The bottom line: Casey Affleck thinks of it as a performance and not as an act, and he thinks of "I'm Still Here" as a film, and not a hoax. In an interview where he revealed details behind the making of his controversial film with and about Joaquin Phoenix, he also said:
• David Letterman was not in on the performance, and what you saw on his show was really happening.
• Phoenix dropped out of character when he was not being filmed or in public.
• The drugs and the hookers were staged. The vomiting was real.
• He would have preferred to remain silent about whether the film was "real" or not, but his distributor urged him to break silence near its opening day.• Friends and family knew. Ben Stiller was part of the film and his appearance on the Oscars in "Joaquin" makeup was well-meaning and supportive. Natalie Portman, Stiller's co-presenter on the Oscars, also knew.
These are many other revelations emerged as Affleck, director of the film starring his brother-in-law Phoenix, discussed behind the scenes realities in making the most-debated film of the year. Based on what he said, "I'm Still Here" must be considered a fiction feature, and Phoenix's work in it must be considered eligible for an Academy Award nomination.
I sent Affleck questions by email, and his replies appear below. Our exchange was a mutual enterprise of Interview magazine and RogerEbert.com, and is appearing on both websites.
Ebert: You've now said the whole enterprise was a hoax. So we'll proceed on that basis. Film critics as a group are skilled at judging the authenticity of films. My reading of a group of major reviews of "I'm Still Here" linked at Metacritic indicates that only six stated flatly the film was not genuine. Nine believed it, and the rest were not sure, had doubts, were cagey, or left themselves wriggle room. In terms of your intentions, this counts as a success, right?Affleck: I wish people hadn't debated so much the films veracity or authenticity, hadn't asked only and dully, "Is this real?" But that response is better than apathy, I suppose. Picasso said, "Art is the lie that tells the truth."
My aim was not to fool. My aim was to provoke thought and stir emotion. The enterprise was a film, not a "hoax." The idea that Joaquin was really retiring for good and pursuing a rap career in earnest was an act. Nothing was a hoax. At the Toronto Film Festival someone was walking around to theaters in a beard and wig and glasses and telling journalists he was Joaquin Phoenix. That is a hoax. There was nothing else but the deception.
I was making a movie. In a movie we try to deceive. In theaters, as they say, the deceived are the wisest. I was trying to help the audience suspend their disbelief. That is why the film was released without comment from myself or anyone involved. The reason it was MADE without comment and with Joaquin in character when in public was because the media plays a role in the film and the media would not have played their role as well as they did had it been acknowledged that Joaquin was only performing. When I say the media I mean also the unpaid bloggers and vloggers and people all around the world commenting on line.
Ebert: In terms of 20-20 hindsight, many viewers are now pointing to moments when they could see it was staged. Did you deliberately place any "tells" in the film?Affleck: No. Not deliberately. I heard of very few tells before I did the interview with the NY Times and said that it was a piece of fiction.
Ebert: I assume you and Joaquin didn't go through this long period of time for frivolous reasons. What was your larger purpose? Your philosophy, dare I say? Joaquin's?
Affleck: To tell a story. To make a movie. Isn't it the job of the director to figure out the best way to tell the story they have to tell? This was the best way I could think of to tell this story, about this character. It's a movie about a famous actor who has been acting for a long time and who wants to change paths, to change his life, to peruse a career in music. But he makes mistakes and the world is unforgiving. Things go wrong. He can't recover. He digs himself deeper and deeper.
There are ideas in the film that are interesting to me. I don't have a point to make, though. If it feels like a cautionary tale, what would be the warning? When you have a dream and others tell you, you are no good, give it up? Don't become famous? Prepare, practice and use stepping stones? Or maybe don't be incredibly mean to those around you? Some things seems too obvious, some seem lacking. I don't know the point. I only know that it is of course in some way about celebrity culture. Its about fame, in some way. I don't know what it says exactly but I know that it makes me wonder when I watch it. I'm OK with that.All cultures are different. Some commit genocide. Some are uniquely peaceful. Some frequent bathhouses in groups. Some don't show each other the soles of their shoes or like pictures taken of them. Some have enormous hunting festivals or annual stretches when nobody speaks. Some don't use electricity. We obsess about celebrities. We create them, build myths around them, and then hunt them and destroy them. I don't know where its taking us or what it means but I know we do it. I have seen a lot of it myself.
Ebert: Knowing that Joaquin was performing suggests a deeper level of anger against the celebrity-publicity system than a simple psychological meltdown would have. This must be an actor urgently inspired to make a statement.
Affleck: I think its more a case of an enormous talent relishing the unique role and broadened parameters of the job.
Ebert: One thing that surprised me over the time this went on is how little true concern for Joaquin was expressed. He was instead made the butt of jokes. Have we gotten to the point where the press is playing Dunk the Clown with celebrities?
Affleck: It seems so. There were those willing to lampoon him publicly, who when asked to give an interview for the film said, "I don't want to give you an interview because I don't know what's going on with Joaquin and if he's having real psychological problems or problems with addiction I don't know what to say." Yet they felt comfortable mocking him on national TV. I am NOT talking about Ben Stiller and Natalie Portman who both knew that Joaquin was fine and both knew about the film.
Ebert: Many of the snarkier web sites seem to be run by men (hardly ever women) who, I think, take pleasure in the troubles of others. They seem cheered by bad movies, bad box office, arrests, domestic problems, drugs, and even illness--although there they affect a pious sympathy. Would you agree?Affleck: I don't know. I don't know who is behind those websites. I really have no idea and until this film I never looked at those sites or read the entertainment sections of those papers much. But the "respected" and "serious" newspapers can be pretty petty and snarky too.
Ebert: When Ben Stiller appeared on the Oscars made up as Joaquin, some thought it was cruel. Gwyneth Paltrow told people at the time "Two Lovers" came out that she thought Ben had done a funny performance, and was offended. Now we know that Ben is in "I'm Still Here" pitching a screenplay Joaquin has not read. So Ben knew it was a hoax when he appeared on the Oscars? His performance in a way was helping you two?
Affleck: Yes. Ben was incredibly supportive. For the guy with the all time highest box office average, for someone sitting squarely and securely at the top of the heap, he was really gallant in the way he swooped into our little movie and treated us with respect and patience and complete faith. I don't know why. I think he is the real thing, and I mean by that that he does this because he likes it and likes experimenting and challenging himself and growing. And maybe he thought working with a couple knuckleheads was a way of helping himself grow as a philanthropist of the arts. Ben is a very nice guy.
Ebert: James Gray, the director of "Two Lovers," was enraged at Joaquin's behavior. I thought "Two Lovers" was a good film and I was in sympathy with Gray. How did you and Joaquin process that whole area?
Affleck: James just wanted people to see his movie. Magnolia released that as well as my movie and I don't think a whole lot of people would have seen it if Joaquin didn't have a beard and hadn't told people he was retiring. But maybe I'm wrong. James also was told what was going on.
Ebert: Did Joaquin go out of character when off-camera? Did he lead an undercover normal life? What was security like?
Affleck: Yes. When we were not rolling he was out of character. If he was in public he had to behave in a way that didn't contradict the characters personality.
Ebert: You did a pretty good job of keeping the lid on and the mystery alive. You insisted all through Venice that the film was real, and then revealed it was a hoax when it was just opening. Did Magnolia Pictures think that timing was a good idea?
Affleck: Yes. From the beginning they said, "we think people should see this film in the same context that we saw it". They saw it knowing nothing. In the end I think it was a mistake but I agreed at the time.
Ebert: The drugs, the prostitutes, the vomiting, all real? Some? All staged?
Affleck: All staged. Vomiting was real. And his hairline is real.
Ebert: Obviously the public performances in the movie, as in Miami, are real, in the sense that they took place. That must have taken some balls for Joaquin to go through with.
Affleck: Yes, it was brave.
Ebert: A Letterman writer has said the Letterman appearance was all planned in advance, and Dave was in on the joke. True?No. That man seems unreliable. If Dave knew about something it was not because Joaquin or I told him anything. I think David Letterman is a genius. Night after night he is funny and smart. He seems to really enjoy his jokes. They seem connected to who he really is. I like watching him and there is no one better at turning an awkward moment into something very funny. I am a fan of David Letterman and have been for twenty years. I cant think of many performers, bands, films, political organizations, sports teams or family members I can say that about.
Ebert: Even if Letterman was "planned," it was improvisational in the moment. Improv isn't known as part of Joaquin's background. He is however very experienced at being on talk shows. Did you discuss how he would handle it? Any rehearsal? Some viewers say (now) that they can see him almost smiling at some of Dave's lines. Could you?
Affleck: He didn't break character while in the chair. He was smiling because he (his character) was trying to get along, trying to be in the moment.Ebert: Did the subject of Andy Kaufman and his Letterman appearances ever some up, at that time or in general?
Affleck: Yes. We watched them together. We had seen them, but watched together again. But this was different. That was performance art. This was part of a movie.
Ebert: You and your small crew must have become adept at creating the illusion of the cinema verite style. And the editing must have been essential. This film in fact must have required a lot more work than an actual documentary.
Affleck: I have never made a documentary. I don't know.
Ebert: Joaquin was photographed arriving at the dock of the Hotel Excelsior in Venice clean-shaven and neatly dressed. How or why was that picture taken?
Affleck: In order to get to the festival you have to take a boat and there is only one dock. I wanted him to come to Venice to celebrate the movie. It didn't seem right that he not be there and it didn't seem right that I have to travel alone. I insisted. He wanted to. However it was decided that he wouldn't walk down a red carpet and have the audience know he was in the theater. It would have influenced the way they reacted.Ebert: There were reports that Joaquin sneaked into the Palacio del Cinema, sat in a back row, and "laughed his ass off." This sounds apocryphal to me.
Affleck: He laughed while watching the film.
Ebert: My review of the film expressed concern that Joaquin might be self-destructing. Not many reviews expressed much concern. Even those who thought the film was or might be true didn't seem to care much about the human being. Has the celeb culture vulgarized us so much that stars are now regarded simply as objects?
Affleck: It seems so. Your review was unique. I appreciated it.
Ebert: You are Joaquin's brother-in-law. That worked to explain your presence and access even in this period of public meltdown. What did Summer think about it--before, during and after?
Affleck: She is next to me. I will ask. She says, "You know exactly how I felt." Me: "How?" Her: "I was excited." Me: "About what?" Her: "I was excited that after all the damn conversations between you two about doing something together you were finally doing it. I am annoyed that all the critics only debate if its real or not and not what the film is about." Me: "What is it about?" Her: "Ugh, stop it!"Ebert: How did you and Summer deal with the concern of friends who weren't in on the secret?
Affleck: Me: "How did we deal with people who thought Joaquin was really behaving that way for real?" Her: "I would always say he's doing great. But, Casey, do your own stupid interview."
Ebert: As an actor and director, how do you feel about "I'm Still Here" at the end of the day?
Affleck: Right now? I feel fine. It changes. My feelings change about every movie I have ever done, every time I think about them.
Ebert: Do you think Joaquin might smoke too much?
Affleck: Is there a right amount? Its an awful addiction. Terrible.
')
Roger: two questions. In your original review, you said you'd be pissed if this turned out to be part of an elaborate hoax. Yet you didn't seem pissed in the exchange with Casey Affleck. How do you feel now about the situation? In a sense, you've become part of the play surrounding the movie surrounding the character. So, I'm guessing you don't have screen time (do you?), but you're still part of the film--the media--ex post facto. That your review became significant as a part of the film only after the movie's release just demonstrates the genre bending and the blurring between images on screen and images as a shared cultural artifact, a lived reality, which the film examines. So, to get to the point: are you pissed now? Do you now see the film and the artifice differently because of that larger point that may or may not have been made?
Second, now that the nature of the film has changed from what was an apparently crudely made (paraphrasing you) film chronicle, the chief virtue of which was complete access to unfolding self-annihilation, to what is now a work of fiction, will you write a second review?
Ebert: Oh, now I've gotta return to this.
Started out "if it's real, have watched enough drugged boobs fail." Then "if Rodge has a little doubt, it might be worth a look-see for myself."
And now, I wanna watch this movie after all.
These are my impressions of I'm Still Here. I was unaware of the controversy going in, and, a few fishy elements notwithstanding, I left the theater fairly convinced of its authenticity. These comments were written after I had found out about the controversy, but before Affleck settled the matter.
"If it is a hoax, it's impeccably carried out, perhaps even brilliantly so. Phoenix is a modern day Andy Kauffman, and I'm Still Here is part of an ongoing achievement in what can only be described as trolling the world of popular culture. It has everything from sly art film pretentiousness to gross-out humor that would make the Jackass crew proud.
If it isn't a hoax, then I'm Still Here is a horrifying glimpse of an artist or entertainer (take your pick) in the midst of slow-motion disintegration. It's an uncomfortably close look at a human being who desperately needs help and probably isn't getting it any time soon. Joaquin Phoenix wouldn't be the first famous actor to lose his mind and fade away, but thanks to this film, he might be the highest profile case yet."
Oddly, I don't feel swindled at all. Upon hearing Affleck's side of the story, I was relieved for Phoenix's sake, and more than a little impressed at the work that went into crafting the illusion. I'm more able to appreciate the drama, knowing that no humans were harmed in the making of it.
I would still consider it a documentary, albeit with a somewhat deceptive focus. In part, it documents the public's fascination with (and, ultimately, apathy towards) celebrity self-destruction. I think that is much more interesting than a movie about an actor who quits movies to become a failed musician.
As for Affleck's statements about the uncaring treatment of troubled celebrities in the media, I find it necessary to post the following Craig Ferguson monologue. It may be the exception to the rule, but it is cause for hope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bbaRyDLMvA
wow Phoenix looks so different in that pic, but anyways I just wanted to say I love blog
Very interesting discussion. I don't like how Casey is beside himself that people are so interested in whether this was real or not. I know I wouldn't want to be emotionally swindled. Why should I invest in someone or something when I have a high suspicion that their messing with me?
Glad it was an act. Impressed that they pulled it off. Sceptical at the idea that this will encourage self-reflection in any "media people". It is depressingly the case that the people who were, at least in part, the targets of this film's message are also the people in control of whether the film or the message is ever discussed or whether it sinks without trace...
Having Ben Stiller behave that way at the Oscars, when he was in on the joke, seems disingenuous to me. It seems unfair to goad people into doing something and then chastise them for it.
I'm very relieved that Joaquin will still be acting; that would have been such a terrible waste of talent if he had really retired so early in his career. It sounds like "I'm Still Here" shares common ground with Mitchell Block's "...No Lies" with the way it exploits the realistic feel of cinéma vérité to tell a fictional story. "...No Lies" created an example and passed it off as real to force us to consider rape, but it was only 16 minutes long. I'm curious to see how I'll react to whatever Affleck is addressing with his feature length film.
These revelations seem like a real game-changer. In light of them, will you re-review the film? (Have you ever re-reviewed the exact same film?)
So did P. Diddy know? That's what I've been most curious about. I was really struck by his "We're going to stay professional come hell or high water" attitude in the face of Joaquin's shambling weirdness.
Afflec: All cultures are different. Some commit genocide. Some frequent bathhouses in groups... We obsess about celebrities. We create them, build myths around them, and then hunt them and destroy them.
I'm reading some rumors about a J. Edgar Hoover bio, and that would be a waste.
I see Joaquin on the other side of the camera, taking the paparazzi photos.
Or, running a studio. Mike Ovitz at CAA.
Casey Affleck: It's a movie about a famous actor who has been acting for a long time and who wants to change paths, ? Or maybe don't be incredibly mean to those around you?
I think this sounds a bit like Michael Corleone in the very first scene of "The Godfather," when he's bringing a date to his sister's wedding, and he just doesn't know what Fate has in store for him.
Being mean to people... as opposed to murdering Sonny at a toll booth?
Life is often a lot more difficult than celebrities in Hollywood think it is.
So, a photographer who gets fed up with destroying the lives of celebrities.... goes off somewhere in the world to take photographs that mean something. And he goes through a character arc like Michael Corleone, where he winds up being the one thing he hated most in the world....
Roger -- Are you serious? You don't think people knew this was a sham? Maybe I read different websites, or have different friends. But this was quite clearly a fiction that most people picked up on right away. I can appreciate why Affleck would downplay it; but a majority of us did not need his NY Times article to shine light on the act.
"I'm Still Here" is all a bunch of self-indulgent tripe.
Affleck: My aim was not to fool. My aim was to provoke thought and stir emotion. The enterprise was a film, not a "hoax."
Me: oh phuleezzzz.
amazing. this is some real kaufman style business.
What about the lawsuits? Did lawyers participate on this?
Come on Mr. Ebert...Casey Affleck is attempting to spin the media, audiences and anyone else who cares to listen. The reason is obvious; the film opened to poor box office receipts due to a lack of audience interest. Now that the film is going into its second week, and expanding the number of theaters, the push is on to drum up some level of interest so investors don't lose their investment.
Again, watch the spin! Previously the film was being sold as 'true'. Since that didn't drive much traffic to theaters, now the film is being sold as 'half true', 'sort of true', 'artistically true' or however Casey Affleck wants to label Performance Art. Audiences who were previously put off at the prospect of watching an actor self-implode are being asked to watch an actor 'out act' any living or dead actor you can think of!
In short, Marlon Brando has the acting skills of Carrot Top when compared to Joaquin Phoenix's alleged 'performance' in Casey Affleck's film. Oh and they might as well cancel the Academy Awards this year...as who else was as 'brilliant' as Joaquin Phoenix and Casey Affleck. No need apparently to even go through the nominating process...as clearly what 'scripted' film could hope to compete with I'm Still Here?!?!
lol
Granted, Casey Affleck has interesting ideas and thoughts about America's obsession with celebrity (who wouldn't considering where he 'fits' inside the Hollywood system) -- yet for him to state the film of his friend's bizarre behavior and caustic attitudes toward being a celebrity as nothing more than a uber-clever piece of 'scripted performance art' is beyond any measure of believability.
Ask yourself, why is it that James Gray simultaneously knew what was going on...yet was also publicly 'enraged' as you note over Joaquin Phoenix's behavior while publicizing Two Lovers? Are we to assume that a director who isn't at all a household name, let alone in the top tier of Hollywood, had no problems with sabotaging his OWN film's chances at the box office for Casey Affleck's stab at performance art (not to mention his ability to land another job with top talent).
Or how about the assertion, equally hard to swallow, that Joaquin Phoenix's agent (one of the biggest in the business) had no problem with one of his fast rising clients sabotaging his career in the name of making 'performance art'? Or more to the point, the agent's AGENCY had no problem being in on the 'joke'?
Suffice it to say, I doubt that any agency in Hollywood would willingly forgo the future commission of millions of dollars for a Casey Affleck performance art film experiment.
Really, Ben Stiller and Natalie Portman knew about the film, were in on the joke; are 1000% supportive toward Joaquin Phoenix's creative goals and yet had no qualms with looking like 1) dopes on national TV 2) jerks at the Oscars (for making fun of what, could of been, a very serious situation) 3) see one and two.
Again, call me skeptical, call me crazy, call me whatever...but I'm not buying anything Casey Affleck is trying to sell (beyond the price of a ticket already spent to watch his film). Personally, I enjoyed the way in which I'm Still Here exposes the worst aspects of Celebrity Culture and one actor's fight to save what's left of his soul. It was a courageous statement that is now being pissed on in order to make a few dollars...which is ironic, as I doubt the 'Joaquin Phoenix' seen in the film would approve of and/or be complicit in such artistically draining activities.
Ebert: Casey seems quite sincere. I respect his ambition in undertaking this project. The film makes the same statement now as before, and I certainly don't interpret his words here as pissing on it.
Thank you Roger Ebert for again being awesome. Barring your Kick Ass review, I can't think of many times I've had cause to disagree with your well-crafted writings.
Great stuff, Roger.
There's another doc out right now that I think dovetails nicely with this discussion. It's called Catfish, and it was something of a sensation this year at Sundance. Since seeing it there, I've been anxiously waiting to see whether you would review it. (I don't think you have yet.) It's now in limited release. Is it a doc? Or something else? It may also appeal to your affair with social networking.
Fine interview. Scrolled down immediately to see what you would ask concerning any link to Letterman/Andy Kaufman. Your usual adept questioning, but must admit to remaining somewhat perplexed by the answers. Still not really sure what the point of it all is. Or is that the conceptual point; simply that there is no logical point? Was the goal really to just unleash the vagaries of disparate human thoughts and emotions? Hmm.
At first thought it something Frederick Wiseman or the Maysles Brothers might have dreamed up. Then Affleck's line, "Art is the lie that tells the truth," brought to mind Herzog's idea of 'aesthetic truth.' Now who knows. But what the hell, even if it's over my head, I got to admit both Affleck and Phoenix have no shortage of balls to attempt such an off-the-wall project. I admire their courage and fortitude.
I try to keep myself at least one level removed from Pop Culture phenomena, so I've only kind of kept an eye on this since it began, but I can see why Casey and Joaquin did this as a mockumentary. Simply put, real-world stuff is always more interesting than fiction. Anything that a screenwriter could come up with, even the a screenwriters whose works are about the media like Aaron Sorkin, couldn't come up with anything as shocking, bizarre, or believeable as something in real life.
I must be more jaded than i realized, as I never for a moment thought this was anything other than an Andy Kaufman tribute, a big piece of "performance art" (In fact, it sounds like Casey doesn't give Andy Kaufman enough credit above...) I was even surprised to read the concern in your review. This movie simply would not exist if it documented "reality"... Anyway, I loved Kaufman's hijinks, so I'm glad to someone out there fucking with people and their desire to see celebs flail.
It would suck if Casey Affleck later says that the *actual* hoax was the acknowledgment that "I'm Still Here" is a hoax.
this movie is for river. they lift you up just to bring you down. letterman treated a guy going through a meltdown like shit. classy of casey to just stick to compliments. these are some cool dudes. nice mirror.
Nice work, Roger. In this light I'm seeing Phoenix as carrying on the tradition of actors like De Niro who would get into character, physically in the case of Raging Bull, and remain there throughout production.
I don't know that the academy will view this as an Oscar-worthy performance since he was playing a version of himself, but its a higher level of commitment to a role than I've seen from may actors in ages.
"Be careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be."
-Kurt Vonnegut
Who on god green earth was taken in by this. Heres how I knew it was fake right out of the gate. What brother-in-law and Sister would let their friend and brother get this far down without helping them. They would not stand by and stick a camera in their face and film his distruction. What morons that beleived that crap.... I won't spend a dime watching this trash and if he get an Oscar nod then I think thats just nuts!!!!
Unrelated, but I thought you'd get a kick out of this: http://tiny.cc/kmf6u
Why would a well respected actor pull a boring stunt like that?
Because as far as attention whores go, his acting and character were plain boring...
Why Casey Affleck throw away his money and his first chance at directing in such a harebrained vanity project?
I swear my first thought, when it all started was "this is a hoax. No, nobody is that stupid or bored". I mean, what was Phoenix trying to achieve? To be as interesting as Andy Kauffman. Let´s not forget the late comedian was funny, and honest.
Ok, this may be a first and might go down on history (as what?, I have no idea). But, frankly, my dear, I don´t give a damn.
Sounds like Hollywood damage control to me. Ebert is essentially a walking, breathing American Film Institute. I think he can tell the real mccoy from a times square knock-off. If Ebert says the film seems like a genuine train wreck caught on tape, I'm with him.
It is films like this which make me wish I lived in the U.S., so that I could participate in the discussion, but then again, so much has been said about it already.. I was watching "To Die For" the other day, which also stars the very talented Phoenix & Affleck, the chaps have come a long, long way. That film, I suspect, had quite the effect on Affleck and how it explores the media-audience relationship. I don't know when it will make it in to India, or even if it will make it in at all, but for the time being, I await it eagerly.
My only disappointment, if it can be called that, is that the film turned out to be just that, a film. Think about it, how radical an artistic intervention would it have been, should Phoenix have actually "become" that character? To laugh in the face of success, fame and fortune, when it is available to very few, is something everyone feels they have a right to admonish the artist on, why? Well of course, because they are the ones who enable the success, fame and fortune, so, to take the other path, would symbolise a great will, an ability to transcend one's maker. There's only one catch with that scenario, as is with almost every artistic endeavour -- intention.
Indian Idiot (H.W.)
@: Karl-Heinz on September 22, 2010 4:29 PM
Has it Right-On!
I can add only "Yeah, so what?" and "Who Cares?"
I, as a moviegoer, feel VIOLATED. No, not really. Well, maybe. No, not at all. I may just need new shock absorbers for my blown suspension of belief system.
Excellent interview. You asked all the right questions about the film. Casey's answers shed some much needed light; he answered many of the questions that I had about the film.
Though we now know that it's a hoax, there were still *a lot* of things that had a question mark hanging over them.
I have to challenge you on one point, though. Many of the reviews DID express concern for and horror at Phoenix and anger at Affleck.
Here are some:
http://weblogs.thecwdc.com/entertainment/movies/willie-waffle/2010/09/im-still-here-review.html
"It better be a hoax, because, if it is not, Phoenix needs serious mental and emotional therapy and, possibly, rehab as the audience is given a front row seat to the biggest meltdown in Hollywood history, or the greatest Andy Kaufman-esque stunt since Kaufman and wrestler Jerry Lawler caused a riot on Letterman."
http://www.slate.com/id/2266002/
"If Phoenix is in fact a mentally ill drug addict, the fact of his collaboration in no way saves I'm Still Here from being a work of rank exploitation. The movie prevaricates about the conditions of its own creation: Where was Phoenix's family during all this, especially his sister, Summer? (If my husband exposed my struggling brother the way Affleck exposes Phoenix here, I would divorce him.) "
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2010-09-10-Imstillhere10_ST_N.htm
"It's really not much fun — in fact it's painful — to watch an actor on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
It almost doesn't matter if the psyche in question is imploding artificially — as in staged — or organically. It's just so unpleasant to watch two hours of unrelenting bad behavior and grandiose delusions.
For the sake of Joaquin Phoenix's sanity — let alone his career — let's hope that I'm Still Here, the documentary chronicling a troubled and hirsute Phoenix's decision to quit acting and take up rapping, is a hoax or some brand of cinematic performance art.
Otherwise, it's an annoying, exploitative and disturbingly voyeuristic excuse for a film. And whether truth or folly, it's not particularly well made. Even in the midst of Phoenix's most oddball and obsessive torment, it's boring."
http://www.buffalonews.com/entertainment/gusto/movie-reviews/article192983.ece
"What is remarkable is that Affleck and Phoenix successfully implicate the horrendous banality and “fraudulence” of the media world around us all in the breakdown of one formerly talented and now terribly sad young man.
If you can stand to watch all of this film, it is one of the most profound of the year. But if your idea of a movie contains “entertainment” as the only constituent, this is the last film you’re ever going to want to see.
It requires a completely open mind and open heart. Those without them, though, need never be ashamed of wanting to avoid 108 minutes of pathology — that of Joaquin Phoenix and the media world around him."
http://www.avclub.com/articles/im-still-here,44976/
"If this is a documentary, it’s a profoundly embarrassing one, in which Affleck has exposed Phoenix’s soul and found it shallow and damaged. If it’s a mockumentary, though, its greatest value is in pointing out the media’s gullibility, and reminding audiences that even in an age of limited privacy, they still have to question what they’re told and even what they witness themselves. It’s cruel either way, but riveting nonetheless."
A few more:
http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/view/200154/I-m-Still-Here-review-and-trailer
"The result is intriguing, fitfully amusing and terribly sad because if the story was for real then it has left Phoenix a laughing stock and a broken man."
http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/reviews/venice-2010-review-standing-ovation-for-im-still-here-fake-or-not-it-works.php#ixzz10JrNUugn
It feels like Affleck and Phoenix are playing up to a clichéd image of stardom. At least you hope that’s what it is, or the Walk the Line actor is really very disturbed, and the director (his brother-in-law) more than a little exploitative.
There is no question, it is edited together for maximum humorous (as opposed to dramatic) impact, in a way that would be odd if Affleck has any love for his friend.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/sep/09/im-still-here-keeps-em-guessing/
"So you’re probably wondering, is it a hoax or not? Let’s put it this way: If “I’m Still Here” is an honest depiction of Phoenix’s life, then everyone around him — on camera and off —should be carted off to jail for willful neglect of what is obviously a mentally ill or drug-addicted (or both) man about to fall into the abyss. For an overindulgent celebrity surrounded by obsequious yes-people (of which Phoenix is well-stocked), this is certainly a possibility...Either way, “I’m Still Here” is a film that gets in your face and under your skin. Kind of like a portrait wiped with the artist’s excrement. It’s disgusting, but it’s still art. The question is, at what cost?"
http://dcist.com/2010/09/im_still_here.php
"If I thought the Joaquin Phoenix portrayed in I'm Still Here was anything other than a character, developed and created just as surely as any other role Phoenix has played over the years, then the film would be a shocking and appalling piece of exploitation. To think that Phoenix's own brother-in-law (Affleck is married to Joaquin's sister, Summer) could sit idly by with multiple cameras running while Phoenix -- a recovering alcoholic -- engages in the same kind of wild drug-fueled excesses that killed his older brother River in 1993 is nearly unimaginable, and would make Affleck a pretty reprehensible, opportunistic human being. The Joaquin Phoenix of the film is delusional, clearly unhinged, and rarely sober, smoking copious amounts of weed, and snorting drugs off of any surface available, including the breasts of a call girl he orders up one night. If it's not an act, somebody should have stepped in and marched him off to rehab.
But the fact that no one does take Phoenix by the lapels and shake some sense into him is, in fact, part of what this film is about."
I figured that's why he picked Letterman; I agree. I like that the Afflecks write so well when expressing their thoughts.
I think I know why Magnolia pictures wanted him to expose the truth of the film. Though, I'm pretty sure they made the wrong call for what Affleck and Joaquin were trying to do. They were being optimistic. They figured that people wouldn't actually want to watch the meltdown of a celebrity. The public usually wants sound bites, cliff notes, summary articles that can be consumed in single courses. Watching a celebrity break down bit by bit may bring too much reality. Apparently, they never paid attention to the Anna Nicole Smith show, or they would know that enough people are around to devour a start to finish documentation of destruction.
I'm one of the people that didn't care about Joaquin. If that's what he wanted to do with his life, well, more power to him. It sucked that we wouldn't get to see any more of his obvious talent, but nothing more. I've never met the guy. I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to anyone, but it was none of my business.
I certainly didn't want to start caring. I didn't want to watch him destroy himself. That would be horrible. If I didn't know this were an act, I would never, ever have watched it. NOW, I can't wait to see Joaquin's performance. I'm really looking forward to it. Maybe Magnolia was thinking like me. But I'm pretty sure I don't represent the typical moviegoer.
Will you for chrissakes stop?! Nobody cares about Joaquin Phoenix, Casey Affleck, or their pathetic attempts at recognition. Create some art...the recognition will follow...
Having seen the trailer and read your review, I think I'll go see this at some point. That being said, if Casey Affleck really wanted people not to question the truth of the movie, but just to watch it, he kind of picked a bad time to make it.
I know that Casey has paid a lot of money to make this film and he and Joaquin dedicated a lot of time and thought, with what would appear to be little experience in film making or documentaries. It seems to me to be a very large concept to tackle, especially without a defined message. And if, perhaps, the purpose of it all was to dive in and experiment with America's "celeb culture" and come out the other end with an idea (post public reaction), this interview still leads me to believe that that has not even happened. I do not think you can blame an audience for asking so many questions, especially when you have an excellent actor dedicating so much of his time/life to something that still, apparently, has little meaning. It is disappointing that the amount of thought did not culminate into a message. That I believe is why it seems to be a hoax…the lack of a point to all the madness.
I said this before but I'll say it again: Affleck and Joaquin shouldn't have revealed the hoax at least until the movie was out on DVD and Blu-ray. Anyway, Joaquin is on Letterman again tonight, so I guess we'll know for sure if he was in on it.
While I'm not particularly surprised by the 'revelation' (it stunk of performance art ever since the Letterman bit), I do have to tip my metaphorical hat to Affleck and Phoenix for it. Mordant satire with a soupcon of performance art. That's what defines a great deal of our contemporary experience.
Really, looking back on the whole affair, this whole film seems to be a Colbertian exercise, but without the self-knowing winking and nodding. Time will tell if that particular earnest method stands up to the test of time, but for now, color me impressed --and amused.
Is the backstory more of a star than the actual movie? Do those who walk into the theater knowing the real story experience a different movie than those who don't?
What a contradiction. Casey implies that the public's willingness to objectify actors/celebrities is cruel and the mark of a desensitized culture of uncaring voyeurs. But who can be bothered to sort the celebrities who whore themselves out with desperate antics and those who are genuinely suffering from... what would Joaquin's affliction be called? Psychosis? They're all the same parading themselves one right after the other for the TMZ crowd.
Is the message here not to be so quick to judge? I don't know about you but pulling a 'gotcha' on the few who might actually have mustered up sympathy for poor, wayward Joaquin doesn't seem overly sensitive to me either.
I guess I can understand uncertainty as the film was being shot, but I don't understand how anyone could watch this entire film and think it was real. Affleck is married to Phoenix's sister. What must people think of Affleck to believe he would expose his brother-in-law's "breakdown" for his own personal gain? It does however reinforce the gullibility and false superiority of many people, especially in the media, on display in the film.
why is it that James Gray simultaneously knew what was going on...yet was also publicly 'enraged' as you note over Joaquin Phoenix's behavior while publicizing Two Lovers?
Because that way he keeps the secret when the press asks for his reaction. That Letterman appearance, where you can see Phoenix break character no matter what they say, drew more attention to Two Lovers than a regular talk show appearance. Plus, if he hadn't been upset, that would have raised questions.
Puffy had to be in on it because his assistant was played by an actress, according to the credits.
As I knew that Affleck had been filming this for some time, I was a bit perplexed that a man would watch his supposed long-time friend and brother-in-law sink deeper into an apparent psychosis and simply hang out with a camera filming it for giggles. It was analogous to the bystander who holds his iPhone in the face of an accident victim, taping the gore, but doing nothing to help. It would appear that I was one of the few would hoped it was a hoax (or performance art, as they are calling it,)as, humorous as some of the sound bites may have been, clearly there was a portrayal of a man in crisis.
Affleck got people discussing this, which is probably what he wanted. My initial impression is to roll my eyes and mutter, "idiots." But now I'm starting to feel insulted, as though Affleck is laughing at the rest of us, whom he probably considers underlings, and thinking, "the peanut gallery will believe ANYTHING." I won't see the movie.
Also, I'm somewhat disappointed that you did not ask Affleck any questions regarding the multiple sexual harassment lawsuits filed against him as a result of his "work" on this film. Obviously, he would not/could not answer, but the questions ought be asked.
Casey's comments about hunting the celebrity doesn't quite jive with the movie he made, I think. We've seen movies about that, Errol Morris' "Tabloid" touches on that, this film shows a Phoenix character continuously making his bed and then sleeping in it. (Not literally of course, I really doubt this character ever makes his bed.)
More than that though, this is a movie about scared yes-men surrounding a delusional tyrant (also their employer) and nobody having the balls to criticize him. He gets quite enough empathy from himself, from what I can see. So read my description again and then ask yourself: couldn't this also describe the movie "Downfall"?
It's obvious why people aren't feeling much empathy, has nothing to do with treating the character like an object, has everything to do with the character being a totally self-centered, sociopathic jerk.
On the other hand, now that I've maybe played the Hitler card, does this character listen to any criticisms? So is pointing out how absurd he's acting an effective way to alter the course he's on? Should we risk inflating his ego even more by showering him with sympathies? The movie's true subject is less a comedic or sad one so much as a scary problem: what do we do with impossible people like this? Lock them up against their will for their own good? I'd see "Tabloid" first before getting too enthusiastic about that dangerous option.
I really don't know what the answer is to this character, even ignoring him altogether could prove harmful to him. Maybe nothing can be done about people like this, other than making that personal choice to try to reach out, or alternatively trying to snap them out of it with merciless snark. Or maybe the movie calls for a more level-heade, balanced approach: cautiously empathetic, carefully critical. But when you see clips of Joaquin raging about, one wonders if even that will work. Most resign themselves to snark feeling it at least sets a standard for just behavior.
All and all, this may be a better, more complex film than we thought so one week ago. I also think its "technical flaws" aren't flaws at all, people believed the film more easily because it wasn't much better than YouTube style. Not that believing or not has much to do with the true, deeper concerns of the film.
I don't know if I'd agree that Casey was classy about everything. He was screwing with people and leading them to believe Joaquin was following in Britney Spears' footsteps. Not that it seemed that many of the people who didn't think it was a hoax were genuinely concerned about him.
But whether its a good movie or not, I think he deserves credit for trying something so risky and unique. It's kind of like reality tv moves to the big screen, only it was the audience that was deceived like the tv contestants who didn't know that the "millionaire" they were trying to impress was really only making twenty grand a year in construction. Instead, after the Letterman appearance, the public was exposed for being so shallow in mocking him and without any real regard for other people.
I'm not certain if that was Casey's intent or not.
After Casey Affleck announced that it was nothing but a joke, everywhere and everybody was ready to believe it. Well I don’t doubt that the documentary is really a joke, what a doubt is what it implied: that Phoenix’s first appearance on Letterman was a joke as well.
Why does everyone think the first appearance on Letterman’s was a joke? I see the whole thing from a different perspective: Mr. Phoenix was really gone back then, he unwisely sank his career down the drain… what came after is a an act of artificial resurrection, a clever one indeed. One that attempts to cover everything, even that stupid appearance on the Letterman’s show, with a larger-than-life blanket that says that everything was nothing but a joke.
This is a very clever PR move, one that makes the appearance on the Letterman impossible to prove either way: bluff or truth? Casey Afflelck shoots a documentary, creates a huge media interest by selling it as a true documentary and then…oops it’s not, the documentary is a mock-documentary about stardom (as it were the season finale of Entorurage (Series 7); and while Affleck was at it, he threw in the fact, that, actually, it was all a joke, since that infamous start at Letterman… so Phoenix has never been crazy or thrown his career down the drain, in fact the whole thing shows how great an actor he is. …hence the actor can start working again, if he wants.
I am sorry but i don’t buy it, it is more likely a clever way to resurrect a career that was dead, a clever way to offer an impossible explanation to a career-suicide move as it was Phoenix’s at Letterman’s. I have only one question for Hollywood execs: who would have hired Phoenix before Affleck’s documentary? I guess no one! After Affleck’s explanation and Phoenix new visit at Letterman’s? Well… Hollywood’s got back one of its stars and Studios can invest on him again. So my congratulations on Casey and Joaquim to put together such a perfect PR act.
Hola Roger,
I can't imagine anyone questioning your genuine concern for Phoenix before this movie was admitted to be a hoax, or your general concern for fame-beleaguered celebrities in the above interview.
However: doesn't this whole story remind you of The Boy Who Cried Wolf? While Affleck and Phoenix fiddled with their little movie, to take only one example, Lindsay Lohan, a young actress whose health (not to mention talent) is being threatened by opportunistic parents, drug-addled "friends" and her own substance abuse problems, likely magnified by fame-related claustrophobia.
What if Affleck and Phoenix had sought *her* out, offered to take her around the world, to storied cultural sites and on grueling, magnificently-vista'd hikes, to free her from the hell of dazed and confused LA, and to give her an objective exposure to the world her childhood stardom denied her? What if they'd made a movie, with her consent and editorial participation, about *that*? How inspiring could such a project have been to thousands if not millions of young girls who feel trapped by normalcy/the suburbs/the trappings of common materialism in much the same way Lohan is? There would have been no guarantee of this working, or getting a movie out of it, but the effort would have been far more worthy, I think. As I said, just an example.
"I'm Not There" might be interesting to talk about and debate, but who can really claim to have touched or significantly moved by it, especially now that the cat's out of the bag? And to repeat the question, Roger, what of the "documentary actor-filmmaker" who cried "Joaquin"?
I think this film was a brilliant idea. It seems that people only feel cheated because it wasn't predictable as a lot of movies are. Art is supposed to be original and it's nice to see films made that weren't designed only as a predictable formula to win over audiences and return everyone's investments. While it is disconcerting that many who believed Joaquin was seriously in trouble chose to make fun of him, bravo to him for staying in character. I wonder to whom Mr. Affleck is referring when he says that we hunt and destroy celebrities. Everyone gets mistreated by others in this world. It's just magnified by celebrities because they get much more attention than the rest of us. They get a lot more postive attention and a lot more negative attention but not necessarily in different percentages than the rest of us. I think it is the resulting isolation that affects celebrities the most. It comes with the job. I think most celebrities have at least some control over the amount of exposure and normalcy that they are able to maintain. Lots of people are "hunted and destroyed" on this planet and celebrities are some of the last ones that I would have sympathy for.
I'm no astute judge of character, but his performance to me always seemed insincere and unreal. He was portraying an out-of-control person in a very controlled way. Contrast that to the Crispin Glover freak-out on Letterman some years prior.
I also found the entire issue completely uninteresting. Both minor and major "celebrities" have frittered away their talents and fortunes on a routine basis, and in this case it seemed harmless enough - there are plenty of failed musicians around, what's one more. So even as a deception to make some obscure point, who cares?
Its only interest to me lies outside the movie as a study of the press and the public, and their infatuation with contact with celebrities. They have successfully implemented a viral marketing campaign, no so much with the general public, but with the press. Unprotected by teams of managers and press agents, these guys were accessible, and the subject of viral rumors, both true and false, but both effectively disseminated to a hungry and gullible press.
To me, the "lesson" is not in the movie (of which I have little interest) but how effectively this trivial C-list movie has generated so much press. And this of course mirrors the theme of the movie itself, although I don't know if I can credit the filmmakers with enough insight to have meant that to be from the beginning.
All of Casey's lines seem very rehearsed and pointed. I like the guy as an actor, but he may need to lighten up as a filmmaker.
Must have been a chore of an interview.
Roger,
Oh, this is starting to chafe my hide. You spend so much time talking about Ben Stiller's role in the film, which is pretty insignificant, yet spend no time talking about P. Diddy, who I think is the emotional crux of the film. He is the MacGuffin.
I desperately need to know if he was in on the joke. That scene with him and Joaquin in the recording studio is one of the more heartbreaking scenes I've seen in a while, and if it's a performance, then Diddy is way more talented than anyone will ever give him credit for.
You're burying the lede, Roger.
Sincerely,
Adam.
P.S. I'm still not sold on the idea that this story and this performance couldn't have been just as easily portrayed in a more forthright fiction film. Seems a little disingenuous and unfairly manipulative, especially considering Joaquin's brother's tragic death.
Love that you have included this interview here. I haven't seen the film but I like the concept of it. What a bunch of work - how exhausting. I wish I could be so focused & committed. But I think of it as a performance art piece. The story is based on a real person but he's playing something outside of himself. Was there a script? Was it mostly improvisational?
I will go see the film and return with more questions or opinions... or confusion... but the thought of it is dizzying.
Roger, I really want from you to answer this : You gave the film three stars; You also gave La Dolci Vita three stars before the four stars. I haven't seen the film yet, but do you think - especially after this interview - that you have the urge to change something here, for better or for worse?
Thank you.
I'm not sure why some people are upset by this. Affleck and Phoenix went a made a movie in a different way from normal. It took a long time and a lot of faith in the project. I think they deserve some credit. While maybe the final product isn't a box office smash or the best movie of the year, it was an attempt at something new. It should be praised for that.
Thanks for the good interview, Roger. I always appreciate someone who asks good questions and doesn't try to make the interview about themselves.
The film's very title is telling. "I'm Still Here" is a play on the recent film "I'm Not There," a mockumentary where actors pretended to be Dylan. Phoenix was in a mockumentary pretending to be JP. I didn't know Letterman was not in on the act when Phoenix was on his show. But it reminded me so much of the infamous Andy Kaufman bit with Jerry Lawler that I knew something was up. I admire Phoenix's ability to stay in character for so long. In the wake of Borat and Bruno, it seemed Phoenix and Affleck were trying something edgy.
I'm truly sorry that Mr. Affleck thinks he made some great piece of art, because "I'm Still Here" is a lot of things, but it's not a great piece of art. I figured it was a hoax (and yes, Casey, creating a fabricated fictional mental breakdown of someone that is not actually happening is a hoax) but I am not sure why anyone would think it was funny. Several famous people have died, fairly recently, of drug overdoses. Joaquin Phoenix's own brother died of a drug overdose. Why is mocking a celebrity with a substance abuse problem supposed to be funny? If the whole movie was supposed to be a commentary on the collective idolation and subsequent harpooning of celebrities, why not include more information about celebrity media, or do some lampooning of sites like TMZ and Perez Hilton? Why focus on Joaquin snorting coke and calling strippers? To me, the way the film is framed makes it seem like the tabloid reporters have a point when they doggedly pursue celebrities on the brink - there is, in fact, a story there. A really revolutionary film would have shot a family barbecue where Casey, his brother Ben, their collective wives and children, and Joaquin sat around eating burgers and playing Monopoly. Show a different facet of what life is like as a celebrity, don't reinforce all these tired ideas and then insist they were supposed to be funny.
The whole thing came off, to me, like a student film project by two immature frat guys who had cooked up an elaborate inside joke between themselves and then put it on film, and are now personally offended - in the most narcissistic way - that no one gets their insensitive, unfunny joke. There's no enduring quality of work, or insightful commentary here. That movie could have been made, but "I'm Still Here" is not that movie. It's also extremely obvious that Affleck is doing major spin/damage control to try to shore up the movie's box office, which I don't think is going to work.
Joaquin is a talented enough performer that I think his career will rebound. Casey Affleck, not so much. At this point, he should be grateful his big brother's movie did well at the box office and that he has relatives that are rich and famous enough to support his family until he can retrain as an electrician, or something. Because I doubt most Hollywood production companies find his antics either as amusing, or as edgy, as he seems to.
Mr. Ebert,
Isn't asking - 'dully' - whether the film is real a way of expressing concern over Mr. Phoenix? Or at least a certain discomfort over the possibility of his downfall becoming entertainment?
Isn't part of the problem that this indictment of celebrity culture - its being financed - is so dependent on the indulgences of that celebrity culture?
Doesn't all of the intellectual scaffolding that is being built around the film collapse in light of the fact that Mr. Phoenix laughed as he watched it in Venice?
Ebert you are a disingenuous boob...
If the only thing this movie/documentary/hoax accomplished was to allow commenter Henry Bennett to use "mordant" and "soupcon" (in the same sentence!) then it still belongs on your Great Movies list.
i thought the best take on it was from npr's Film Spotting ... they levelled that the very thing that dragged the movie down was affleck's inability to present a compelling story - hoax or no ...
Mr. Ebert, I'm sure you have plenty of projects on your plate. May I suggest a book (pehaps in collaboration with Mr. Affleck and/or Mr. Phoenix) to accompany this work of art so future viewers will understand the full artistry achieved by 'the deception'?
Mr. Ebert, face it, you're the only person in America who fell for this. Stop analyzing this as if there's something deep that flew over your vast intellect. You got punked now live with it.
http://allin1bollywood.blogspot.com
The people who believed this stunt are probably the same people who also believed Amanda Bynes "retired" from acting.
As for Catfish: it's the most dishonest trailer I've seen since The Life of David Gale.
My wife and I screened this movie two nights ago. She went in without any preconceptions; I went in having watched all the videos of the performances and read up on the whole controversy/revelation.
Both of us had mixed reactions to the whole affair. On the upside, my wife felt a lot of empathy for Joaquin's character as the media and general public increasingly mocked his genuine intentions, and we actually found the title track somewhat catchy. However, we both felt the editing to really detract from the movie; for example, I thought the overly long tracking shot at the end and the lack of any resolution or "wink" really detracted from the whole affair. I tried to reason that the point of the movie was to have the resolution occur in real life after the movie's release, but would the general public that watches the movie make the effort, or even think of following up with him? Would people give him a second chance?
I think they did a great job pulling off the story in real life, but I wish Casey did a better job of editing or concluding the movie. His comment, "I don't have a point to make, though" from your interview reveals the major flaw: a lack of narrative or thematic focus results in a muddied product. His inexperience in documentary movie making or training clearly shows and ultimately hurt his intentions.
Hi Roger,
After watching the film I sort of pondered about the life that Joaquin was living and wondered what made him tick. It really seems true that there is a fascination with the crash of a human life. My perspective in this is no different than a lot of people, I am "interested" in the life of a celebrity who is throwing it away. But what feeds my curiosity is trying to see what goes through the mind of the person not a sense of indirect jealousy which I think is what happens most of the time. I once read that "a person's mental health can be destroyed in a single moment and it does not have to be necessarily a traumatic experience. Feeling that I in any moment can "snap" makes me a little nervous and happy at the same time because I feel that I have at this moment control in my life; but I digress.
When I read that Joaquin was in fact "performing" my reaction was happiness. Joaquin is a real talent. We have lost so many great actors (like Joaquin's brother) that watching another one go down the drain makes me sad, even though it is hard not to keep watching it. I never felt the film would take a hit if it turned out to be a "hoax" in fact doesn't it make it an even better film? An even better performance? Maybe people don't like to be fooled, in real life I don't like to either, but when I watch a film I like the feeling of being at the mercy of the director and of the actors. If it means being fooled or tricked so be it.
Saludos y mucha salud para usted y su familia!
(Greetings and much health for you and your family)
Thank you, Roger, for your always interesting insights, and for this interview. I have been reading all of your coverage of this movie and the fallout, and find it all fascinating. I actually want to see it, now, where before I was ambivalent. Is it art? Is it film? Is it bullsh*t?
I find it amusing, all the commenters that come here to say, "I don't care about Affleck/Phoenix/this movie, stop writing about it!" Um, as far as I know, no one is holding a gun to these guys' heads and forcing them to read. If you're not interested, don't read it. Simple.
Phoenix really is one of the greatest actors you could find on a screen in any recent movies, his performance in James Gray's Two Lovers as well as the quality of the film itself makes it one of this decade's great movies and not just a fine, "lovely" film as it is now considered in America. From here it is incredibly ironic that this actor will announce out of the blue an end to his carrer, which reached a peak with Gray's last, only to come back only a year later in another fiction film about his decision to stop acting. It's like he will act everything he does up until...
Bravo Joaquin and Casey! For me this was performance art with a film at its heart, and what a performance. I agree with Casey that that is fundamentally different from a "hoax" although people on the outside can feel fooled in the same way. And some people take that very hard, instead of seeing it as an opportunity for taking a deeper look at things, and broadening perspective. Isn't that what the best art can inspire in us?
I haven't seen the movie, but I doubt it's not uninteresting and thought provoking. I applaud the effort to get to the bottom of our celebrity obsessions, but the simple truth is that both the audience and celebrity are human beings. The celebrity presents him or herself, the public falls in love, a honeymoon phase takes over for 3-4 years, then reality sets in....just like any other relationship. The problem is that since the celebrity's "lover" is "the world", there is no moving on to the next relationship. There is no second chance, you are forever the person the public fell in love with. The public, however, can change, can drop you, can not be bothered with you anymore if it doesn't want to, harrass you, mock you, etc. At that point, it's either meltdown or grim acceptance for the celebrity. I, for one, don't envy them.
Joachim Phoenix bores me. As all bearded hipsters do with their uniform individuality.
I'm stubborn. I still believe on some level that Joaquin Phoenix's behavior was real, although in retrospect, his appearance does have a pronounced element of burlesque. Although "Two Lovers" was never going to set the box office on fire, it did have the potential to be a modest "art house" hit, so didn't Joaquin Phoenix have an obligation to filmmaker James Grey and his co-stars to properly promote the film? "I'm Still Here", as pure fiction, is a masterpiece of confrontational art. It indicts the audience as heartless, cold bastards because people will laugh at Phoenix's behavior, regardless of whether it's a performance or not. But Phoenix and filmmaker Casey Affleck are pretty cold, too. They, in a sense, co-opted the circumstances behind River Phoenix's death to help authenticate Joaquin's purported drug addiction. When news broke about his "retirement", that's the first thing which ran through my mind: "Oh, it must run in the family." His older brother's death, in itself, is a clue to this fraud, when you consider that River died on the same day as Federico Fellini, because "I'm Still Here" features a protagonist that is, I guess, a clown, perhaps, a clown in the William Burroughs sense, in a film that's surreal like the second-half of Spike Jonze's "Being John Malkovich", where Malkovich announces his retirement from the acting world to become a puppeteer. I don't know about you, but I feel like a total idiot. I'm not one to laugh at gallows humor, or the schizophrenic newspaper street vendor who talks to the bushes on a highway(it's the highway en route to Dole Cannery) that I take during my daily commute. I actually thought there was the potentiality of "I'm Not Here" being some sort of intervention.
This reminds me of the friend we all have who will "fool" us by committing to an act for so long that we cave and "believe" them. As soon as we're on the hook, they step back and mock us for buying into the sham. You fooled us, guys! Wait, what were we talking about? Back to life...
I still think this film would be so much better if it wasn't admitted that it was staged, a hoax, or performance art. I would rather judge the movie by its own merits and decide for myself. Now that illusion is shattered, and 1+ years of setup was all for naught. I haven't seen the film yet (it's barely been released so far), but I now have no fervent interest in watching it in theaters, maybe I'll catch it sometime on DVD.
Looks like the distributors botched that job.
I think films should explore the rules behind the "suspension of disbelief."
Movies seem to be so commercial in the sense that they are like commercials: which includes the "suspension of disbelief", as often happens with reaction shots, which kind of, in a sense, are telling you what to think (as often film music does as well). These reaction shots don't feel so organic to the story so much as a "rule" to the "suspension of disbelief" and usually in a kind of "take your mind-numbing medicine" kind of, a distractive way. For instance, in an action film, the good guy might get angry at a bad guy and is taking it personally now and is intent on some audience-pleasing blood-spraying, and just after he is built up to doing so, there will be some kid who looks at the camera, and smile at the audience cornily and say "Mmm, that's good ass-kicking."
So, on the one hand, I'm glad the movie didn't do that, and kind of have a reaction shot by some main character in the movie with their arms folded as if, once again, cornily to say "There goes our Joaquin again up to mishaps again."
It was a bit different, which is always good.
The Gov took us all to the movie. I was confused.
Who is the Phonexi character supposed to be? At first I thought the Bird was a metaphor he freed his bird and then he smoked and again I am not sure
at which character at any given moment I was on the hand to view otherwise.
I think
Dunno... I honestly think Joaquin just looked at what a joke he was making out of himself, and how he was wrecking his life, and decided to turn it around and "insist" that it was "all a hoax." He couldn't possibly revive his acting career if everyone knew this was for real; he'd be a joke forever. There's simply no other point behind having done any of this. "Performance art" is not enough reason to convince the entire world that you've lost your mind. When Sascha Baron Cohen does it, we're in on the joke from moment one. With this, it just smacks too much of somebody who made a grievous error in personal judgement and now desperately wants to recitfy it with the public. Everything about it is just too phony to me.
Just like to point out that making a work of art the point of which is to reveal the attitudes of the clientele rather than the artist has been long enough to be considered a sort of minor tradition or even mini-genre in itself. Go back and read the reviews for Funny Games for an example.
The Dylan references, which are all over the place in addition to the "I'm Not There" paroday, make the link with this tradition, as Dylan excelled at this technique where the artist's production basically dissects the mob instead of the usual other way round.
All things said and done, "I'm Still Here" does the trick with a more humane spirit than Dylan intended. It's the difference between "look at yourselves! isn't it sad!" and "look at yourselves! you'r all idiots!"
I guess they deserve credit for a clever idea, but I'm not celebrity-obsessed, and I have to say Roger's review and blog entries interest me more than the film does.
Mr. Ebert,
Hey, They ain't the only ones capable of a little charade, right Reiny. Answers.com plainly states your birth name was Rienhold Timme. I have no idea when you became Roger Ebert, nor do I care. But just remember the old Chinese proverb, "Wisdom begins when one calls things by their right name."
answers.com/topic/roger-ebert
Ebert: Rienhold Timme was a pseudonym thought up by Russ Meyer for my work on one of his screenplays.
art as a souvenier of our time-
Joaquin I am just glad you were acting-
Hoax...role...whatever!
First, I think you have to admire someone who invests himself so totally in a role that it blurs the line between reality and art. I'm reminded of the great lengths the Christian Bale character in The Prestige went through to sustain his staged illusion.
Second, I'm glad Joaquin Phoenix is alive, well, and among the sane. He's a terrific actor and I look forward to seeing more great performances from him in the future.
To anyone complaining about the thing being a hoax, I'd say: "at least something someone in Hollywood did got you to care, got you to be a little emotionally invested." How often does THAT happen?
"Ebert: Knowing that Joaquin was performing suggests a deeper level of anger against the celebrity-publicity system than a simple psychological meltdown would have. This must be an actor urgently inspired to make a statement.
Affleck: I think its more a case of an enormous talent relishing the unique role and broadened parameters of the job."
I am very surprised at how many people, including you, keep focusing on the "hoax" word. The director put it all very eloquently here: It is a movie, it was acting, not a hoax, and the reason for people not being in on it: They were part of the movie's context.
It's not as if this is the first time a piece of art have used reality as the canvas, but it sounds as if it is unheard of.
Well, it sounds like a great project, and your question of who would go through a year of acting like he was out of his mind:
Well, a Method actor, for one...
Why on earth would I have sympathy for Joaquin Phoenix if he WAS having a breakdown? I save my sympathy for people in horrifying straits through no fault of their own - people born into poverty and war and genocide, not narcissitic actors who are given talent, looks, fame, and fortune then choose to self-destruct with an inflated ego and the obligatory substance abuse. Casey and Joaquin are just two more examples of people who have grown so far away from the normal human race that they now believe the whole world is interested in them and a debate over this sad and revolting film. OH how I hope that both their careers are soon over. Roger Ebert, I'm very disappointed to discover that you have morphed from a discerning critic into a toady.
I saw Joaquin Phoenix on Letterman last night; who basically confirmed what I'd suspected all along. But what left a lasting impression wasn't Joaquin, but rather Letterman.
Although it was said in jest, I still think it speaks to an underlying truth and about men:
"...somehow I get the sense that I had been made fun of." - Letterman told Phoenix.
Men compete with one another for everything. And why their first thought is often how to best the other fellow and win the race and claim top spot in the pecking order; no one wanting to be the guy on the bottom. And if you ever want to see the male ego on full display, gather a bunch of writers together and stick them in a room. :)
I think what Affleck and Phoenix did was bold, daring and original. Whereas I don't think you can say that about the Media or the Press.
Affleck and Phoenix stepped away from the mainstream and took a different path - and for want of greater empathy, snark soon followed. All the Media could see was the "meat bag" quote unquote, and in their competitive eagerness to land a punch they missed the bigger picture.
I think that's what stung - as nothing rattles a guy quite so much as another appearing to having "pulled one over him" while seemingly tricking him into hoisting himself by his own petard.
Affleck and Phoenix handed everyone a rope, and more hung themselves with it than not; callousness easier than compassion and because it's faster and takes less effort.
That's my take on the whole brouhaha, at any rate.
I mean really, how cruel of Joaquin Phoenix. Doesn't he know the rules? Only the media is allowed to manipulate the media!
I think that this is an incredibly interesting idea. It allows room for the viewer's mind to make its own decisions. The best films are the ones that inspire such conversation and thought.
As good an actor as Joaquin is, there was no way to tell if it was a hoax or not from the beginning. There were times I thought it was real and there were times I thought it had to be fake. At least no one was harmed in the making of the film and a lot of people should think about the way they treated someone they thought was having a complete meltdown. It's shamefull the way people treat others these days. Everytime I watch one of Joaquin's movies "The Gladiator" I feel as though we are not far off from the days of the colliseum and throwing people to the lions for sport.
Balls Out!!!
http://slumwords.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/kudos-to-casey-affleck/
What a tremendous waste of time and money this movie seems.
I read your journal article and interview with great interest and relief that this was what I call a "job."
Whenever I have seen Phoenix in a film, I have always watched him as Phoenix "acting" and not the role he was playing. He could be sweeping up in a barn and I would find watching him do that as interesting, engrossing and ultimately enjoyable. There are very few actors and actresses of whom I could say the same. Yes, he chews the scenery, but I enjoy it almost as much as he may be.
Before I saw first saw him in a film, "8mm" I think, I thought he was just another no talent guy trying to cash in on the notoriety surrounding his brother's unfortunate death. But I quickly found out that he had, in my opinion, a real talent and love for acting and have looked forward to his films since. I hope that someday he will be rewarded by the industry because right now, I think he is one of the best, if not the best, actors in the world of cinema today.
I saw Joaquin Phoenix on Letterman last night; who basically confirmed what I'd suspected all along. But what left a lasting impression wasn't Joaquin, but rather Letterman.
Dave's personally--and never with advance warning--been in the trenches with some of the most narcissistically overbearing performance-persona dolts during his career, probably more than Johnny, Jay or Conan ever had to face. Maybe it's the nature of his show's image that he seems to attract them like moths:
He was there when Andy Kaufman went on his "wrestling" stunts, and nearly got kicked in the head when Crispin Glover wanted to premiere his "quirky" Reuben & Ed character. (It's worth nothing that Glover as a lead actor has all but dropped off the face of the earth since doing so.)
And Andy, Crispin and Joaquin, what you remember n all three cases is Dave bravely facing these attention-hogs with patient, understatedly audience-sympathetic barbs--A talk show host, when you get right down to it, is the first line of defense between image-struck actors, and poor, defenseless audiences who meant nobody no harm, and there's more to be admired in Dave's patiently snarky attempts to restore order than an overly self-struck actor's attempts to assault them with chaos.
(When Kaufman tried getting attention by laying into a fellow wrestler with two minutes of bleeped-out profanity, Dave's response was simply a perfectly timed and deadpan "...Y'know, I think you CAN say a few of those words on television?")
When an actor feels himself "above" entertaining the audience anymore, he's just dictionary-defined himself out of a job. And the audience is usually willing to comply.
Strictly off-topic. IMHO the 1937 William Dieterle Life of Emile Zola with Paul Muni is worth considering for a seat among the chosen.
I can understand Joaquin sitting in the back of the theatre in Venice laughing at this work. What he has done is is hilarious, genuinely funny.
The concept is outrageous. "I'll invent this monstrous, repugnant, monosyllabic public persona and keep it up for an entire two years of my life and then release it sans commentary as a documentary motion picture." For no clearly defined point. That immense effort for no point other than to laugh at your own movie is itself, utterly ridiculous.
Watching the original clip of Letterman again in the knowledge that both Letterman and Joaquin are goofing off on the same absurd concept is laugh out loud funny.
And if this amount of press and punter comment, an absolute avalanch of attention, results in a 4 week run in 19 theatres with low attendance. Well that will be even funnier.
Marie Haws,
Maybe you are right about guys in competition but I'm not so sure.
With me, I know I get into a lot of debates with people on this blog, as you know, but to me I was raise the bar up into that higher knowledge, perhaps an attainable knowledge; that's where I set the bar at.
And I don't care if I have to get stepped on by everyone to achieve that.
So, to me it is about the knowledge and not about me and wanting the knowledge to be for everyone.
If you've clicked on my name you might see what I mean.
That knowledge is open to all and I don't care if people steal that discovery and step on me and that's the price I paid to get everyone on a higher level of knowledge; I'm just glad that they might be having the higher knowledge that is for all of us.
Knowledge doesn't belong to anyone.
That's my philosophy and I really don't care about the spoils in getting there just so long as people are being brought together by it (even if I'm not part of that togetherness).
One of my comments didn't show up, so I'll just say the short version:
I think we should examine the rules of "suspension of disbelief" more, and I'm glad the film kind of did this.
I'm also glad the film didn't do any kind of corny reaction shots that are meant to reflect the audiences own reaction (and I think even possibly tell people what to think, as with much film music), such as a main character shaking his head and looking towards the camera as if to say "there goes our Joaquin up to his usual shenanigans."
That seems to be one of the rules of suspension of disbelief: is having a reaction shot that mirrors the audiences feelings, usually with a kind of close-up and they are looking into the camera right at the audience and it often feels corny.
Like in a middle of an action scene, a character, like a kid, will say "Boy, now we're having fun", as if to kind of mirror the audiences reaction.
I'm not sure, but I think that's one of the rules to suspension of disbelief and I don't see why.
I've been excited about this film for a while now and finally saw it last night. While watching it I mainly thought about two things: 1. How would I be reacting to this if I didn't know it was an act? Would myself and the others in the audience be laughing at certain parts if we didn't know? and 2. Herzog and "Aguirre Wrath Of God". It seemed to have the same theme and structure: an insane man of unfortunate power leading his helpless subordinates down a path of destruction while constantly abusing them, losing many if not all of them on the way until he is ultimately alone. I really thought about this during the last minutes of the film, and was saying this to my friend when the name "Joe Aguirre" appeared on the screen, I think as a cinematographer. I'm not sure if Joe Aguirre is real (I guess I can go to IMDB for that), but either way I thought the film was a fantastic and relevant idea, and quite brave on Phoenix's part. He really seems to have made a large sacrifice for this whole thing and I wish it would be regarded with more respect. My friend enjoyed the movie knowing it was an act, but she was still emotionally drained afterwards. I think that says something about it.
Surely the best trajectory of a downfall since LaMotta in Raging Bull?
This discussion reminds me, of all things, of Murnau's "The Last Laugh." The finale of that film is regularly described (as in your "Great Movies" review) as Murnau's caving in to the studio's need for a happy ending.
But the fact that he does so with such aggressive obviousness makes it for me a central lesson of film: The audience is in another's hand, the passive recipients of an active experience that goes its own way and demands we follow. If it wants to end in despair, so be it; if in improbable joy, well get on board or jump off. "I'm Still Here" also makes the same demand; all good movies (and this seems like it is one) are bullies.
Casey Affleck seems confused about what "suspension of disbelief" means. Audiences need to do that when walking into a theater because they know what they are seeing isn't real -- as long as what they are seeing isn't a documentary. Nobody -- filmmakers, actors, etc. -- is suggesting otherwise.
Affleck did suggest otherwise; in fact, he overtly stated that it was real, so for audiences, there was no disbelief to suspend.
The irony, of course, is that few people seemed to care enough about their endeavour enough to see the movie for themselves.
In reading Affleck's comments that he was annoyed how some people and critics only focused on whether or not the film was real, I was reminded of a passage in Tim O'Brien's novel "The Things They Carried" in which the narrator describes how to tell a true war story:
"You can tell a true war story by the questions you ask. Somebody tells a story, let's say, and afterward you ask, 'Is it true?' and if the answer matters, you've got your answer....You'd feel cheated if it never happened. Without the grounding reality, it's just a trite bit of puffery, pure Hollywood, untrue in the way all such stories are untrue. Yet even if it did happen-and maybe it did, anything's possible-even then you know it can't be true, because a true war story does not depend upon that kind of truth. Absolute occurrence is irrelevant. A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth." (83)
I'd say that this passage could just as easily apply to the "I'm Still Here" situation, as well. Thanks for conducting the interview - I plan to see the film soon!
"Performance art" is not enough reason to convince the entire world that you've lost your mind. When Sascha Baron Cohen does it, we're in on the joke from moment one. With this, it just smacks too much of somebody who made a grievous error in personal judgement and now desperately wants to recitfy it with the public.
--
Ebert: Knowing that Joaquin was performing suggests a deeper level of anger against the celebrity-publicity system than a simple psychological meltdown would have. This must be an actor urgently inspired to make a statement.
The points the defenders kept bringing up against Cohen's Borat and Bruno back in the day ritually followed a general pattern of three, and usually in chronological order:
Defense #1) He was Just Funnin': "Well, what about Candid Camera?" No, when Allen Funt did Candid Camera, the emphasis was on showing the hoax stunts as hidden psychological experiments to show how we all behave--Watching people all face the same way in an elevator, for example, or passersby hesitating to enter a line marked "Average people only". (One time when a CC stunt backfired and left the subject visibly depressed, Funt stopped the stunt and couldn't apologize enough on camera.) The newer generation of Jamie Kennedy and Ashton Kutcher's time doesn't quite get the "smile" idea, and believes that hidden-camera stunts are predatory guerilla-warfare: Attack your "victim" and claim your trophy.
Defense #2) He was making a STATEMENT: The brief cult-like attachment to Borat believed that Cohen was "taking on Bush-era America" by pestering average people on the street, some of whom were taking time out to give this poor, odd stranger the benefit of the doubt. Cohen believed he was taking on the Yanks and Celebrities, Joaquin believed he was taking on The Machine, and whose "trophy" is claimed?--Letterman's? Letterman emerged unscathed by simply showing a little earnest dedication to entertainment in a crisis; perhaps that is how he "deserved" what he got.
Defense #3) They Had It Coming...They ALL Have It Coming!: When all other defenses of Guerilla Pranks fail, the last apology is usually to side with the warrior, and claim how the victims "deserved" their onscreen fate for being part of a larger symbol. There is a basic problem with objectifying bystanders as part of a larger symbolic statement, and that is of collateral damage and responsibility: Someone might feel the need to car-bomb a building because all the employees in it to him "symbolize" some corrupt social or political ideal--If he does, we bystanders might tend to use the word "Terrorist".
Ah, but this is not Baghdad or Oklahoma City, of course, this is satire, and we are to cheer that the innocent victims within the corrupt system were "fooled" so mercilessly by our brave rogue prankster, and shown up in public so humiliatingly.
