'd like to read it before I see the film. :)

[Harry Ellis]

Spoilers Ho!


The ending was perfect. He didn't take his 1961 Cheval Blanc up to Maya's apartment in a Hollywood ending. He drank it out of a styrofoam cup while eating a burger and fries. Alone. He didn't suddenly become a confident go-getter - he waited for her to call. When she finally did, he acted. We all would have. And the final scene cut at the perfect moment.

The film could have ended in the fast food restaurant. In that moment, we know Miles has transformed completely and we have all the happy ending we need. The rest is a touch on the Hollywood side.

IMHO, as they say on the internet.

[iembalm]

SPOILER

And it wasn't even fries....it was onion rings with ketchup. I can't think of much that could deaden your palate any worse than that. Go Miles!

[captain bligh]

onion rings are good.

[godman99]

Well, with its complete and total domination at the Critics Choice Awards last night, Sideways seems to be the run away favorite for the brass ring this year. Maybe Hollywood is trying to get back to its small film roots after rewarding so many blockbusters in recent years. Maybe, as I've said before, it just wasn't that good of a year for mainstream Hollywood movies (Van Helsing, Troy, Catwoman, The Village, etc). I'm hard pressed to think of another year when we've had so much crap foisted upon us in the name of entertainment. At least I can say that I enjoyed Sideways the most out of this year's leading critical contenders. It was far better than either The Aviator or Million Dollar Baby.

[Pencey]

I'm hard pressed to think of another year when we've had so much crap foisted upon us in the name of entertainment.

Are you forgetting last year? :|

[godman99]

Apparently, because I think this year was a far worse year for movies. The only offensively bad movies that immediately spring to mind from last year are The Hulk and Mystic River, although I might be in the minority on that last one.

:hat

[Camera Obscura]

.

[whitenavel]

You're not alone godman. I loathe Mystic River.

[JakeSchuster aka Ostroff]

I'll second that, navel.

[godman99]

Ha! Finally, other people who can see that the emperor has no clothes...
:hat

[medic]

I concur as well (Mystic) with pretty much everything you said. And yes, Sideways was well done but I'm pretty shocked at all the attention it's getting. Good but not that good. Lost in Translation was definately one of the most uneventful movies of the year.

Don't get me started on Spanglish.

[Salazkin]

What about Spanglish? :evil ;)

[JakeSchuster aka Ostroff]

This may sound abstruse, but I think the reason "Lost in Translation" and "Sideways" have been successes, apart from the excellent scripts and perfect casting, is that they ring true-to-life. As a professional writer, I've known lots of writers like Miles in "Sideways" (a long time ago I was even one of them, writing unpublishable novels in a market that couldn't carry them). And we've all known a Jack in our lives.

The dramatic situations they're about are ones a lot of people can relate to: isolation, loneliness, reticence, etc.

[captain bligh]

well, i loved mystic and sideways, was bored by translation, haven't seen spanglish and thought garden state was overrated.

[Pencey]

This may sound abstruse, but I think the reason "Lost in Translation" and "Sideways" have been successes, apart from the excellent scripts

Lost In Translation had the worst script that ever won an Oscar. Why do you think so many people have complained about this joke of an award?

A F***ing 5 year old could've written that piece of crap!

[JakeSchuster aka Ostroff]

Well, all the five-year-olds I've known have trouble writing their own names, much less dealing with the theme of isolation. Set aside the paper and watch the film. Then you can see why it connected with audiences. Maybe, as with "Sideways", you have to have experienced some of the emotions depicted before you can "get it".

[jimjimgrande]

For the last few years it seems like this award has less to do with the actual screenplay and more to with being the "Best Newcomer" or like getting 2nd place in the "Best Director" or "Best Picture" category.

[captain bligh]

jake,

i think it's completely possible to have experienced all the emotions explored in lost in translation, "get it," and still be underwhelmed.

in fact, i'm sure it is.

[Salazkin]

I would support the captain's hypothesis.

[Pencey]

I "get it" and understand how others connected to it also.

But it is by no means a great screenplay. It surely is not a model to use in classrooms to teach good screenwriting. For this reason, it should not have won any awards.

I just downloaded the script the other day if you wanna break this thing down in its own thread. I can post some scenes and you can tell me where you found this greatness you speak of.

[JakeSchuster aka Ostroff]

I'm sure that's not addressed to me, as I never said the script to "Lost" was great. I just felt I understood why it connected with audience. Likewise with "Sideways". And, yes, I've read the "Lost" script. Also read "Sideways", which I thought was a far better piece of writing.

As for:
It surely is not a model to use in classrooms to teach good screenwriting. For this reason, it should not have won any awards.


