Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Misunderstood films from the 90's - 00's
(USC Thesis Other)
Misunderstood films from the 90's - 00's
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
i
MISUNDERSTOOD FILMS FROM THE 90’s – 00’s
by
Harry Vaughn
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(SPECIALIZED JOURNALISM: THE ARTS)
May 2015
Copyright 2015 Harry Vaughn
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract iii
Misunderstood Films from the 90s – 00’s: Marie Antoinette 1
Evita 5
The Bonfires of the Vanities 8
Babe: Pig in the City 11
Shadowlands 13
Orange County 16
Igby Goes Down 19
Birth 21
References 25
iii
Abstract
“Misunderstood Films from the 90s – 00s” is a collection of online pieces that
defend critically panned films, box-office flops and forgotten features from 1990 until
2010. These are films that still, to this day, have a bad reputation or simply never come
up in conversation. All films discussed are mainstream productions, meaning they had
some form of studio backing and were widely circulated in theaters. They also, upon
release, were reviewed in major outlets across the country. They are also available
nowadays on a large number of on-demand media platforms, including iTunes, Amazon
Instant Watch, HBO Go and/or Netflix. Part of the appeal of revisiting mid to large-scale,
financially disappointing films is that it allows casual filmgoers to revisit the past two
decades of film and reignite debate and conversation.
“Misunderstood” consists of seven 300-1000 word write-ups in the form of online
posts intended for a film-centric site like Slant Magazine, The Film Experience or
IndieWire. My thesis project would ideally be broken down into weekly posts, with one
entry (meaning one film review) posted each week. If the column receives enough hits,
my goal is to continue probing the past, beyond the two decades I’ve written about here,
in search of box office flops or critically skewered films that deserve a second look.
“Misunderstood” highlights how much money each film made at the domestic
box office compared to the film’s overall production budget. These numbers are pulled
from the website Box Office Mojo. I also include the film’s Rotten Tomatoes
tomatometer rating as a way of underscoring what the critical consensus was for each
feature. Below the tomatometer, I include a direct quote from a reputable film critic who
iv
more or less summarizes the general critical consensus surrounding the film at the time of
its theatrical release.
In each of my writings, I break down why the film drew the ire of film critics,
scared away moviegoers or, if the film was well received, why it no longer comes up in
conversation or critical writings. I then do my best to articulate a robust defense of the
feature before encouraging readers to give the film a second look. Should the piece get
posted online, I intend to include a high-resolution scene from each of the films (most
likely a vimeo link or YouTube video) below my review as well as links to the film’s
availability on different media sites.
Readers should feel encouraged to create their own lists and explanations of films
they believe were unfairly criticized or under appreciated at the time of their release. The
site’s comment section would require an “up-vote” system in place, much like the one
they have in the comment section of Reddit. Whichever comments receive the most votes
on the site will then be published as a “Reader’s Approved Guide to Misunderstood
Films” of whichever decade we’re currently discussing, continuing the dialogue beyond
my own writing.
1
Misunderstood
Defending box-office wrecks, critically-skewered or just plain forgotten films from
1990 to 2010.
1. MARIE ANTOINETTE (PG-13)
Written and directed by Sofia Coppola
Release date: October 20, 2006
Distribution: Colombia Pictures
Production Budget: $50,000,000
Box Office Gross (US): $15,962,471
Rottentomatoes Tomatometer: 55% (rotten)
“Though Dunst looks the part and stunningly carries off foot-high powdered wigs and
lavish costumes, her flat affect and simpering voice don't conjure up the requisite sense
of arrogant power, corruption and narcissism.”
– Claudia Pruig, USA TODAY, October 20, 2006
WHY YOU SHOULD SEE THIS:
2
In a rare show of camaraderie, American and French audiences openly rebelled
against Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette. Loud boos drowned out its closing credits at
Cannes, and a toxic buzz followed the film well into it’s dismal theatrical run. Critics
objected to Kirsten Dunst’s interpretation of the Queen and balked at the film’s scarce
discussion of unrest outside the walls of Versailles. But they saved their most scathing
critiques for the so-called Princess of Hollywood herself, Sofia Coppola. Her refusal to
condemn the queen suggested a woman who, like the cut-off Antoinette, knew nothing of
the real world and thus spent a fortune celebrating entitlement. “We see a complainer [in
Coppola],” Nathan Heller of Slate Magazine wrote in 2010, “who perfectly distills the
compromised critical style of our era.”
But Coppola’s style isn’t whiney, nor is it an apology for the rich and
disconnected. Marie Antoinette is, more than anything else, an indictment of history’s
demonization of the Queen. Condemn the Monarchy for crippling the country, Coppola
suggest, but don’t pretend a shy and aloof teenager had any say in the matter. The fact
that so few gave this film a fighting chance shows just how provocative, to this day,
Coppola’s insistence on Antoinette’s powerlessness is.
The film’s portrait of Versailles sidesteps historical accuracy, but it does so in
order to unleash the past directly into the present moment. On a superficial level, the film
is shot-for-shot eye-candy. Kicking dust in the face of Hollywood’s sanitized period
piece, the $50 million budgeted picture takes over dozens of rooms and gardens
throughout the sprawling Versailles Palace and then tears them apart with brash punk
rock and hot-pink neon credits. The casting of Rip Torn and Molly Shannon as royalty
3
who speak in modern slang contemporizes the Monarchy overseen by Louis XV and later
inherited by Louis XVI.
However, the film’s real power – and controversy – comes from its casting of
Dunst as Antoinette. Much to the chagrin of countless critics, she bucks our expectations
at nearly every turn. Angst-ridden, soft-spoken, sometimes frustratingly blank, she’s
defined more by the ridicule she endures at Versailles then by any actions she takes
during her brief time as the Queen of France. In short, she’s the opposite of the villainous
narcissist so many wish her to be while also being a far cry from the typically
“empathetic” leading lady of countless period pieces. In fact, she’s rather a bore.
It’s Versailles that’s the real villain of Coppola’s film. We’re immersed in
overcrowded ballrooms and candle-lit parties where whispers of Louis XV’s prostitute
lover or Antoinette’s most recent fashion faux-pas overwhelm any discussion of politics
or current events. The parties here are also first-rate, and Coppola has no qualms
revealing and – yes, revelling – in their colorful, excessive panache. “This,” as Judy
Davis’ Comtesse de Noailles says to Antoinette, “is Versailles”, a palace of excess where
partying and drinking drowns out any semblance of reality.
But for all the hoopla surrounding the film’s party-girl image, few period pieces
pay as close attention as Marie Antoinette does to the role of nature in pre-industrial life.
Dunst’s Antoinette acts as our window into this bygone era as she spends much of her
time sneaking off into serene, unfrequented pockets of the palace and forest. She’s as
evasive and uncommunicative as any female protagonist in Coppola’s canon (and that
says a lot given Johansson’s nearly wordless performance in Lost in Translation).
4
In countless scenes, Dunst shies away from our gaze. Her large fans and even
larger wigs and gowns shield her features. Coppola imbues Antoinette’s addiction to
dress up and to late night escapes from the palace as means of repelling the constant
ridicule she endured while queen, much of it regarding her inability to “inspire” an
impotent Louis XIV in bed. But there’s also a mystery to Dunst’ performance that isn’t
easily definable; something of a Mona Lisa smile that keeps us from truly knowing what
she’s thinking in a given moment, or whether or not she’s thinking much at all. Coppola
often suggests that perhaps Antoinette fought back against her critics at Versailles by
tuning out completely.
Contrary to what many said at Cannes and beyond, Coppola does not pardon the
Queen for her excess. The film shows Antoinette being warned of the debt she’s racking
up. Coppola also steers clear of turning Antoinette into a Weinstein-approved protagonist
with clearly marked bio-pic character arcs and flaws. Instead Coppola insists on making
this towering nemesis of the common Frenchman an insignificant, somewhat dull player
within a large ruling class that cared more for gossip and good fun than for its own
hungry populace. Coppola’s choice to stay within the gates of Versailles, even after
Antoinette and the King have been taken prisoner, deepens our understanding of
Antoinette as a girl disconnected from a world she was never intended to know anything
about in the first place.
Vimeo Link: “Antoinette outdoor cottage sequence”
Film Availability: iTunes (link embedded); Amazon Instant Video (link embedded)
5
2. EVITA (PG)
Directed by Alan Parker, Written by Alan Parker & Oliver Stone
Release date: December 26, 1996
Distributor: Buena Vista
Production Budget: $55,000,000
Box Office Gross (US): $50,047,179
Metacritic Metascore: 45%
“Unfortunately, this movie needed an attractive, irresistibly charismatic performer to
give us some reason for watching. Madonna is made up to look like Eva, but this is
hardly enough to carry the movie.”
-Barbara Shulgasser, THE SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, January 1, 1997
WHY YOU SHOULD SEE THIS:
Andrew Lloyd Webber’s portrait of the famous Argentinian first lady is a baffling
contradiction of charisma and callousness. Under the watchful eye of director Alan
Parker Evita looks even better on film than it does on stage. Critics were quick to pounce
on the casting of Madonna in a role immortalized by Patti Lupone – a vocally superior
6
performer who won a Tony award for her stage portrayal. However, Madonna wears
Eva’s celebrity like a second skin and Parker’s adaptation soars with a similar air of
glamour and avidity that makes it one of the most underrated musical gems of its decade.
With 85 costume changes for Madonna alone, as well as an array of massive set
pieces and sprawling location shoots that jump from Hungary to Spain, the film powers
through twelve musical numbers that never let-up (there is no spoken dialogue), faithfully
following the lead of Webber’s incisive lyrics. Evita details the extraordinary fate of a
girl who came from nothing and in less than two years, stormed her way into a position
no Argentinian woman had held before; one that few in the ruling elite believed she
deserved.
Gerry Hambling’s editing is exacting and Darius Khondji’s cinematography,
which captures massive rally sequences atop buildings and balconies, illustrates the sheer
power Evita held over the masses. Madonna, for her part, sings rock opera anthems with
a quivering voice eliciting a false vulnerability that wins the masses while infuriating not
just the upper class but also the film’s most ardent dissenter, Che Guevara (Antonio
Banderas).
