Joho the Blog » Much Ado about Schmidt
EverydayChaos
Everyday Chaos
Too Big to Know
Too Big to Know
Cluetrain 10th Anniversary edition
Cluetrain 10th Anniversary
Everything Is Miscellaneous
Everything Is Miscellaneous
Small Pieces cover
Small Pieces Loosely Joined
Cluetrain cover
Cluetrain Manifesto
My face
Speaker info
Who am I? (Blog Disclosure Form) Copy this link as RSS address Atom Feed

Much Ado about Schmidt

I just posted a review of About Schmidt on BlogCritics, but it hasn’t shown up yet. I seem to be having account woes there, which are probably my fault. Anyway, here’s the review:

Yeah, the critics are gaga over About Schmidt. But then they loved American Beauty. And like that other film, About Schmidt swings between the predictable and the implausible, with plenty of moments that are both. And have I mentioned how smug and condescending it is?

There are things to like about it. Jack Nicholson is capable of showing more than one emotion at a time. Howard Hesseman brings some depth to a badly written role. Dermot Mulroney’s sports a world class mullet. I chuckled out loud four or five times. And the movie wants to be about something.

But go back to that mullet. You can tell almost everything about each character in this movie simply based on the way she or he looks: Mulroney’s got a mullet so he’s shallow. Kathy Bates looks like an earth mother so she is. In fact, this movie lost me in the first five minutes when we are introduced to Nicholson who is an actuary for an insurance company. Guess what? He’s repressed emotionally! Can you imagine that! An actuary who’s repressed! How original!

Actually, I suspected we were in trouble in the first shots, “artfully” framing Omaha. Static shots of office buildings. No people. Gray. Omaha. Uh oh. Then we’re shown the “Woodman” building, home of the Woodman Insurance Company where Nicholson works. “Woodman”? “Made of wood.” Get it? Beware of movies that use symbolic names.

And has there ever been a movie that told so much and showed so little? Towards the beginning of the movie, Nicholson becomes a “foster parent” to a child in Africa — one of those $22/month arrangements — to whom he writes letters. The letters allow Nicholson to do voice overs throughout the movie as he talks about his feelings about the people around him. In the first letter, for example, we find out how angry Nicholson is at his wife. That’s how we find out how important his daughter is to him. On and on. What happened to making a movie that showed us those feelings?

The letters ploy really put me off for another reason. The letters are meant to amuse us because Schmidt writes to this 6-year-old African kid as if he were an American adult, advising him to join a fraternity when he goes to college and complaining about “rattling around” his big house. Some of it’s funny, but it requires turning Nicholson’s character into a moron without the slightest sense of what life is like for his foster son. It’s wildly implausible, it’s a cheap and uninvolving way to tell a story, and it shows the film’s willingness to betray its characters for the sake of a laugh.

But there aren’t any real characters in the movie anyway. Just ideas for characters. “Emotionally repressed actuary.” “Sleazy, shallow fiance.” “Earth mother.” “Imbecilic brother.” Sometimes the characters do reveal something more about themselves. But we’re never sure why. For example, you’ll end up liking Mulroney’s character more at the end than at the beginning, but he’s done and said nothing to deserve that change. We come to know more about Nicholson’s daughter (Hope Davis) as the movie progresses but that’s only because at first all we know of her is the idealized sentences Nicholson writes to his foster son. There’s no real character change or revelation, just some overly-dramatic scenes in which carefully scripted angers emerge. The acting is better than the script, but there’s only so much an actor can do with wooden characters and predictable set pieces.

Ultimately, the script and direction are unbearably smug. This is a movie about an “ordinary guy” who has made it to retirement age without facing his feelings or those of the people around him. Ok. But its point of view is outside and above: Laugh at Schmidt. Pity Schmidt. Never: Feel what Schmidt feels. Never: Think the way Schmidt thinks. Never: Be Schmidt.

Because the script is so bad, this movie is just about a shoo-in to win the Oscar for Best Screenplay. Because Kathy Bates plays an earth mother who brings an embarrassingly predictable sense of life to the film, and because it’s a “brave role” (= she gets naked in it), she’ll be nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Because it is set in America’s heartland and defies normal narrative conventions (= it’s disconnected and really boring), it’ll be nominated for Best Director. Because it’s smug and thinks it’s about despair, it’ll be nominated for Best Picture.

Previous: « || Next: »

11 Responses to “Much Ado about Schmidt”

  1. Thank you, David. The trailer made me suspicious about About Schmidt, but so many people gushed so exuberantly over it that I was almost tempted to write off my doubts as overly harsh. Your review conveys exactly what I had guessed about the movie, though, and now I think I’ll pass up the opportunity to go see it.

  2. Thank you so much! I was wanting to see it but now I’ll wait until the DVD comes out!

  3. I’m dreading a conjugal split on this one. My wife will insist on going–it won’t be optional. This has all the smell of one she’ll fall for. I’ve seen the previews and they lead me to expect that my reaction will be similar to yours–which means it will be chilly-vibes time coming home from the theatre.

  4. Tom, here are some things you can say with a clean conscience that will make the ride home more bearable:

    “Man, Nicholson and Bates sure are vanity free to let themselves look like that!”

    “Did you recognize Howard Hesseman? Dr. Johnny Fever?”

    “So, which did you like better, this or ‘American Beauty’?”

  5. Very well put. Not because I saw the movie, but because you’re so right about what passes muster for cinematic glory these days. Looks like everyone is “phoning it in” these days. I got suckered into going to see Analyze That, and it looks like a work written, produced and directed by Wayne and Garth of Wayne’s World fame. It’s really a shame to see people like DeNiro and Nicholson reduced to these sorts of hackneyed roles. They can’t be doing it for the money. I’m confused.

  6. Dead on. What a waste of 10.50.

  7. Did you like Election? Same director, and, as they say, wickedly funny. But then, I like American Beauty.

  8. Yes, I liked Election because it was a little movie that established its own conventions and didn’t pretend to be about much.

  9. Thanks for the tips, David. Have you considered taking up marriage counseling?

  10. It bums me out that I have to disagree so completely with you, DW. I thought About Schmidt was a very decent film, not condescending at all, as long as you took it “on its own conventions,” not from a typical hollywood or coastal-sophisticate perspective of “flyovers.”

    Two quick points: taking its title literally, that it’s “about Schmidt,” the early reductionist view of Randall (=waterbed selling mullethead) and the daughter (=the sweetest, greatest girl in the world; busy because her job is “in computers”) are Schmidt’s views.

    When these characters actually appear, however, they’re inevitably different. Mullet turns out to be very sensitive and respectful of women; he has a depth Mulroney conveys very well, if subtly. And the daughter turns out to be no catch, frankly. Her demanding job “in computers” that keeps her from home is in the shipping department, and she’s wack. If Schmidt initially thinks this guy’s unworthy of his princess, the movie makes clear later on that, if anything, she’s lucky to have him.

    Alexander Payne, the director, sincerely intends this to be seen *without* the irony, condescension, cloying sentiment, or gothic luridness that characterize the rare depictions of the middle Americans, and I think he pulled it off very well. Opinion on the film, then, splits along whether you believe that or not.

  11. [SPOILERS AHEAD]

    Greg, I agree with you probably more than you think. I agree that both the son-in-law and daughter turn out to be not what Schmidt thought. (And I liked Mulroney’s acting.) But the script was so undisciplined that it went for jokes instead of consistency and revelation. E.g., Mulroney turns out to be a decent guy…except he tried to sell Schmidt a pyramid scheme 2 days after his wife died, which made for a nice joke but is actually inconsistent with his being even modestly sensitive. And once we hear the daughter tell Schmidt to stay away from Denver until the wedding, what else do we learn about her? That she doesn’t like her father much? We already knew that from the phone call. That she can be crabby when tense? Eh.

    Despite all this, I wouldn’t want to talk you out of liking the movie. Lots of people did. The critics love it. I am very easily put off by movies and books when I think I can see the hands pulling the strings. And I react extremely negatively when I think I’m the one being manipulated.

    So, glad you liked it and I appreciate your ability to point out exactly what was admirable about it.

Leave a Reply

Comments (RSS).  RSS icon