That's called "anger", and when it's applied without a focused target, there's a very gray dividing line.
I think this highlights how difficult it is for viewers to judge a movie based on what they see upon the screen.
All the rest of this crap and carp is about the useless bullshit of celebrity culture. This film actually managed extend its theme, its subject and purpose, beyond the screen in a way that is both interesting and thought provoking. That is truly amazing.
What is modern art? Is it the search for meaning in the void of traditional values and spirituality? Do we fill that in with empty celebrity and triviality? If some got taken in, its because of their expectations and needs, and not the film itself and what it has to say about its subject matter. Why should they complain unless the mirror is too painful. Thanks for your honest review and review.
By Marie Haws on September 23, 2010 6:18 PM
Couldn't have said it better myself. :-)
And wait, am I hearing my housemate listening to Miley Cyrus?
Sorry, random comment. Anyway, there are other movies out there that I'm more interested in than this one, like Black Swan and pretty much every movie covered here: http://etheriel.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/tiff10-recap-nostalgic-for-the-light/
Quote... Marie Haws on September 23, 2010 6:18 PM ; Although it was said in jest, I still think it speaks to an underlying truth and about men:
"...somehow I get the sense that I had been made fun of." - Letterman told Phoenix.
Men compete with one another for everything. And why their first thought is often how to best the other fellow and win the race and claim top spot in the pecking order; no one wanting to be the guy on the bottom....
...I think that's what stung - as nothing rattles a guy quite so much as another appearing to having "pulled one over him" while seemingly tricking him into hoisting himself by his own petard....
Quote...Emma on September 23, 2010 5:12 PM :Casey and Joaquin are just two more examples of people who have grown so far away from the normal human race that they now believe the whole world is interested in them and a debate over this sad and revolting film. OH how I hope that both their careers are soon over.
I love the fact that Emma's comment appears just before Marie's. So are we to believe that when a man considers this film a failure it is because of some innately fragile male ego? That he simply resents being 'stung' and 'rattled' because of a flaw in maleness? If that's true, why is Emma responding in exactly the same way? No doubt she is not in control of her own opinion and is simply another victim of the patriarchs. If only she were in touch with her femininity she would be able to fully appreciate the beautiful and supple performance of Joaquin.
What poppycock. If David Letterman has a problem with the film or Casey or Joaquin it's because of what he the "person" thinks/feels/believes. Not some preloaded strawman floating around in the head of the audience listening to him.
Sexism is an attitude towards a person based on that person's gender rather than on objective knowledge and it's on full display in Marie's comment.
The best review of this film can by found right here on Roger's website By Amy on September 23, 2010 8:47 AM .
I didn't have any interest in seeing the film, thinking, if it's real it's exploitive of Joaquin Phoenix, and if it's fake it's exploitive of the audience. Now I know it's fiction and just don't care anymore.
But I do look forward to seeing Phoenix in more performances like "Two Lovers" and fewer like this.
"Ebert: Many of the snarkier web sites seem to be run by men (hardly ever women) who, I think, take pleasure in the troubles of others. They seem cheered by bad movies, bad box office, arrests, domestic problems, drugs, and even illness--although there they affect a pious sympathy. Would you agree?"
Oh, come on. Those "others" you refer to are hardly the guy next door. They are rich and powerful celebrities, with access to mental-health care (or any other kind of help) that regular Joes can only dream of. Stop kissing Affleck's ass.
All of this depends on whether the real Casey Affleck was being truthful in a staged interview about the inauthenticity of Joaquin's performance (or vice-versa)?
http://www.philmology.com/?p=691
"Ebert: Many of the snarkier web sites seem to be run by men (hardly ever women) who, I think, take pleasure in the troubles of others. They seem cheered by bad movies, bad box office, arrests, domestic problems, drugs, and even illness--although there they affect a pious sympathy. Would you agree?"
I thought this was one of the most important questions and it's a shame it wasn't really answered.
Why does the media find humor and satisfaction in the destruction of others? I'm 24 and empathy in my generation is in decline. Sadly, this is also effecting our artists and intellectuals. My generation justifies detachment more than ever. And at this rate, it doesn't augur well for a compassionate race.
"By Emma on September 23, 2010 5:12 PM
Why on earth would I have sympathy for Joaquin Phoenix if he WAS having a breakdown? I save my sympathy for people in horrifying straits through no fault of their own - people born into poverty and war and genocide, not narcissitic actors who are given talent, looks, fame, and fortune then choose to self-destruct with an inflated ego and the obligatory substance abuse. Casey and Joaquin are just two more examples of people who have grown so far away from the normal human race that they now believe the whole world is interested in them and a debate over this sad and revolting film. OH how I hope that both their careers are soon over. Roger Ebert, I'm very disappointed to discover that you have morphed from a discerning critic into a toady."
Why must we marginalize someone's afflictions simply because he or she is famous? Depression is ALWAYS a serious matter and does not discriminate. We should always be concerned and do our best to support them. If you want nothing to do with it, just leave them alone. It's a crippling condition and has taken the best of so many talented artists.
I've yet to see this film, but from what I've heard, it seems to depict an actor's decent into despair and self destruction. I can only hope this will be morally edifying for a generation that lacks so little empathy. But again, I've yet to see the movie. So I can only hope its intent was a positive one.
I do question the performance of Ben Stiller at the award ceremony. Seems to muddle the meaning a little. If, of course, the film has a meaning.
When Phoenix was making the media rounds "in character" for Letterman and other appearances, he was doing so to discuss the film "Two Lovers" a well-made (Mr. Ebert gave it 3&1/2 stars), smaller budgeted independent film. Of course, that film's promotion was completely overshadowed by his antics and it never got the attention it deserved and underperformed. Now affleck is claiming that gray knew about it? I'm sorry, but I'm calling liar, liar pants on fire for this one.
What I want to know is was there ever a point where Phoenix called up James Gray, the writer/director of Two Lovers --whom I would speculate felt his was probably an important film as well -- and said something like, "hey dude, just so you know, I'm going to completely screw over any obligation I may have to support and promote the your film in favor of my bro-in-laws art film. Hope you don't mind. Oh, and thanks for the paycheck man"
Personally, I think an apology might be in order rather than a back-peddle to make it look like it wasn't a big deal.
Reply to Mr. Ebert(Timme)-Lineage concerns
Respectfully, I remain unconvinced. Such occurrences are quite common in the Orient. Might you, sir, put an end to this controversy by simply posting a copy of your birth certificate? Lastly, and with great deference, sir, I must inquire if you are indeed blood relation to one of my earliest heroes, the famous American singer and master ukulele player, the late Tiny Timme?
Most humbly, Feng.
Ebert: No, but I was living at the Sunset Marquis when he had his wedding night there.
@ Marie Haws
"I saw Joaquin Phoenix on Letterman last night; who basically confirmed what I'd suspected all along. But what left a lasting impression wasn't Joaquin, but rather Letterman.
"Men compete with one another for everything. And why their first thought is often how to best the other fellow and win the race and claim top spot in the pecking order; no one wanting to be the guy on the bottom. And if you ever want to see the male ego on full display, gather a bunch of writers together and stick them in a room. :)"
What struck me on Letterman Wednesday night was the stunt (a least I hope it was a stunt) Letterman pulled on Phoenix, demanding a million dollars for the footage of his earlier interview having appeared in the film. Talk about rude. He kept going on about it, and it made Phoenix visibly uncomfortable.
@ Karl-Heinz wrote on September 24, 2010 3:31 PM - "Sexism is an attitude towards a person based on that person's gender rather than on objective knowledge and it's on full display in Marie's comment."
I disagree.
It's an observation of a well-known male dynamic, but as seen through the female gaze. And yes there's a difference.
Case in point: Comedian (2002) the documentary on Jerry Seinfeld - on one level, it's about a bunch of guys all jockeying for position within their group, each wanting to best the other and be top dog. It's an element at work within their dynamic - and it's nothing new.
"When Chris Rock tells Seinfeld that Bill Cosby does two hours and 20 minutes without an intermission, and he does it twice in the same day, he becomes very sad and thoughtful, like a karaoke star when Tony Bennett walks in." - Roger Ebert, from his 2002 review of "Comedian".
As children, boys play at trying to kill one another. As men, it evolves into a variety of sports and mental competitions. Ask ANY woman on the planet to describe the dynamic "between men" and you'll hear something similar.
Moreover it's not a secret.
Roger's empathy was engaged by Cassey Affleck and Joaquin Phoenix:
"I have hope that if Phoenix ever cleans up his body and mind, he can be restored, and can be happy again. See how Robert Downey Jr. and Dennis Hopper came back from the edge of the grave. We do not desperately need another actor, but Joaquin is imprisoned within his illness, and he desperately needs to get well." - Roger, from his review of "I'm Still Here".
He felt sorry for the poor guy; awww. :)
BUT - he also expressed "displeasure" at the thought of possibly learning his empathy had been engaged needlessly.
"If this film turns out to still be part of an elaborate hoax, I'm going to be seriously pissed."
Really? Why? What's there to be pissed about? You felt empathy for another human being. Now it turns out he's okay. Which should be more important than anything else, surely?
To my way of thinking, better the man able to feel empathy for another than not, Roger. It's never foolish - it means your heart is working.
"Ebert: Many of the snarkier web sites seem to be run by men (hardly ever women) who, I think, take pleasure in the troubles of others. They seem cheered by bad movies, bad box office, arrests, domestic problems, drugs, and even illness--although there they affect a pious sympathy. Would you agree?"
Roger wrote that. It hardly flatters men. Yet I don't see anyone taking issue with it.
"I love the fact that Emma's comment appears just before Marie's. So are we to believe that when a man considers this film a failure it is because of some innately fragile male ego?" - Karl-Heinz
Wow; your issues with women are just bottomless, Karl. :)
If a man dislikes the movie for thinking it's poorly done or what have you, that's one thing.
Then there's reacting to the thought of being fooled or tricked or duped; a mostly male reaction, or so it struck me.
Whereas Emma's reaction:
"Casey and Joaquin are just two more examples of people who have grown so far away from the normal human race that they now believe the whole world is interested in them and a debate over this sad and revolting film. OH how I hope that both their careers are soon over."
Ie: Who do these people think they are?! You are so not that important! No one cares about you or your stupid lame movie!"
What's bugging her is clearly the level of attention they're getting. She's not measuring anything else - like who knew what, when and where. I don't hear the sound of wounded ego or pride. Her issue is with celebrity and yet another "train wreck" so to speak. That's what appears to have tested her patience. I hear someone exasperated, screaming: ENOUGH ALREADY!
And I can related, as who hasn't walked the weekly gauntlet of celebrity mags & gossip rags when trying to buy groceries, eh? It's easy to reach "tilt" these days - there's WAY too much coverage out there. It's like a weed you can't kill. So annoying.
I think it's sexist to say: "all men are" fill in the blank.
I don't think it's sexist to observe a male dynamic and connect some dots to form a bigger picture; a larger observation.
If a man were to observe most women compete with one another via clothes and how much we weigh, he'd be right. And I wouldn't be offended if he did. If you tend to do something, you do it, eh?
Example:
Men tend to laugh at whatever makes them "nervous or uncomfortable" and especially if sex is involved - but only when it's happening to someone else. And why it's hilarious if your pal gets mistaken for Gay - but not you. :)
But I digress....
My initial gender-based observation wasn't without a point and I didn't share it out of context. From what I've seen, most of the noise about the film and Phoenix's performance off-screen is coming from men, and they're mostly focused on the fear they've been taken for a ride, fooled, etc.
At least, few seem to be laughing at the irony of it all.
For the record, quite some time ago an insider leaked word that Phoenix and Affleck were about to start on a project that would be a faux-documentary about Phoenix ending his acting career. Again, this was before they even began the project.
