Multiple Sarcasms

source: Multiple Sarcasms

We are in Woody Allen territory here, folks. It is not at all easy to make a film about somebody's inner confusions and neuroses, and that is why it is rarely attempted, and when it is, it is usually a comedy. But this is a dramedy in which much of the humor falls flat. While I usually want to like this kind of movie, I just did not find enough reasons to, despite the big name cast. Poor Gabriel, with his stringy hair and casual demeanor. He is surrounded by strong, beautiful women, e.g. His wife, daughter, and best friend. It is 1979 for some reason, and our hero works as an architect and lives in Manhattan. Things seem to be going well in his life, but he is unfulfilled. He drinks too much and pals around with Cari (played by Mira Sorvino), and his gay, Black colleague (Mario Van Peebles, who steals the show). Some things happen, and Gabriel ends up alone and unemployed, but he is so self-centered that this barely seems to faze him. He finds purpose by writing a play based on his life, and - surprise, surprise - things start to turn around. But the break-through is not at all credible, and neither is the upbeat, romantic ending. Writer-director Brooks Branch is a bit of a mystery man. I took a quick look at IMDB, and this is his only film. I wonder where he came from and where he went.

This film is the story of a man (Timothy Hutton) who seems to have it all, and yet he feels like he's not getting enough out of life. He is an architect. He has a wife (Dana Delaney), a daughter and a lifelong friend (Mira Sorvino), but he just doesn't feel fulfilled. He attempts to write a play, and his work and family start to take a backseat. His wife doesn't appreciate this, and the two decide to split. Timothy Hutton is always brilliant, and this film is no exception, but the script is poorly written. I feel like the dialogue between the adults is juvenile. The story is great and the cast is too, but the dialogue drags it all down. I appreciate the film and I appreciate what the writer/director was trying to do, I just cannot get past the script. I do recommend it as long as you don't mind a few too many lines about the female anatomy that bring nothing to the story.

What this film was really missing was a real turnout to explain a playwright's boredom with all the good things he couldn't enjoy. Or a real, Allen-like neurosis (but that is overdone), perhaps of the psycho kind. Unfortunately, the intelligent dialog and the good cast can't really make it memorable. From the way the story is told, the viewer becomes unsympathetic towards the main character (and it's nothing wrong with that), but the latter's motivation is thin at best, and that's wrong and makes him a spoiled whining nerd. Which most real writers and real men aren't - hopefully. Well, it's disappointing, but it still might win an award, the Have a Great Cast and Dialog and Still Ruin the Film award.

A seemingly happy man with an unscratchable itch blunders in to a solution that is neither heroic nor mundane but nevertheless seems satisfyingly right in a very ordinary way. Without quite knowing what he knows that he has been battling with a conundrum his whole life, to find a solution he turns away from his life and decides he must write a play. He then finds himself describing his conundrum and the movie unfolds like a detective novel with odd clues dropped from time to time, as he traces the root of what's been bothering him. He finishes his play and better yet its production is financially rewarding, he's a made man and he does not have the itch any more. I gave the film an eight because even though the dialogue stank in parts, the Director still manages to convey a voice and evoke empathy and a sense of shared human experience.

Multiple Sarcasms Timothy Hutton gives a great performance of a man who is tired of his work and married life, and is driven to work out who he is by writing a play. It is a process that is riddled with angst, his creative self attempting to emerge in spite of the inevitable obstacles, in the form of his wife, who he fears "doesn't get him," to his guilt about striking out for himself in an authentic way as possibly harming his gifted and appealing daughter, his job as an architect, which ceases to satisfy him creatively. His unkempt, "just gotten out of bed" look, complete with five o'clock shadow, hair with a will of its own and rumpled clothes give a physical presence to his discontent and yearning for something more. At times, there are surrealistic scenes, reminiscent of "The Singing Detective," (which are inspired, and for me some of the best moments of the film) where he re-writes interactions that had painful ramifications for him, e.g. his argument with his wife while they were visiting her family for Christmas, and his well-intentioned but maladroit attempt to come to his daughter's aid during a crisis at school. The other actors give natural and resonant performances, including Dana Delany with her cool, porcelain sadness as his wife, and Mira Sorvino, the wise, funny and vulnerable best friend (an iconic representation of every man's "anima"), India Ennenga as the precocious and lovable daughter, and Mario Van Peebles, playing against his usual type, as his gay friend (he gives a monologue that is so effective that it would be a good audition piece). Stockard Channing was perfectly cast as the agent, industry and worldly-wise, funny and charming. It is an ode to Manhattan as well as a right-brained, intuitive look into a man's struggle to become his authentic self through self-expression. At times he appears childlike, selfish, depressed, even crazed, and yet he is doing what he has to do to make life bearable. This brave gem of a film presents a classic view of the struggle of a creative person, highs, lows, absurdity and revelations. The images captured by his daughter and superimposed with artfully free cursive reminded me of some of the work of Corita Kent, projected into a new medium, for a new century. The music was well-chosen, beautifully performed, fit the narrative and emphasized the emotion and themes.

Perfect example of a movie that should not be judged by the average rating it receives from viewers. People are apparently terrified of exploring their feelings, their decisions, or their lives if they rated this 4.6 out of 10. With no qualifiers, I give it a 10. Where & when can one explore one's self? Certainly not in schooljails where the teachers themselves are unlikely to have ever gotten to know themselves. Authenticity, the ability to be oneself, is totally lacking in this most vital institution where kids are supposed to get prepared for life. Here is a movie to help focus on the aspect of our lives that is left out of the curriculum--to question one's choices, to find meaning, to discover love, to learn from mistakes. Most people will not bother but will continue making the same mistakes over & over again. Bravo to the producers & everyone connected with this film for giving us something way above the standard fare. EXCEPTIONAL!

This film examines an interesting aspect of life...friendship between men and women without sex or romance. It's something I personally relate to because my best friends are women (and most of them are also close friends of my wife.) It also is a very well written and well directed film. The lines are good and they are well delivered in a very natural and understated manner, almost as though the scenes were improv. The concept of the play within a play, certainly not an original dramatic device, is, nevertheless, done effectively. This wasn't a big buck film, either in its production costs or its box office. But I suspect the people who made it are motivated more by artistry than by avarice.

Another reviewer here characterized the whole premise of the movie as "preposterous". Obviously, that person has not known many people of wealth and privilege. I have personally known many people of great "success" and wealth who were not very happy. They may have fulfilled the "American Dream" of job, family, etc... but they did NOT feel contentment, fulfillment or joy. One recently committed suicide... a very well-off and talented guy. So, it's not "preposterous" at all. It's quite common and very understandable since our values here are based almost completely on money -- which is only a tool and you can't purchase happiness, only distraction.

My wife and I just couldn't muster the energy and will to watch a movie about a man who has everything (wife, daughter and job), and is in a rather enviable position overall. And his problem is... well, we couldn't figure out. He's bored? Doesn't "like his life"? So, let's make a movie about it, shall we? The premise to this movie is so preposterous, that his audience may be left completely unsympathetic to the main character, or even less sympathetic to the whole enterprise that made the movie possible. The saving grace of this movie is the good directing - there's a pinch of comedy to give a genre direction to the movie, but apart that, the characters seem rather genuine. Sadly, the whole plot is stillborn and worthless.