Webber and Parker’s Evita is critical of the misleading policies enacted by the
first lady while in office, but it also relishes her ambition, especially during her formative
years as a working class girl pushing herself up the social ladder. Madonna is magnificent
in many of these earlier sequences, personifying Evita’s seductress skills with a reptilian
nonchalance that echoes much of what made the social climber such an unstoppable force
within her husband’s administration. She may have feigned innocence, but beneath the
defenseless façade stewed deep ambition.
7
Both Webber and Parker were wise to cast Madonna in the role of a woman in
love with but eventually trapped by the constraints of celebrity. It’s a fascinating,
woefully underrated turn from a brutish pop-icon who, like Argentina’s first lady,
wrestles with the many images she’s crafted for herself and her unprecedented legion of
adoring fans over her expansive career. She and Evita are clearly cut from the same cloth.
Vimeo Link: “What’s New Argentina!”
Film Availability: iTunes (link embedded); Amazon Instant Video (link embedded)
8
3. THE BONFIRES OF THE VANITIES (R)
Written by Michael Cristofer
Directed by Brian De Palma
Release date: December 22, 1990
Distributor: Warner Bros
Production Budget: $47,000,000
Box Office Gross (US): $15,691,192
Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer: 16% (rotten)
“The movie, on the other hand, unfolds in a depressingly airless, slapstick New York
populated by grim caricatures… one of the most indecently bad movies of the year.”
– Owen Gleiberman, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY, January 11, 1991
WHY YOU SHOULD SEE THIS: Considered one of the worst films of 1990, Brian De
Palma’s fitful, irreverent adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s masterpiece “The Bonfires of the
Vanities”, was quickly put out to dry by critics and filmgoers alike. Warner Brothers
spent nearly $50 million adapting it to the big screen, but after a purportedly difficult and
lengthy shoot, the film tanked at the box office. A tell-all book by Julie Salamon, entitled
“The Devil’s Candy” would painstakingly detail the film’s disastrous shoot and become
an international bestseller just two years after the film premiered. No one on set was
9
spared, including an ensemble cast that included Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis, Morgan
Freeman, Kim Cattral and Melanie Griffith. But the most vehement criticism landed
squarely on Brian De Palma’s shoulders for what many claimed was his abandonment of
Wolfe’s sprawling portrait of New York City circa the 1980s. The complicated characters
and satirical skewering of the rich and poor alike looked cartoonish and cruel on screen.
Peter Travers of Rolling Stone put it bluntly in a rare Zero Star review:
Tom Wolfe's 1987 novel about the Greed Decade was penetrating, prophetic and
incisively satirical. Director Brian De Palma's …version of the book is
superficial, shopworn and cartoonish. On film, Bonfire achieves a consistency of
ineptitude rare even in this era of over-inflated cinematic air bags.
Mr. Travers balked at De Palma’s adaptation because it was so completely at odds with
Wolfe’s humanism. But the level of disgust also suggests something of a knee jerk
reaction. Bonfire is truly tone-deaf on all sorts of levels, from its garish set pieces and
gaudily dressed extras, to its hammer-headed approach to race relations. But that’s also,
somehow, it’s ugly charm. For instance, its portrait of Reverend Bacon (a parody of Al
Sharpton) and Annie Lamb, a lower income black mother who uses her son’s hate-crime-
induced coma to steal media attention and money, brings the controversial conversation
of Race Baiting center stage without an ounce of sensitivity. Outside the rabid rants on
Fox News, this topic is generally off-limits in Hollywood. But De Palma has no qualms
throwing it in our face and seeing how much we squirm in the process.
10
We squirm also at De Palma’s nihilistic love affair with the film’s assortment of
morally bankrupt Wall Street elites. For instance, the filmmaker obsesses over Melanie
Griffith as the cooingly narcissistic Maria Ruskin, a grotesque, social-climbing
millionaire who casually causes a crime only to finagle her way out of any consequences.
De Palma over-accentuates her curvy hips and long-lashed doe eyes, inviting us to relish
her immorality as much as he seems to.
De Palma also makes his leading man, the dishonest and corrupt McCoy (played
by Hanks), the film’s moral compass. Like some perverse play on a Frank Capra film,
Hanks dresses himself in Jimmy Stewart aw-shucks humility and wrestles through a legal
system that somehow proves more corrupt than his own legal and romantic shortcomings.
And yet his flaccid denial of responsibility towards a whole host of moral issues, not to
mention his third-act crime of lying to a federal judge, makes his, and by extension, De
Palma’s overarching moral construct completely ludicrous and without merit.
It’s difficult to tell whether the film is a parody of outdated, White-centric
American ideals or if The Bonfires of the Vanities is, in fact, the most sincerely racist,
tone-deaf, devilishly bankrupt Hollywood adaption in recent history. Famous for his
flamboyant flourishes, De Palma has made a gloriously tasteless, lewd and downright
infuriating ode to the 80s and all its brazen displays of corruption. It’s easy to hate this
film but much more difficult to outright ignore its disquieting sense of accuracy towards
America’s ruling elite and its equally self-interested populace.
