Sundance: Friends with Money and the celeb backlash

by Karina Longworth Jan 20th 2006 // 7:01AM

Filed under: Sundance



Robert Redford is desperate to convince you that the Sundance Film Festival – the independent film showcase bourne out of his not-for-profit Sundance Institute 21 years ago this week - has not lost its edge. The original Sundance Kid appeared at a kick-off press conference on Thursday, where he delivered platitude after platitude in a blatant attempt to shore up his baby's integrity. As the Fest hasn't held an opening day press opp in years, the very fact that the event happened is a good indication that Redford thinks he has something to prove. And boy, did he come to play: "We don't program for commerciality, we program for diversity!", went one battle cry; "We provide, you decide!" was its too-cute compliment. By the end of the afternoon, not a few members of the press corps were left wondering: when it comes to defending the Festival's street cred in the face of celeb-baiting swag bags and liberal injections of corporate cash, perhaps doth protest too much?

Which is not to say that Redford doesn't have a few good reasons to be defensive. Sundance continues to show more new works by emerging and underestablished filmmakers than any other major film festival in the world. And yet, for almost a decade, media coverage of the Fest has focused almost solely on the stars and the scene and the deals, and the corporate muscle leveraged to bring the three together. The 2005 lineup featured disappointing works by a heap of indie name brands, from Thomas Vinterberg (Dear Wendy) to Hal Hartley (The Girl From Monday), but it also served as a crucial breaking ground for some of the year's most celebrated indies, from Me and You and Everyone We Know to The Squid and the Whale, the latter a multiple Golden Globe and Independent Spirit Award nominee. Redford took pains yesterday to maintain that his team hasn't changed their programming mission since the fest began, but a cursory glance at this year's schedule gives the impression that the curation philosophy has indeed shifted in the past year. The most well-known auteurs on the 2006 schedule is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind director Michel Gondry, with Bad Santa helmer Terry Zwigoff the only close runner-up.

But what Sundance 2006 might lack in terms of behind-the-camera boldface names, it makes up for by offering big-name, above-the-title talent in spades. The opening night film, Friends with Money, stars Jennifer Aniston as an unhappy, 30-something, pot smoking maid who can't stop stalking her married ex.  At Thursday's press conference, festival prorammer Geoff Gilmore answered the logical questions about his choice of opener before they could be asked. "There are a lot of issues that people will bring up to you about how [a film starring one of the most photographed women in the world] represents the independent spectrum – but the quality of this filmmaking, and the talent of [director Nicole Holofcener] ... makes it a slam dunk. It's got the qualities of storytelling that make independent filmmaking what it is."

Gilmore and Redford took plenty of time out of their busy rep-backing schedule to heap praise on Aniston's new Friends – so much so that, going into the film's first press screening two hours later, the largely-unseen film already bore the burden of living up to faintly positive buzz. Though not quite a revelation, Friends didn't exactly disappoint. Like Holofcener's previous films, Walking and Talking and Lovely and Amazing, Friends with Money is an astutely observed relationship dramady, painfully funny even as it burns. As Holofcener's anti-heroine, Olivia, Jennifer Aniston acquits herself more than admirably, especially considering the film began shooting the day after news of her seperation from Brad Pitt leaked to the press, The timing, actually, could maybe not have been better: the role requires Aniston to convince us that she's a loser. Watch for a key moment, about three quarters in, where a rival tells Olivia to "go get [her] own husband." It's not hard to imagine the real-life motivations Aniston used to fuel Olivia's profanity-laden response.
 

It's not hard to see why the role would appeal to Aniston, who has yet to pull off a significant big-screen acting triumph. Essentially, she's allowed to stretch her range in the company of about six excellent actors without sacrificing vanity – as written, Olivia is slightly younger and, at the risk of sounding redundant, prettier than her three wealthy, married girlfriends (played to perfection by Catherine Keener, Frances McDormand and Joan Cusack). Settled, absurdly monied 40-somethings, Olivia doesn't understand why friends like Frannie (Cusack) will spend $10,000 on a table at a benefit for a disease they can't even place, but won't lend her $1800 to pursue her latest career whim. Her friends in turn don't understand why Olivia can't meet a nice guy and settle down – or at the very least, get a real job. In a line typical of  Holofcener's incredible ear for contemporary parlance, a friend's husband hears that Olivia is working as a maid and wonders aloud, "Is that, like, hip now? Cleaning houses?Like a zen, so-unhip-it's-cool?" For her friends, Olivia's poverty is more than an inconvenience – it's a social ill that an attitude adjustment could cure. Knowing that no outlook alteration is going to pay her bills, Olivia longs for Frannie's old-money, easy lifestyle. She settles for screwing Frannie's personal trainer.

For the most part, Aniston nicely underplays the role, which seems wise: with Olivia's habitual phone stalking and cosmetics-counter scamming and on-the-job shagging, just a slight switch in tone could have sent the whole film over-the-top. As it is, Olivia's given an unacceptably implausible end to her narrative arc, which, for a Holofcener film, is surprising. One of the things that makes this director's work so satisfying is that she refuses to insist that her characters become better people before we check out of their lives – we're simply made to understand that they had lives before we came in, and they'll go on without us. The narrative curve of a Nicole Holofcener film is never an arc so much as it is a gentle wave. For the most part, this genuinely life-like rythym pervades Friends as well as her early films; it's all the more unsatsifying, then, when Aniston's character is forced to grow and learn and change.

Friends with Money already has US distribution – Sony Pictures Classics plans to drop it in limited release later this spring – so its Sundance bow is likely to attract the most attention Aniston's performance. It's a good one – certainly better than many would have expected – but Friends is full of good performances, and Aniston's surely doesn't deserve to be saluted in lieu of Keener's, or Jason Isaac's. Friends' real triumph is in its writing and direction, and though as a premiere it's not eligible for jury prizes at this festival, one hopes Holofcener will soon see the praise she deserves. It's hard to see Money as an indie, but there's no question that it's a quality film. Star power aside, Redford does, indeed, provide (ouch).


Others on Friends with Money: Kirk Honeycutt of the Hollywood Reporter thought it "a pitch-perfect ensemble comedy," while Variety's Todd McCarthy went for the ever-reliable food metaphor, calling it "an agreeable grazing menu of smart dialogue, wry observational humor and bright characterizations [that]...doesn't end up feeling like a full meal."

44 Comments

Tags: friends with money, FriendsWithMoney, jennifer aniston, JenniferAniston, redford, sundance

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

| 1 | 2 | 3 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments