Originally posted by Holden Pike
You obviously have some issue with the way grief is handled in the film in general, and I don't want you to get into personal specifics on the board here if this is touching on a painful subject or memory for you - which may be why you've only alluded to it thus far. But whatever that personal point of view is, it has tinted your entire perspective severely, to the point where I think you've even misjudged what kind of a movie it is.
I can't contest this. I'm aware of my own bias against most movies about grief and suffering, and I was aware of it going into
Moonlight Mile. I feel the same way about the last action in
In the Bedroom - a movie I thought was terrific until Tom Wilkinson decided to wage a class war.
Moonlight Mile, for me, was different in that it shifted the focus of the film to the fiance and how he feels about his place in the world. Intentions aside, the fact that this actually happened to Brad Siberling taints my viewpoint as well - at the end of the film, he doesn't seem to mind that his fiance died, because, well, he has a new girlfriend now and if his ex didn't die he might not have met her!
I honestly don't see, from my own experience of course, how showing the characters in intense moments of pain is being disrespectful or exploitive. It's what the story is about, how these four particular people (characters) deal with - or rather don't deal with, their losses. How you interpreted this issue as peripheral has me stumped. It is the central issue of the film.
And I don't know what moments of lighthearted comedy you are referring to either. Besides the dog puking and the initial "meet cute" of the two younger leads - both moments which happen in the first fifteen minutes of the movie before the narrative has even begun to devulge the layers of the secrets and grieving (and even the meet cute is suddenly given weight when she realizes which invitations he's looking for and why), I can't recall any other such comedic moments.
Perhaps you missed the last two thirds of the movie. I saw it as primarily is about the fiance, and the issues
he's facing. Even the scenes of Sarandon and Hoffman are seen through his eyes and how their feelings affect
him. Sarandon (who was, as always, marvelous) probably didnt have more than 40 minutes of screen time in a two hour movie, yet Jake Gyllenhal is in every scene. Sarandon's performance, and, to an extent, Hoffman's, take a backseat to Gyllenhal's confusion and become scenery. I regarded the issue of grief as peripheral because of this.
That Sarandon in particular was so good at conveying her character's deep emotional pain underneath her anti-social bravado, I can see why that might strike a chord with a viewer even to the point of being uncomfortable watching it, but isn't that true of any good dramatic performance that touches on such issues? And isn't this the point?
Sarandon is amazingly self-contained, and provided the only sense of power in the movie for me. She does more than what Hoffman could do, although he had at least 20 more minutes of screen time than she did. It's a great performance. Thought she was better in
Igby Goes Down, but know what? I'd watch her in anything.
Like I say, we saw two completely different movies. I'm fascinated by just how different.
Me too. I'm willing to own up that it has a hell of a lot more to do with my own biases and feelings about some of the subject matter, but I'm not about to start defending it. I can't defend a movie that makes me sick.
Anyway, I'm at the Shirlington Library in Arlington, Virginia right now, killing time until my 4pm showing of
Bowling For Columbine, a block away. Just saw
Punch-Drunk Love at 12:40 and Manuel de Oliveira's
I'm Going Home yesterday. I'm positively giddy.