Vimeo Link: “Maria’s seduction”
Film Availability: iTunes (link embedded); Amazon Instant Video (link embedded)
11
4. BABE: PIG IN THE CITY (G)
Written and directed by George Miller
Release date: November 27, 1998
Distributor: Universal
Production Budget: $90,000,000
Box Office Gross (US): $50,000,000
Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer: 61%
“…This ''Babe'' has all but lost its bearings. It will work as a sequel only hard-core
''Babe'' fans willing to follow this four-legged hero (or heroine, as Babe obviously is in
some scenes) anywhere. Had ''Pig in the City'' been made first, it by no means could have
prompted a sequel of its own.”
– Janet Maslin, THE NEW YORK TIMES, November 25, 1998
WHY YOU SHOULD SEE THIS:
George Miller’s incessantly grim sequel isn’t for children and that’s why, despite
its nearly $100 million budget, it crashed so spectacularly at the box office. Gothic,
chaotic and seeped in despair, the dark city envisioned by Miller is gloomy and violent. It
is also a masterpiece of art direction, storytelling, mood, and composition. I don’t think
any film has tied the woes of mankind so intrinsically to the animal kingdom with such
visual and narrative assurance. Pigs, dogs, felines, monkeys move in and out of
12
choreographed sequences with ease and take on an array of archetypal characters
reminiscent of the heroes and villains of film noir and even Dickens.
The environment of Miller’s urban sprawl is awesome in construction. Buildings
of different shapes and sizes melt into one another, connected in consistency by swiveling
canals, arching bridges and low-flying jumbo jets routinely roaring above the indifferent
masses. “Face it, you're just a little pig in the big city,” Babe’s duck pal Ferdinand
laments after nearly being run over by an Animal control truck, “What can you possibly
do? What can anyone do? Why even try?”
This is a far cry from the full circle optimism of the original Babe and I don’t
blame many parents at the time for being put-off by its violent tonal shifts (though the
original Babe wasn’t exactly a walk in the park, with its slaughter houses, murdered
sheep etc.). But Miller’s film carries its own world-weary pathos that lends the darker
moments a gloomy nuance and beauty that makes it an indelible sequel as well as a
powerful stand-alone feature in its own right. This is one twisted, grimly thoughtful fairy
tale that plays more for film buffs than children. But that, in and of itself, makes it worthy
of a second look.
Vimeo Link: “Babe runs for his Life”
Film Availability: iTunes (link embedded); Amazon Instant Video (link embedded)
13
4. SHADOWLANDS (PG)
Written by William Nicholson and Directed by Richard Attenborough
Release date: December 25, 1993
Distributor: Savoy
Production Budget: $22,000,000
Box Office Gross (US): $25,842,377
Rottentomatoes Tomatometer: 96%
“Pedigree aside, "Shadowlands" offers a gratifyingly soapy love story, handsomely
told.”
– Janet Maslin, THE NEW YORK TIMES, December 29, 1993
WHY YOU SHOULD SEE THIS:
For all intents and purposes, Shadowlands did moderately well both critically and
commercially upon its release. But fast-forward twenty-one years after its release and it
never comes up in conversation. That’s maybe because Richard Attenborough’s quiet ode
to suffering came out the same year the Academy nominated Anthony Hopkins for his
role in The Remains of the Day, a similarly themed, awards-friendly Merchant Ivory
14
production that overshadowed his equally fine performance as the buttoned up,
emotionally detached C.S. Lewis.
Another reason might have to do with the Attenborough fatigue that set in after
the filmmaker won the Academy Award for Best Director in 1982 for his handsome but
dull biopic about Mahatma Gandhi. Attenborough beat out Steven Spielberg for E.T. and
Sydney Pollack for Tootsie (not to mention Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner which wasn’t
even nominated in either category). Both critics and casual moviegoers eventually saw
Gandhi’s Oscar win as a misguided call by the Academy and it stirred a substantial
amount of backlash. But watch Shadowlands now and you’ll witness a far more nuanced
portrait of a celebrated man than any moment in Gandhi, backed by exquisite lead
performances from Hopkins and his co-star Debra Winger. It’s Attenborough the
humanist, not history professor, who shines in what’s easily the best but most ignored
project of his career.
Shadowland’s production elements are handsomely executed - Roger Pratt’s
cinematography and George Fenton’s score are particularly standout – but it’s Hopkins
and Winger’s chemistry that makes this film disarmingly honest. The film, adapted from
the stage by its own playwright William Nicholson, retains a candidness that avoids
histrionics in favor of stripped-down, un-theatrical emotion. Scenes in which Winger and
Hopkins confide in their mutual regrets and bluntly discuss how to handle Winger’s
deteriorating health stand apart for their refusal to take emotional shortcuts.
Hopkins plays Mr. Lewis – called Jack by his Oxford chums – with a charisma
that expertly conceals inner turmoil. The public reveres him not just for his Narnia trilogy
but also for his speeches regarding love and suffering in relation to Christianity. But
15
taken into Jack’s home, we see an unmarried man, bound to his fan mail every night with
no one but his alcoholic brother Wally to converse with. It is only when Joy Gresham
(Winger), an American poet and single mother with a knack for blunt assessments, flags
him down in a tea house and asks, “When was the last time you lost a fight?” that a
flicker of excitement passes through his icy blue eyes. “Oh dear Ms. Gresham,” he
replies. “You see right through me.”
