Cinematical

Duane Hopwood isn't very good at all. I wonder why, if Ebert liked the film so much, he didn't include it last year. Unless he missed it at last year's Sundance.

Reply

How about "Brokeback Mountain"?

Reply

"'Duane Hopwood' was not good at all" an earlier blogger said? Really? Wrong. It's as good as any indie film released in 2005. It got a pathetic release via IFC Films, that took it to a handful of regional markets, then was abandoned on the road before ever coming to N.Y. and L.A. Matt Mulhern, the writer-director, does a terrific job, and Schwimmer gives a heart-rending perfornmance as the hapless Daune, with terrific suppoort from Janeane Garafalo, Judah Friedlander and a stellar group of actors. This movie deserved better, and should be seen when it comes out on DVD. Christopher Cambell? Who the F*** are you!?

Reply

I agree with the supportive comment on "Duane Hopwood." I saw it in Tuscon and wondered how such a wonderful little indie movie could be so thoroughly missed by the industry. It was as moving as anything I've seen in a long, long time, and seemed the exact kind of film the indie community should be getting behind. It was as good, or better, than a number of the higher profile releases, including "the Squid and the Whale" which, for all it's cynical wit, didn't come close to the heart and guts in "Daune Hopwood."

Reply

I admit that Duane Hopwood isn't a bad film, but it is very dull. Coming from a life of multiple stories of alcoholism, I found it tedious and insubstantial. Not to say that anyone's problems are insubstantial, but that is why most of us don't have films about us.

Reply

Duane Hopwood was not "very dull." What it was, was subtle, insightful and honest, with a depth and soul most indies lack. I'm from Chicago, where it's well known Ebert struggled for years with an alcohol problem, and he found it "one of the most accurate, helpful and actually useful films about alcoholism" he's ever seen. Newer, younger critics need to slow down, find their emotional bearings, and come to understand it's not the "what" of telling a story, it's the "how." This is not trivial stuff; the character is going through the most difficult trial most of us will ever face. This is a film I'll take any time over the "edgy," cut, cut, cut, cynical irony-laden blather making up most indie product these days. Perhaps this is why Ebert is the single most recognized individual critic in the country and a Pulitzer prize winner, and Christopher Campbell is, well, Christopher Campbell

Reply

While I may be younger and newer, I have emotional bearing, and I also subscribe to the "how" over "what" philosophy that Ebert perpetually states as his own belief. Still his and my experiences with alcoholism are different and our receptions of the film are also different. Duane Hopwood just didn't resonate with me, and I denied its significance by its lack of balls, at least that is what I wrote in my Sundance notes last year.

I'd be willing to take another look at Schwimmer's performance, though. In the middle of 35 other movies I saw at that festival, the film may require more attention than I gave it on its content alone.

Reply

lack of balls? what does that mean? you mean like, when ben stiller shoots up with the baby in the car in permanent midnight? or when harvey keitel gets a hummer from the nun in bad lieutenant? or when nick nolte not only kills his father in affliction - he lights him on fire? or when nic cage drinks himself to death in leaving las vegas? please. grow up. I stumbled into this movie a couple months ago in kansa city. it has plenty of balls. you should be praising it for what it doesn't do (see above). it actually has the courage to hold the mirror up to a real guy, not some inflated hyper-real character who goes to boring, predictable extremes that get the rocks off a film critic's inner teenager. this movie holds the mirror up to the duanes we are, the duanes we know. it deserves respect for its direction, writing and performances.

Reply

The only film you mentioned that I have seen is Permanent Midnight, and I don't remember it much. Actually, those movies don't sound like they have balls, they just sound annoyingly extreme. But being unfamiliar with them means I can't say. I do know that my alcoholic parents came away from Leaving Las Vegas saying that it wasn't in touch with the disease that they suffer through.

Anyway, I state again that seeing such passionate regard for Duane Hopwood, I'd be willing to give it another shot. I doubt that I'll relate any more than I did, but hopefully I'd have the chance to be less subjective.

PS: My inner teenager likes comic books and aliens, not hyper-real characters.

Reply

First of all - you haven't seen "Affliction," "Bad Lieutenant," "Leaving Las Vegas," and you don't remember "Permanent Midnight," and yet you take the announcement of Ebert's pick of "Duane Hopwood" for his Overlooked Festival to take an unsolicited, glib shot at "Duane Hopwood"? Don't you think, if you call yourself a critic, you should have some understanding of the films in a comparable category to the one you decide to take a swing at, saying "it's not very good at all"?
Second - have your parents see "Duane Hopwood" and then ask them if they thought it was a valid portrayal of the disease. The fact that you grew up as the son of two alcoholics, and you don't seem to have the capacity to feel the truth of this film is either, understandable (falling into the "I've shut it out and I can't watch the subject matter" category), or, just sad, (falling into the "I have very little understanding of why people are so affected by this film, and, therefore, maybe I should stick to... comic books) category. "Comic books and aliens." That says it all.

Reply

To get technical, I would consider myself the son of three alcoholics and the grandson of another, the nephew of even another two, and friend of many. But that isn't completely the point. And I've already apologized for such simple judgement being passed in my first comment without explanation for my mostly subjective recollection.

I will defend the fact that critics are never entitled to see every movie. It would actually take an entire lifetime to see every film that has been considered noteworthy, and for younger critics this is especially a problem since we didn't get to live through as much film history as older critics. Besides, I do not consider myself a movie geek or cinemaniac. I don't own more than a few DVDs and I don't need to go to the movies every week. I do love seeing a movie, any movie, and writing about it or discussing it. That is what I do. I never feel obligated to be a film encyclopedia or historian.

As for your last point, I don't think my reaction to Duane Hopwood fell into either explanation you suggest for my disliking it. I am comfortable with the subject matter; I just felt bored by it, which is probably still a weakness on my part that I quickly passed judgement on a tale that had less drama than what I'm familiar with. And I don't stick to comic books ever, and haven't since I was a teenager. All I meant is that my inner teen likes those things and so I have a guilty spot for movies based in comics and aliens - for nostalgic reasons - as opposed to Abel Ferrara's intense style and anything that might be described as "harrowing". I was just unsure why I'd be accused of having an extreme inner teen, unless there is an association with the MTV Generation (which I'm too old to be a part of) and the enjoyment of violent entertainment ala video games and Jackass.

Anyway, just know that "not very good at all" is not the same thing as "not good" or "bad". My first impression of Duane Hopwood was merely that it didn't feel extraordinarily momentous. I now stand corrected.

Reply