That's not a logical statement. Hell, why teach the prose of Beckett in a lit class? It's not "classically good" writing, even though he won the Nobel.

[Salazkin]

This is one of the funniest movies I've seen all year.Agreed. It's my kind of humor.

[kitnerboy]

MILES
I'm a thumbprint on the window of a skyscraper. I'm a smudge of excrement on a tissue surging out to sea with a million tons of raw sewage.

JACK
See? Right there. Just what you just said. That's beautiful. A thumbprint on a skyscraper. I couldn't write like that.

MILES
Neither could I. I think it's Bukowski.






I can't think of anyone since Woody Allen's early days who could combine smart funny dialog and physical comedy like Alexander Payne has here (although maybe I'm giving him too much credit if the dialog is lifted from Rex Pickett's novel).

Can't wait to see this again.

[elephant1978]

I just saw Sideways last night. I have to admit, during the first 10-15 minutes I felt like it was going to be an overrated movie. I mean, it seemed like typical stuff: actor, writer, "is my book going to be published," "let's get laid." But then it just sort of happens. This movie becomes magic. I think it's when Myles is robbing his mother's dresser and sees the picture of his ex-wife. Just the look on Giamati's face. It's full steam ahead from there.

This is one of the funniest movies I've seen all year. There's something we can all relate to in the characters' feelings of lonliness and self-loathing. And I think this is a script to be handed to students. It's an example of how to write a funny, moving story withou gimicks or high-concepts. It's about characters. A lot can be learned from it.

Some of the best performances of the year. How about Myles's reaction when Jack tells him his ex got remarried? The Pinot comparrison? Maya on why she loves wine? Giamati and Madsen really nailed it. Church revitalizes his career.

I wanted to not like it, but instead I got drunk off it. Fantastic film.

Ele...

[JakeSchuster aka Ostroff]

Reminded me of Woody at his best, too. Just read the published version of the script and laughed out loud a number of times.:lol

[godman99]

I like the fact that Payne and the screenwriter from Sideways have gone out of their way to acknowledge Pickett's novel every time they win an award for best screenplay. All too often the hollywood people tend to dismiss the source material and take all the credit for themselves. I haven't read the book, so I don't know how much of the dialogue in the movie is original and how much was cribbed. But it's nice to see an acknowledgement of the original source material for the story. Now if only more directors, actors and producers could get it through their heads to thank the screenwriters who created their stories, then we'd be all set...
:hat

[JakeSchuster aka Ostroff]

Pickett wrote the afterword to the published screenplay, by the way.

[copywriter1]

My wife and I love Payne's movies -- absolutely love them! But we have friends in their 20's and 30's (we're in our 40's) who just didn't get About Schmidt -- like some of you here in this thread. However, we could certainly appreciate it -- along with our friends with elderly parents.

Similarly, we loved Sideways and could really relate to the characters and their mid-life struggles. Everything rang true to us.

As for Election, I would say that of Payne's big three movies, it was probably the most accessible in terms of a broad range of ages. Of course, that's because it focused on both the high school student (Witherspoon) and the teacher (Broderick).

I guess the bottom line, at least for us, is that Alexander Payne's films are full of real, heartfelt emotion. However, I can also understand how some younger viewers -- at least with About Schmidt and Sideways -- may not feel as connected.

[godman99]

I think Payne should get the Academy award just for saying no to George Clooney. How many directors would have the guts to pass on a big movie star even though he clearly wasn't right for the role. Sideways could have used a big name to put butts in seats, but Payne stayed true to the character and I applaud him for it.

:hat

[roscoegino]

Okay so I'm late, guys.

Yes it takes time to get there but it's worth the wait. I think godman's criticisms are a little harsh. Characters were utterly believable. Maya likes Miles because Miles isn't trying to be like Jack or anyone else. Miles is Miles. And he's not a loser. He's intelligent and vulnerable and that makes him charming to her. That dialogue between them couldn't be better.

[Edison Vandall]

well, i loved mystic and sideways, was bored by translation, haven't seen spanglish and thought garden state was overrated.

me too

[Pencey]

me three

I'm with you on all of those movies...

[Edison Vandall]

man, we three should get beers

[Salazkin]

.

[tomasz1985]

I´m a little retarded, I watched it for the first time today. It was really funny and moving eventhough it felt like it slowed down somewhere in the beginning. 8 pinot noirs out of 10.

[voxel]

I just saw Sideways last night. I have to admit, during the first 10-15 minutes I felt like it was going to be an overrated movie.