Over the course of their friendship, heated and increasingly intimate
conversations reveal a romantic meeting of the minds. “When was the last time you felt
real pain?” Joy asks pointedly after listening to Jack’s lofty sermon on suffering. Her
blunt question takes on a whole new resonance once it’s revealed she has bone cancer.
Jack initially is irreconcilable but Joy doesn’t let him retreat. Instead, she marries
him and moves into his home and presses him to accept their brief happiness as a
necessary precursor to the grief he’ll feel when she’s lost. “We can't have the happiness
of yesterday without the pain of today,” she assures him. “That’s the deal.”
Humane and intellectually rigorous, Joy and Jack stand for much of what makes
Attenborough’s film such a revelatory experience. It never makes a fuss and refuses, at
every turn, to draw attention to its own emotional meditations on love, death and growing
old. Perhaps this is why so few have seen this soft-spoken masterpiece from 1993.
Vimeo Link: “That’s the Deal”
Film Availability: iTunes (link embedded); Amazon Instant Video (link embedded)
16
6. ORANGE COUNTY (PG-13)
Written by Mike White and Directed by Jake Kasdan
Release date: January 11, 2002
Distributor: Paramount
Production Budget: $18,000,000
Box Office Gross (US): $41,076,018
Rottentomatoes Tomatometer: 46% (rotten)
“[Kasdan] and White aim very low here and fail to take advantage of the abundant
opportunities for social satire that its upper class and academic settings provide.”
– Todd McCarthy, VARIETY, January 6, 2002
WHY YOU SHOULD SEE THIS:
Mislabeled as an unsavory addition to the already exhausted sexual exploits of
American Pie and its entourage of copy-cats, Orange County got slammed by critics in
2002 and made only modest returns at the Box Office. But the film, directed by Jake
Kasdan and catapulted by Mike White’s ferocious screenplay, digs deep into the
cloistered world of academia and mucks up some delicious satire on west-coast suburbia.
17
The sun-kissed setting of Orange County is based on White’s experiences as a
high schooler (his surrogate Shaun is played by the restrained and effective Colin Hanks)
at a prestigious California private school known for landing more students into Ivy
Leagues than almost any other high school in the country. But as his underrated film
suggests, few of them get through the exhausting application ordeal without losing a little
bit of their dignity – and soul – in the process.
For all of Orange County’s broadly sketched comedy – coupled with an abruptly
optimistic ending that runs counter to the film’s prevailing aura of discontentment – it
remains a surprisingly sharp takedown of higher education and the mayhem it inflicts
upon each and every student forced to take the plunge. Its most deliciously satire come
from brilliant turns by Catherine O’Hara and John Lithgow as Shaun’s loaded,
dysfunctional parents, as well as Jack Black’s drug-addled older brother constantly in
need of Shaun’s urine for his ongoing drug tests.
Lily Tomlin’s brief, biting cameo as a nut-case college counselor and Chevy
Chase’s single-scene stealer as the school’s aloof Headmaster keep the laughs churning
out at a consistent rate. In general, the film’s rich ensemble of comedians – among them,
Kevin Kline as Sean’s would-be Stanford Professor and Leslie Mann as his vapid,
money-grubbing mother-in-law – lend this slapstick stab at millennial ennui a generous
helping of comedy as well as a surprising degree of pathos. For all of White’s dismissive
jokes, he’s serious about the toll cutthroat competition takes on teens. The students of
Orange County may be programmed to achieve straight As and high AP scores but
they’re also desperate for something more than just acceptance letters and bragging-right
University hoodies.
18
Vimeo Link: “Have you seen my Piss?”
Film Availability: iTunes (link embedded); Amazon Instant Video (link embedded)
19
7. IGBY GOES DOWN (R)
Written and Directed by Burr Steers
Release date: September 13, 2002
Distributor: MGM
Production Budget: $9,000,000
Box Office Gross (US): $4,777,465
Rottentomatoes Tomatometer: 76% (fresh)
“Gets weirder and meaner and darker and sadder as it progresses, which is amazing
since it simultaneously remains funny and horrifying right up to the end.”
– Lisa Schwarzbaum, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY, September 11, 2002
WHY YOU SHOULD SEE THIS:
Igby Goes Down came out four years before the financial crisis, accurately
predicting the pain at the center of the Great Recession’s Boomerang generation;
educated young adults paralyzed by their trophy-collecting childhoods and unaccustomed
to a world disinterested in their emotional growing pains. Igby’s parents end up suffering
for their mismanaged lives but much of their moral burden falls onto their overly
medicated son who feels it’s his duty to exist as a bitter critic of his parents’ unchecked
blunders and indiscretions.
20
Susan Sarandon plays one of cinema’s nastiest matriarchs, Mimi Slokum, an
upper class Connecticut tyrant who has recently been diagnosed with stage four Cancer,
though no one, including Mimi seems to care. She’s more concerned with the
embarrassing behavior of her youngest son, Igby (Rory Culkin), a seventeen year old
who, before expulsion from a prestigious Catholic school, asks the head priest, “If heaven
is such an amazing place, why is getting crucified such a big fucking sacrifice?” His
inquisitive nature gets him slapped by a child therapist and eventually shipped off to
military school – though, based on the world he’s brought up in, it’s not difficult to
sympathize with his plight.
Igby Goes Down may not have the structural panache of Wes Anderson’s
eccentric comedies of manners, but it’s able to expose the strains inflicted by financial
hubris and high-society helicopter parenting with a deeper and more believable humanity.
We sympathize with Igby, much in the same way we feel for Holden Caulfield wandering
through luxurious hotel bars, because he cannot distinguish himself from the hypocrisy
he so vehemently despises in his parents. For a film with such timeless yet relevant
undertones, it’s about time this gem from 2002 finds the audience it deserves.
Vimeo Link: “I’m very, very tense!”
Film Availability: iTunes (link embedded); Amazon Instant Video (link embedded)
21
8. BIRTH (R)
Written and Directed by Jonathan Glazer
Release date: October 29, 2004
Distributor: New Line Cinema
Production Budget: $20,000,000
Box Office Gross (US): $5,095,038
Rottentomatoes Tomatometer: 39%
“…what "Birth" doesn't have is a story that makes any sense. Mystery is fine. We like
mystery. Muddle is another thing altogether, and jerking around the audience in the
name of "art" is pretty unforgivable.
Teresa Wiltz, THE WASHINGTON POST, October 29, 2004
WHY YOU SHOULD SEE THIS:
Jonathan Glazer set the bar high after unleashing his debut feature, Sexy Beast back in
2000. Audiences ate up the hyper stylized heist thriller and the Academy followed suit,
nominating Ben Kingsley for his brilliant, obscenity spewing role as a criminal with
nothing to lose. As writer Darren Franich recently noted in his 2014 Entertainment
22
Weekly article about Glazer, many critics enthusiastically pegged the young English
helmer a kinetic wunderkind akin to Steven Soderbergh or Guy Ritchie.
But then, four years later, Glazer made the disastrously received Birth, a lurid tale
absent of narrative cohesiveness that ran counter to everything Sexy Beast offered. The
slow-burning, increasingly bizarre love story, centered on a grown woman’s obsession
with a ten year old she’s convinced is the reincarnation of her deceased husband,
disturbed even Glazer’s most ardent defenders. More specifically, the bathtub sequence,
in which Nicole Kidman invites the child to bathe with her, was condemned as
inappropriate and in poor taste.
But nearly ten years have passed and Glazer’s much-anticipated third feature,
Under The Skin, released summer of 2014, has received universal acclaim. Though
Under the Skin deserves praise, it’s high time to re-visit the many aspects that make
Glazer’s second feature perhaps his best and most misunderstood film to date.
For starters, there are two uninterrupted shots in Birth that completely absorb us
in their visual and sonic drama and stand alone as some of the most exquisitely
constructed sequences in recent cinema (yes, I went there!). The story begins with a four-
minute tracking shot of a jogger running through a snow-covered Central Park. Watch
how musician Alexandre Desplat’s flute-inspired chimes - meant to accentuate the
falling snow and sprightly pace of the jogger - match Harris Savide’s entrancingly
festive, fairytale-like cinematography. But as the runner moves toward an underground
tunnel (where he’ll meet his untimely demise) Savides’ bright palette turns increasingly
dark, and, without missing a beat, Desplat overpowers his woodwind section with a
heavy string crescendo and deep bursts of the bassoon. Desplat’s riff on Savides’ single
23
tracking shot is an exquisite example of cinematic teamwork. The relationship between
what we see and what we hear is so inherently connected, it’s impossible to imagine the
sequence working any other way.
In the second uninterrupted shot, Glazer relies entirely on Nicole Kidman’s subtle
expressions to convey a myriad of emotions. Roger Ebert aptly pointed to Kidman’s
cropped hair and pale face as an ode to Mia Farrow’s Rosemary in his 2004 review. Like
Polanski’s ill-fated muse, Kidman’s Anna is willingly manipulated by the domineering
affections of her controlling fiancé. Once a little boy barges into her townhouse and
claims to be her deceased husband, she moves from her fiance’s iron grip to the child’s,
falling under his spell and convincing herself she’s fallen in love. Birth’s constructs are
comparable to the nightmarish claustrophobia of Rosemary’s Baby, but Glazer’s demons
are far less imposing and easy to identify. Dread and desire dance disconcertingly close
to one another and often it is Kidman’s Anna who conjures her own destructive ghosts
and demons from the past. Much has been made, deservingly, of Farrow’s harrowing
performance in Polanski’s classic. But the pain and madness Kidman displays in just two
minutes of running time in Birth stands in a class of its own, comparable to some of the
finest work by stars of the silent era of cinema.
I’m referring to the moment just after Anna’s confronted by the child. She’s
whisked away to a Wagner concert by her distraught fiancé. Glazer follows the couple
into the theatre. As the orchestra booms in front of them, he closes in on Anna sitting,
dazed in her seat. For the next 120 or so seconds we see her experience an impossible
range of emotions: disgust, fear, hope and, finally, resolve, against the thunderous
crescendo of live orchestration. Throughout this uninterrupted shot, Anna’s fiancé
24
whispers inaudible comments into her ear causing her to jump in fear. She appears to
think, for fleeting moments, that he can hear her thoughts. This small but powerful choice
by Glazer, to have the fiancé interrupt what she’s thinking, makes us realize that we, the
audience, can read her thoughts. We understand exactly what she’s experiencing and not
a single word or physical gesture has been uttered. Her spell has become our own. It’s a
stunningly virtuoso sequence of acting and filmmaking.
