MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

SD3 – The Overrated

I don’t have a lot of time to do this fully – more to come – but the hottest film of the moment at Sundance is also the most overrated… The Polanski doc. Very few new insights and a dubious amount of insight.
1:26p update – The press room is loaded to the gills for The Wackness… just showing again that The Press loves pot. Some are still sniffing around Sunshine Cleaning after a lot of the people who came up to buy it decided not to. Not a single pan, but “We liked Amy,” is about the most positivity anyone I spoke to could come up with.
5p update – So… my take on the Polanski doc… basically, it takes a 100% pro-Polanski position from the very start, to the point of pretty much discounting the idea that sex with a 13 year old, however precocious, is a problem. There is also a very clear anti-judge stance from the start… which ultimately is the right stance. But f9/11-esque mocking of the judge before his first mention in context is kinda cheap.
Ultimately, besides the goodwill this filmmaker made for herself by ego-stroking critics and festivalers in her last film, the reason some people are so enamored of the film is that, in the end, there is an easy, obvious villain in the judge… and we can all see that Polanski was screwed by the system after he screwed a 13 year old that he never seems to have apologized for for having screwed.
For me, the only reason this story could be an interesting doc would be some informational revelation – there are none – some insight into Polanski – not much beyond the obvious – some connection to his work – lame at best here – or some connection of all the moral strings leading to some insight. Nope.
It’s not badly made (though no less than 20 minutes too indulgent) and if someone never heard the story, it would be entertaining. But when you think about an entire film coming down to, “bad judge with an eye on the media” and you think of how many stories of judicial misconduct have led to much more significant personal downfalls, the film not only disappoints, but it is kind of infuriating. Onanism of the highest order.
The Wackness is classic Sundance. Good performances… funny ideas… nicely shot… and impossible to sell. The film is not great… but it is good. But in the end, what is it? A coming of age story that doesn’t find itself until the third act, still leaving the first two acts a bit of a shambles… a funny, charming shambles.
I would never tell anyone (under 35) to stay away from The Wackness. It’s a good adult starter reel for Josh Peck. Olivia Thirlby is sexy and intriguing… and underage. But she will be the marketing focus for anyone who buys this thing. Ben Kingsley is quite good as a drugged out therapist who buys his drugs with sessions.
It’s one of those movies whose lovefest I hate to piss on. Well done. But not very special. And in this universe of specialty product, just good ain’t good enough… unless you are being marketed by Nancy Utley.

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Responses to “SD3 – The Overrated”

  1. anghus says:

    i read a couple of really good reviews online for the Wackness.

  2. Devin Faraci says:

    THE WACKNESS was great.

  3. movielocke says:

    on the foreign language film shortlist, why the need to change the rules because the Academy comittee had the ‘wrong’ opinion? what makes their nine favorite films the opinion that should be discarded/suppressed while the critics and festival favorites are naturally ‘right’ and should be enshrined?

  4. marychan says:

    Olivia Thirlby is 21 years old. In Feburary 2008 issue of GQ, she said that she was in Paris for her 21st birthday.
    But I agree that Olivia Thirlby is sexy and intriguing!

  5. T. Holly says:

    Dave, your i-phone posts are too infrequent to be of any use. Can you speed it up a little?

  6. Aladdin Sane says:

    The film is not great… but it is good. But in the end, what is it? A coming of age story that doesn’t find itself until the third act, still leaving the first two acts a bit of a shambles… a funny, charming shambles.

    They already made a killing on this film. It was called JUNO.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon