Sundance Review: The Mysteries of Pittsburgh
Filed under: Drama, Independent, Sundance, Theatrical Reviews

Most directors' first effort is NOT a huge blockbuster smash of a comedy starring Ben Stiller and Vince Vaughn, but that's how writer/director Rawson Marshall Thurber hit the scene: with Dodgeball. But based on the filmmaker's second effort, I'm guessing that Thurber took a lot of good-natured ribbing from his film-school friends and decided to snag some "indie cred" by doing a smaller movie for his second feature. That's all well and good, but it's too bad that the resulting movie -- The Mysteries of Pittsburgh -- is such an inert, episodic, and familiar piece of very typical festival fare. It's as if Mr. Thurber watched six Sundance films at random, and then just copied his favorite scenes from each one.
Based on the novel of the same name by Michael Chabon, The Mysteries of Pittsburgh is about the son of an infamous gangster who spends his last summer before "adult life" roaming around with two "free-spirited" pals. The year is 1983, and young Art Bechstein (Jon Foster) is at a serious crossroads. Completely opposed to his father's lifestyle, Art (reluctantly) plans to become a stockbroker in a few months' time -- but that means a few open months in which he can A) work at a chintzy discount book store, B) cast lovesick glances towards his new friend Jane (Sienna Miller), and C) become close pals with a bisexual street thug called Cleveland (Peter Sarsgaard). Oh, and D) nail his slightly unhinged boss (Mena Suvari).

If you think the premise already sounds a bit like a watered-down version of Bertolucci's The Dreamers, you're right. And while I've been informed (numerous times tonight) that the source material is a whole lot better than the cinematic version, Thurber's swing for that "indie cred" fails pretty consistently. I can automatically assume that the characters are a lot more multi-dimensional in Chabon's book -- because in the movie they're pretty much a bunch of paper-doll cutouts. And watching them bounce off one another is not exactly an illuminating experience.
As the unrealistically idealistic protagonist, Jon Foster comes across like a lump of vanilla. Sienna Miller plays the Jane character as half-wacky and half-saintly; unfortunately, Ms. Miller is as unconvincing in the role as she is beautiful. (And boy, she's really beautiful.) The only member of the lead trio that adds any sort of life to the proceedings is Peter Sarsgaard as the ever-conflicted Cleveland -- and even his character is seriously old-hat by now. As Art's ultra-moody book store manager, Mena Suvari is stuck in a thankless role: She delivers a few good zingers (and even some indie-friendly nudity), but her character seems to be a tragic figure one second and a freakish buffoon the next. And then she just vanishes entirely.
Nick Nolte pops up once in a while to growl at poor aimless Art; Nolte as a horrifyingly gruff gangster would add a bit of flavor to any movie in the world -- and the actor certainly does that here. But it's not nearly enough to rescue The Mysteries of Pittsburgh from its ceaseless deluge of trite dialog, obvious plot turns, ridiculously contrived developments, and endlessly familiar "coming of age" tropes.
It might have been a whole lot sillier, but Dodgeball is a much better film than this one.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-22-2008 @ 1:39PM
Harry said...
Thats too bad, the book is great and deserves a good adaption. I'm still gonna check it out nonetheless but I've had a feeling for a while it was going to be bad what with so much of the plot (bisexuality!) cut out.
Reply
1-22-2008 @ 11:45PM
Billy TwoRivers said...
Wow. From your description of the plot, it sounds as if Thurber really loosely adapated the book. As a huge fan of the book, I have been really psyched to see this, but now it sounds as if it has been drained and warped and filtered through whatever cinematic logic Thurber ascribes to. Yeesh. How heartbreaking. I always wanted to do this film justice on the screen, but Thurber sounds as if he fucked it all up. How could he have taken out the bisexual relationships out? Mindblowing! enough exclamations. yeesh two.
Reply
1-22-2008 @ 11:49PM
Billy TwoRivers said...
I forgot to add that I just today read a little piece by Thurber himself in MovieMaker magazine about how this is like his favorite novel ever and that how he has wanted to make it into a movie before he even knew how, before he even was one. To see that kind of adoration result in the film that it by all descriptions is, is well, again, heartbreaking. Why the terribly radical changes Thurber, why?
Reply
1-23-2008 @ 5:00PM
franQ said...
Thank you for this AWESOME review!! I'm SO glad to see your opinions help validate the ones I've been having since I first read Rawson Marshall Thurber's screenplay back in the fall of 2006... Which is when I immediately launched the Official MOP Film Boycott: www.myspace.com/mysteriesofpittsburgh
As for RMT's comments on how he read the book and "fell in love" with it and "had to be the one" to make this movie, I say, What the Hell?! Dude, if you liked the story so much, why did you CHANGE one bit of it?
Reply
1-23-2008 @ 11:34PM
Steve said...
Wow... I love this book and had no idea it was even been made into a movie. But after reading the review, it appears as though the story was completely mangled in translation. Makes one wonder why Thurber even bothered adapting it in the first place.
Keep this guy away from "Kavalier & Klay"!!!
Reply
1-28-2008 @ 7:34PM
stephanie said...
I thought your review was a little harsh. After seeing the film and hearing the Rawson Marshall Thurber point of view he made it clear that Michael Chabon was pleased with his adaptation. For R.M.T. to go from dodgeball to a drama that truly inspired him from 15 + years deserves some kind of "pat on the back."
Reply