Part of the great frustration Birth caused was in its refusal to answer whether this
boy is an actual reincarnation of a dead man or simply the projections of a grieving
widow. A bizarre third-act twist seems to prove he’s an imposter but perhaps, as the
film’s final shot of Kidman weeping on the beach suggests, the line between ghosts and
grief exist in tandem, just out of reach and yet all around us. Rarely has a supernatural
tale felt so comfortable sifting through a thick cloud of contradiction, absurdity and
doubt. It’s no wonder this fantasy film initially received such vitriolic criticism. The
film’s implications on death and obsession are troubling. But now that the dust has settled
it’s time to give Birth and all its grim beauty and heartbreak another go. I have a feeling
opinions will quickly change on this one.
Vimeo Link: “Wagner realization sequence”
Film Availability: iTunes (link embedded); Amazon Instant Video (link embedded)
25
References
Babe: Pig in the City. Dir. George Miller. Perf. Magda Szubanski, Elizabeth Daily,
Mickey Rooney, James Cromwell. Universal, 1998. Film.
“Babe: Pig in the City.” Box Office Mojo. IMDB.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=babepiginthecity.htm
Birth. Dir. Jonathan Glazer. Perf. Nicole Kidman, Danny Huston, Cameron Bright,
Lauren Bacall, Peter Stormare, Novella Nelson, Alison Elliott, Zoe Caldwell, and
Anne Hetch. New Line Cinema, 2004. Film.
“Birth.” Box Office Mojo. IMDB.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=birth
Bonfires of the Vanities, The. Dir. Brian De Palma. Perf. Melanie Griffith, Tom Hanks,
Bruce Willis, John Barrymore III, Kim Cattrall, Kirsten Dunst, Morgan Freeman,
John Hancock, and Alan King. Warner Bros, 1990. Film.
Ebert, Roger. “Birth” Rogerebert.com (October 28, 2004).
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/birth-2004
Evita. Dir. Alan Parker. Perf. Madonna, Antonio Banderas, Jonathan Pryce. Buena Vista,
1996. Film.
“Evita.” Box Office Mojo. IMDB.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=evita.htm
Franich, Darren. “Entertainment Geekly: An attempt to understand Jonathan Glazer, the
strangest brilliant director of his age” Entertainment Weekly (April 10, 2004).
http://www.ew.com/article/2014/04/10/under-the-skin-birth-jonathan-glazer
Gleiberman, Owen. “Grade: D: The Bonfires of the Vanities” Entertainment Weekly
(January 11, 1991). http://www.ew.com/article/1991/01/11/bonfire-vanities
Heller, Nathan. “Sophia Coppola: you either love her or hate her. Here’s why” Slate
(December 28, 2010).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2010/12/sofia_coppo
la.html
Igby Goes Down. Dir. Burr Steers. Perf. Kieran Culkin, Claire Danes, Jeff Goldblum,
Jared Harris, Amanda Peet, Ryan Phillippe, Bill Pullman, Susan Sarandon. MGM,
2002. Film.
“Igby Goes Down.” Box Office Mojo. IMDB.
26
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=igbygoesdown.htm
Marie Antoinette. Dir. Sophia Coppola. Perf. Kirsten Dunst, Jason Schwartzman, Rip
Torn, Judy Davis, and Rose Byrne. Colombia Pictures, 2006. Film.
“Marie Antoinette.” Box Office Mojo. IMDB, 2006.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marieantoinette.htm
Maslin, Janet. “Film Review; Goodbye, Green Acres; Hello, Wild Side” The New
York Times (November 25, 1998).
http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9C0DE4DA1639F936A15752C1A9
6E958260
Maslin, Janet. “Review/Film; 'Shadowlands,' a Story Of a Spring of Romance In the
Autumn of 2 Lives” The New York Times (December 29, 1993).
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/29/movies/review-film-shadowlands-a-story-
of-a-spring-of-romance-in-the-autumn-of-2-lives.html
McCarthy, Todd. “Review: ‘Orange County’” Variety (January 6, 2002).
http://variety.com/2002/film/reviews/orange-county-1200552033/
Orange County. Dir. Jake Kasdan. Perf. Colin Hanks, Jack Black, Schuyler Fisk, Bret
Harrison, Catherine O’Hara, Mike White, John Lithgow, Lily Tomlin, Chevy
Chase, Leslie Mann, and Kevin Kline. Paramount, 2002. Film.
“Orange County.” Box Office Mojo. IMDB.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=orangecounty.htm
Puig, Claudia. “‘Marie’ has style but no story” USATODAY (October 20, 2006).
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2006-10-19-review-marie-
antoinette_x.htm
Schwarzbaum, Lisa. “Grade A: Igby Goes Down” Entertainment Weekly (September 11,
2002). http://www.ew.com/article/2002/09/11/igby-goes-down
Shadowlands. Dir. Richard Attenborough. Perf. Anthony Hopkins, Debra Winger, and
Julian Fellowes. Savoy, 1993. Film.