I saw the movie first on a plane and I must have missed the first 10-15 minutes (loved it, but didn't think I would). So when I read the script I was all confused: What's all this crap in the beginning? I held the same opinion after watching the DVD. The whole first act could have been compressed without sacrificing the story.

[tomasz1985]

The first act worked for me with some exceptions. I think the beginning served its purpose, it gave me an understanding about Miles and Jack. After act one I was ready to ride the rollercoster. I think it was necessary to show some of Miles´ backstory in the beginning so that we could understand him. I´m not an expert but that´s how I see it.

[Architeuthis Dux]

I saw this a while back. I thought it was excellent, and I laughed at a lot of it. Characters and the way they were handled were just terrific -- especially in preserving the balance between sympathizing with the characters and showing them as laughable at the same time. Yes, an excellent picture.

But of course, this is exactly the sort of movie that a writer would like, isn't it? You have this nebbishy zero of a writer who still steals money from his mom, who has an increasingly tough time convincing himself -- let alone anyone else -- that he is the intellectually superior, deeply-cultured individual he pretends to be, who apparently worked and worked on this novel of his, and he can't even tell anyone what it's about, exactly. Now there's a guy a lot of us can identify with, an only slightly exaggerated version of a lot of us aspiring writers. And this guy -- this nebbishy, self-absorbed, depressed hack, the guy who's tried and failed at writing, tried and failed at relationships, tried and failed at life -- he's the hero! He gets the good-looking girl! Gosh, if the're hope for him, then, maybe . . . just maybe . . .

My question is, why is it called "Sideways?" Is it some kind of wine thing? Are you supposed to keep bottles of wine on their sides or something? I used to be quite a beer afficionado, but never got much into wine. I don't drink much at all anymore, and when I do, I like something that acts fast and hits hard, like a double martini, ice cold.

[Hasil Adkins]

why is it called "Sideways?"In the book, the characters use it as a euphemism for 'drunk.'

But, yeah, you keep wine bottles on their sides, or tipped down, to keep the corks from drying out.

[BeefMissile]

I did not really care for Sideways. I saw the DVD after it became popular. The lead actors were smug and lacked any depth. Sandra Oh was really good but she had a support role. The lines and scenes were dull and I started not to like any of the characters. The ending was a bit of a reach too. Sideways had a few funny moments but I expected a much richer comedy for all of the hype.

[Pencey]

And critics liked it because it was also about them--smugness and all. Just ask A.O. Scott.

[AaronB]

Regarding Sideways...I'm sorry, I just don't get it. I rented this on DVD last week, and I want that six bucks back.

It was a story about pathetic people doing pathetic things. Thomas Hayden Church's character chases women like a drowning man chases air, and the only reason Paul Giamatti doesn't do it is NOT because he has any kind of nobility, but because he hasn't the guts.

For me, the funniest scene in Sideways was when Sandra Oh breaks Church's nose with a roundhouse swing of her motorcycle helmet...then follows up with a half-dozen more equally-powerful shots. When seeing one of your principal characters get decked is the chief laugh of the second act, your script has problems.

Honestly, I couldn't get over my contempt for the two main characters.

[Hairy Lime]

A soon-to-be married man decides he needs one last fling (or 3) before tying the knot.

An formerly married man works to get past both personal and professional disappointments.

For almost any guy who is or has been married, this is a movie he can relate to.

[Biohazard]

I just bought this last night but haven't watched it yet. I'll post my thoughts on the film after I see it.

[Ire]

"Six bucks" for a rental? No wonder you're pissed.


In regards to the movie, I don't know what you were expecting. It's not conventional.

Tell me that one scene when Giamatti is first alone with Virginia Madsen and discussing graps isn't one of the best written in terms of the dialogue and subtext in the last couple of years...




Spoiler

**********************






Giamatti did change by the end.

[AaronB]

In regards to the movie, I don't know what you were expecting. It's not conventional.

I expected to care what happened to the main characters. If you haven't got that, there's really no way a movie can work for you.

With regard to your spoiler...yes, granted, but the payoff was too little and far too late.

[billythrilly7]

subtext in the last couple of years...

Is it good subtext if you immediately and clearly understand what someone is talking about?

To me it was a great great scene, but right on the nose. If you didn't know what he was talking about with that speech, then...then...then something! So there!

But I don't care for subtext so maybe I don't get it.

Thank you.
WHT7

[Ire]

I expected to care what happened to the main characters. If you haven't got that, there's really no way a movie can work for you.

With regard to your spoiler...yes, granted, but the payoff was too little and far too late.

AB,

I don't know what your empathy level is, but Giamatti's character had mine.

BT,

Good question. I don't know. It was on the cusp. It worked for me.