Shulgasser, Barbara. “Evita eviscerated” The San Francisco Chronicle (January 1, 1997).
www.sfgate.com/style/article/Evita-eviscerated-3143555.php
“The Bonfires of the Vanities.” Box Office Mojo. IMDB.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bonfireofthevanities.htm
27
Travers, Peter. “The Bonfire of the Vanities: zero stars” Rolling Stone (December 21,
1990). http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/the-bonfire-of-the-vanities-
19901221
Wiltz, Teresa. “‘Birth’ Worthy of A Fast Death” The Washington Post (October 29,
2004). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7920-2004Oct28.html
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
“Misunderstood” is a collection of online pieces that defend critically panned films, box-office flops and forgotten features from 1990 until 2010. These are films that still, to this day, have a bad reputation or simply never come up in conversation. All films discussed are mainstream productions, meaning they had some form of studio backing and were widely circulated in theaters. They also, upon release, were reviewed in major outlets across the country. They are also available nowadays on a large number of on-demand media platforms, including iTunes, Amazon Instant Watch, HBO Go and/or Netflix. Part of the appeal of revisiting mid to large-scale, financially disappointing films is that it allows casual filmgoers to revisit the past two decades of film and reignite debate and conversation. ❧ “Misunderstood” consists of seven 300-1000 word write-ups in the form of online posts intended for a film-centric site like Slant Magazine, The Film Experience or IndieWire. My thesis project would ideally be broken down into weekly posts, with one entry (meaning one film review) posted each week. If the column receives enough hits, my goal is to continue probing the past, beyond the two decades I’ve written about here, in search of box office flops or critically skewered films that deserve a second look. ❧ “Misunderstood” highlights how much money each film made at the domestic box office compared to the film’s overall production budget. These numbers are pulled from the website Box Office Mojo. I also include the film’s Rotten Tomatoes tomatometer rating as a way of underscoring what the critical consensus was for each feature. Below the tomatometer, I include a direct quote from a reputable film critic who more or less summarizes the general critical consensus surrounding the film at the time of its theatrical release. ❧ In each of my writings, I break down why the film drew the ire of film critics, scared away moviegoers or, if the film was well received, why it no longer comes up in conversation or critical writings. I then do my best to articulate a robust defense of the feature before encouraging readers to give the film a second look. Should the piece get posted online, I intend to include a high-resolution scene from each of the films (most likely a vimeo link or YouTube video) below my review as well as links to the film’s availability on different media sites. ❧ Readers should feel encouraged to create their own lists and explanations of films they believe were unfairly criticized or under appreciated at the time of their release. The site’s comment section would require an “up-vote” system in place, much like the one they have in the comment section of Reddit. Whichever comments receive the most votes on the site will then be published as a “Reader’s Approved Guide to Misunderstood Films” of whichever decade we’re currently discussing, continuing the dialogue beyond my own writing.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Coming of age through my eyes
PDF
What happened to critical criticism? Art criticism expressing a negative opinion seems to be a dying breed, but this is how we save it from extinction – for we must
PDF
The drive home: a podcasting journey
PDF
The critic's guidebook: conversations, advice and models for young, aspiring film critics
PDF
Screenwriting in the digital age: for the first time, new technology and distribution methods give feature film writers power to make a living outside Hollywood studios
PDF
The reality of fiction: understanding autism through narrative films
PDF
Inseparable: a manifesto for the separation of art and artist
PDF
Becoming Dalit cinema
PDF
Georges Delerue in Hollywood: the film composer's legacy, as seen through his final chapter
PDF
One big damn band: an introduction to the Red Dirt musical scene
PDF
The relevant art museum: views on the role of a 21st century museum
PDF
The empire business: how Netflix made television permanent
PDF
Classic films and our collective memory: the current status of preservation and availability
PDF
Off the record: reimagining unrecorded histories
PDF
The road to Hopscotch: an exploration of identity with Los Angeles' mobile opera
PDF
This year in Hollywood: how the entertainment industry faltered, evolved and survived a year of pandemic and racial reckoning
PDF
Words to spaces
PDF
Awkward Is the New Black
PDF
Black money: the history of African-Americans represented on U.S. currency
PDF
The art of Ampersand: applying the creative process to podcasting and audio journalism
Asset Metadata
Creator
Vaughn, Harry
(author)
Core Title
Misunderstood films from the 90's - 00's
School
Annenberg School for Communication
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
Specialized Journalism (The Arts)
Publication Date
08/16/2023
Defense Date
03/02/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
1990,2010,aughts,box office,cinema,criticism,film,misunderstood,movies,nineties,OAI-PMH Harvest,underrated
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Page, Tim (
committee chair
), Anawalt, Sasha (
committee member
), McKenna, Denise (
committee member
)
Creator Email
harryjvaughn@gmail.com,hvaughn@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-536854
Unique identifier
UC11298410
Identifier
etd-VaughnHarr-3214.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-536854 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-VaughnHarr-3214.pdf
Dmrecord
536854
Document Type
Thesis
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Vaughn, Harry
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
1990
2010
aughts
box office
cinema
misunderstood
nineties
underrated