[kintnerboy]

I'm glad someone revived this thread. I'm always facinated when someone expresses a dislike for a film or a television show because they don't find the protagonist likeable.

I have been having this conversation a lot lately, because of the new season of Curb Your Enthusiasm. I used to try and explain the universal appeal of the humor in spite of the unlikeable character to people who say they hate Larry David, now I just nod and change the subject.

But I have narrowed it down to two possibilities, and you should regard this as an opinion, as I do not have a degree in clinical psychology.

1- People only enjoy films with 'likeable' protagonists because they are somehow trying to have a vicarious friendship with the characters. Sounds crazy to me.....but there are a lot of lonely people out there.

2- People who hate protagonists who are jerks are themselves jerks and are put off at being reminded of the things they hate about themselves. The same way fat people are the first to point out that someone else has gained weight. (this is probably very close to what AO Scott and other critics were experiencing).


But to me, there is no more compelling human drama than self destruction. Why we insist on empathizing with alcoholics (Leaving Las Vegas) or insubordinates (One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest) or manic depressives or over-eaters, etc etc , but somehow think that characters like Miles in Sideways have a choice in being who they are is puzzling.


Anyway, since there is no baseball tonight, I am going to watch this gem again.

[AaronB]

But I have narrowed it down to two possibilities...

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now all I have to do is decide whether I'm more pathetically lonely, or simply a jerk. The answer will tell me which of your diagnoses applies to myself.

Well, at least I have a puzzle now to while away the time...

[Hairy Lime]

But to me, there is no more compelling human drama than self destruction. Why we insist on empathizing with alcoholics (Leaving Las Vegas) or insubordinates (One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest) or manic depressives or over-eaters, etc etc , but somehow think that characters like Miles in Sideways have a choice in being who they are is puzzling.Inspiring paragraph, kit. Particularly the last bit. Self destruction is indeed a subject rife with drama ... Shakespeare himself loved it. Miles was a beautifully drawn (and performed) character.Anyway, since there is no baseball tonight, I am going to watch this gem again.Since I saw it 5x in the theater, I don't think I need to buy the DVD anytime soon. Nonetheless, I hope you enjoy.

[Captain Jack Sparrow]

Finally saw this, on the whole I liked it. I'd attack it with the editing scissors in places but on the whole it was a enjoyable enough in that quirky kind of way.

[Pencey]

I'm glad someone revived this thread. I'm always facinated when someone expresses a dislike for a film or a television show because they don't find the protagonist likeable.

I have been having this conversation a lot lately, because of the new season of Curb Your Enthusiasm. I used to try and explain the universal appeal of the humor in spite of the unlikeable character to people who say they hate Larry David, now I just nod and change the subject.

But I have narrowed it down to two possibilities, and you should regard this as an opinion, as I do not have a degree in clinical psychology.

1- People only enjoy films with 'likeable' protagonists because they are somehow trying to have a vicarious friendship with the characters. Sounds crazy to me.....but there are a lot of lonely people out there.

2- People who hate protagonists who are jerks are themselves jerks and are put off at being reminded of the things they hate about themselves. The same way fat people are the first to point out that someone else has gained weight. (this is probably very close to what AO Scott and other critics were experiencing).


But to me, there is no more compelling human drama than self destruction. Why we insist on empathizing with alcoholics (Leaving Las Vegas) or insubordinates (One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest) or manic depressives or over-eaters, etc etc , but somehow think that characters like Miles in Sideways have a choice in being who they are is puzzling.


I'm glad you brought this up Kinter...although I think your theories don't hold up.

Miles is usually disliked by some for one of two reasons:

He's whiny/a complainer.
He steals money from his mother.Both of these are really two completely different reasons for disliking the character. They don't exactly go hand in hand.

IMO, I don't think there's any correlation between the kind of people you think hate the character and their reasons for doing so. I especially disagree with the notion that jerks hate watching other jerks on screen.

[miles]

Miles was simply a fully drawn character, showing all sides of him. I guess people get shocked when a character is actually human because they're so used to seeing one-dimensional characters in all the "other" movies.

So he took money from his mother. Not admirable, but I guess that was the point.

[Hairy Lime]

Pencey's just sore, because his mother caught him when he lifted that tenner from her wallet.

[Qazworld]

Miles was simply a fully drawn character, showing all sides of him. I guess people get shocked when a character is actually human because they're so used to seeing one-dimensional characters in all the "other" movies.

So he took money from his mother. Not admirable, but I guess that was the point.


i dont blame you for relating w/ him, miles.

[miles]

i dont blame you for relating w/ him, miles.

But I would have been trying to get laid like Jack, Qaz.