Afterward, there were a great deal of online discussions about it that all just assumed that of course it was not "real". It's understandable that most of the mainstream press doesn't spend its time cruising around Internet sites and discussion boards etc, but it really is true that for a long time there has been a pretty significantly large portion of the public who had heard about this upcoming project and who knew it was a faux-documentary film.
So anyone claiming they don't believe the current claims that it was fiction, as some here and elsewhere have said, are just wrong. Are you prepared to believe that prior to Phoenix doing ANY of this, back when he still had short hair and was acting, someone just somehow made the miraculously accurate prediction of Phoenix saying he quit acting to pursue music and would be filmed by Affleck?
It was leaked/revealed as fiction in advance, as a planned collaborative project. It was long-discussed as performance art by lots of people throughout the process. There were several aspects that seemed implausible to the point some people complained that it went over the top and wasn't realistic enough compared to most of the rest of the public performance. This isn't Affleck and Phoenix spinning a real documentary as fiction, it's them revealing that yes, as many people knew or suspected for a long time, it was fiction and overall a masterful job.
Mr. Ebert, I'd recommend not being too angry at them over this. Consider that if as an artist you want to make a film about yourself unraveling and about how you and the public and media react to it etc, a necessary part of such "real-time" examination of your themes requires being in character publicly. And unless you want to rather thoroughly spoil the audience experience, you can't just tell people during the filming and viewing that nothing that's happening is real.
I understand that, for people who were genuinely worried and upset about what they thought was Phoenix's meltdown and how nobody was helping him deal with it, the revelation that it was fake might be rather disturbing and make you angry.
But I think that most people didn't know him personally, and most were responding as outsiders and as precisely part of what the film was indeed attempting to examine and "document" -- just as Borat fooled so many of the people on camera in the film, in order to document their reactions and to make its statements and even just to gain amusement and humor from unwitting participants.
Consider how films like "The Blair Witch Project" scared and upset a lot of younger people -- mostly teens -- who at the time believed it was really "found footage" and was real etc (the promotion of the film included marketing it as true, with a Web site that outright claimed it was authentic footage and the students were indeed missing etc), and yes there were a LOT of such people at the time of the film's release, and yes it added to the whole experience and aura surrounding the film.
I urge you to revisit your own review of "The Blair Witch Project" and "Borat", when you revisit your review of "I'm Still Here."
Ebert: Actually, my interest in the film has only been increasing. I feel no anger at all.
Again off topic. Hats off for including Jalsaghar in your second 100 greats--I thought, and still do, that one has to be Indian, if not Bengalee, to get the feel of this romantic melancholia.
Again off topic. Hats off for including Jalsaghar in your second 100 greats--I thought, and still do, that one has to be Indian, if not Bengalee, to get the feel of this romantic melancholia.
Ebert: Actually, my interest in the film has only been increasing.
Roger, I'm really curious about that reaction. It seems to me that their big reveal only serves to undermines the film's purpose for existing (I even wrote a blog entry about that very feeling earlier today). Now that I know for sure it's a hoax, I just don't see how the film can really add to the narrative that has been running for 18 months. I had planned to see the film until the hoax reveal spoiled it, but now you've got me curious again...
Why must we marginalize someone's afflictions simply because he or she is famous? Depression is ALWAYS a serious matter and does not discriminate. We should always be concerned and do our best to support them. If you want nothing to do with it, just leave them alone. It's a crippling condition and has taken the best of so many talented artists.
No one's marginalizing real depression, we're expressing the same Lindsay Lohan frustration we express to other celebrities who want to lead wacky self-destructive lives, fall into the expected pitfalls for which their work suffers, and STILL expect that they will have our never-ending love and support as the grant money for their unprofessional behavior.
In the old days of the vaudeville stage, there was a much more simple solution--The audience booed, the stage manager hoisted the performer off with The Hook, and if the performer was smart, he left town that very night. With the corporatizing of entertainment, such a direct option is no longer in the reach of the public.
Does Joaquin The Actor not want to act anymore? Does he still want to? Does he want to follow the Bill Murray/Jim Carrey approach and only act in self-fulfilling weirdo-quirky indies from now on?
Here's a simple solution for any actor facing such a crisis in his profession--Call it the Greta Garbo solution: Either ACT...or DON'T.
Don't feel the need to Make Statements, "strike back" at the industry, or otherwise justify personal-issue behavior...Don't go away mad, Joaquin, just go away. As the old saying goes, either wizz or get off the pot, but don't wizz on it.
Naturally, if you were to express such sentiments to a professional actor, he might take offense, saying that you were casting aspersions on the dictates of his profession.
Gee, why do entertainers always get so upset when an audience pulls rank on them and tells them to Know Their Place? Especially seeing as they don't seem to particularly have any other.
Roger,
Thoughtful piece as always. Thank you.
I'm torn. I respect Joaquin as an actor and was very concerned by the sudden change in his fortune and demeanor. This ... acting stunt, if you will, seemed like sensationalism on a different kind of level with its purpose two-fold: 1) to create a "built-in" audience and 2) reverse exploitation of the media.
Was this stunt really necessary to the film? I'm doubtful. It seems rough and experimental like a college project, which can be fun.
If Casey Affleck really wanted his project to initiate meaningful discussion, he could have done without the stunt. If your emphasis is on the stunt and involves a celebrity hungry media, of course the end result is what you see now.
I would watch Joaquin in almost anything and I commend Casey on his experimental spirit, but I am so fed up with our society's obsession with celebrity that this is one that I feel inclined to pass.
Man, many people don't seem to get movies but I'm glad Casey Affleck seems to. The point is not in the method but in the final product. Genius way to capture the 'reality' of a star slowly losing it, and everybody's reaction. People caring if it's real or not is just like caring if Inception is actually a dream or not. The point is that it is the reality of the character, and that is enough for them.
@ Sammy Glick: Good thing Phoenix got all cleaned up and successfully treated for his mental illness right before the film opened, huh?
@ Sam: David Letterman is a comedian. He's had a talk show for about 30 years now where he's enjoys making people uncomfortable with biting jokes, slick comments and odd facial expressions.
I'd like to propose an alternative possibility.
The film was real, Joaquin's renunciation of acting was real, his hip-hop attempts were real. Why it went on for so long was because he could not see the insanity of it all, and the people around him fail to speak truth to power, until the release of the film makes it obvious how much of a career-ending move this could be.
An intervention follows, finally his agents and managers knock some sense into Joaquin, and this PR offensive is a desperate step back from the cliff's edge.
I don't know. It seems that way to me.
It seems to me that people would be focusing on the movie itself, rather than the question of is it real or not and are we being hoaxed, if the makers had just been upfront about its fictional status from the beginning. The year of pretending it was real only truly accomplished the creation of a decoy controversy - and perhaps some public scenes that a higher budget could have made feasible without the big act.
Roger:A long ago wedding night at the Sunset Marquis
Damn, man, you were only down the hall that blessed evening when Music's golden voiced thrush, Tiny Tim, was so justly awarded Miss Vicki's virginity. I would have not forgotten the occasion either. It's worthy of mention in the memoirs.
Clip from the wedding-Johnny Carson Show
youtube.com/watch?v=HK3Us2R6K-Q
It is the future of cinema. From Land of Silence and Darkness through Trash Humpers and now this film, we are slowly beginning to acknowlege that we don't have a non-involved vantage point.
The Brits have done this for years, recognizing and promoting the fact that their documentaries have a position from the outset. Michael Moore (who I abhore) has never done a "straight" documentary, and if he weren't so willing to destroy the people around him, he too could claim status in this group.
But let's keep things on a higher level and wish Mr. Moore part of the wrath he inflicted on poor Bob Eubanks and wish Casey and Phoenix well in theirs.
Quote...Marie re:what is sexism;It's an observation of a well-known male dynamic, but as seen through the female gaze. And yes there's a difference.
So by your definition... it's impossible for a woman to be sexist. Interesting. Since you believe that it is a male dynamic you'll never have to consider it as a part of your own attitudes and opinions. That's a very safe place you've made for yourself.
Quote...Marie;Wow; your issues with women are just bottomless, Karl. :)
A meaningless counter and overdone. Meaningless because I'm not addressing "women" the group, I'm addressing "Marie" the individual. You, of course, are doing the opposite. Preferring to see someone as a gender first (David Letterman, Roger Ebert, me) and then assigning them your preconceived definitions.
Overdone because you add the word 'bottomless'. Even if you actually think I have issues you couldn't really believe they were bottomless. You just want to lash out a little bit. I do however appreciate your passive aggressive nature. The smiley face was great.
In regards to 'issues', readers will no doubt admire the irony of her projection.
Hi Roger,
Sorry to go off-topic (you don't need to publish this), but as the good Anglophile that you are you owe it to yourself to watch the BBC mini-series "Sherlock", a shockingly faithful adaptation of Sherlock Holmes' stories set in today's London. Watson is still a veteran from the Afghan war and now works at a NHS surgery, Holmes now checks blogs for tips rather than other cities' papers, and the two are naturally assumed to be a couple wherever they go. Mycroft, Moriarty and Lestrade are all in their respective places, too.
Three episodes, 90 minutes each, and I can't wait for the second season to arrive :)
I think Casey Affleck attempted to create an interesting commentary on the state of hollywood but ultimately fails. Society's attitude towards hollywood has been documented and filmed since at Sunset Blvd.
It's odd the way Casey describes the film; he can barely articulate why he made it and doesn't even know what the point is. That is what I'm left wondering, what was the point and did the film contribute anything besides speculation and perhaps the ruin of a very fine actor.(phoneix not affleck)
Shortly after I watched I'm still here I saw "To die for", a relevant film due it's mocking view on the media and the debut of phoneix and affleck. They an inane misdirected duo who are willing to do anything to become noticed; I am left wondering is art is the lie that tells the truth?
As to whether there is a difference between men and women where celebrity breakdown hoaxes are concerned-
A good deal of the reviews that expressed sincere concern for Joaquin Phoenix and anger at Casey Affleck came from female critics. Look at Dana Stevens' review in Slate for an example.
However, many of the compassionate reviews also came from male critics- and a number of female critics either said nothing at all about Phoenix's misery, had it all been real (like Manohla Dargis- but not that I blame her) or (well, somewhat understandably) called Phoenix a drunk, a drug addict, nuts, attention hungry, etc.
It isn't a male thing to pile onto someone in serious trouble or to ignore his troubles because of his horrendous behavior. It's a human thing.
As to Marie's comment about men being embarrassed to express sincere emotion and empathy only to have it turn out to be a hoax-
I'm a woman. I hate expressing empathy and kindness and then learning that it wasn't needed and was wasted on the wrong person.
It's not a male thing to feel like a schmuck when you've been lied to and fooled into expressing sympathy.
@ Agatha J. wrote on September 25, 2010 10:10 PM -
"It's not a male thing to feel like a schmuck when you've been lied to and fooled into expressing sympathy."
No, it's not. That's why the disparity caught my eye. Why I noticed it.
Based on what I've seen and read - both here in Canada and the United States, so too across the pond, "most" of the noise was male, most of the focus was on "who knew what, when and where?" and all that.
And the reason I'd noticed it, is because so few women seem to care about the topic. Which gave me pause for thought. Why is that? Why would it appeal more so to men? Why are they apparently talking about it more, and the focus of their interest on "who knew what, being fooled, etc, etc.
In the end, it seemed to be a case of guys reacting more so to certain stuff, a male dynamic in play, etc. And that was my observation.
@ Karl-Heinz wrote:
"So by your definition... it's impossible for a woman to be sexist. Interesting. Since you believe that it is a male dynamic..."
You misunderstand me. You often do.
I wrote this:
"It's an observation of a well-known male dynamic, but as seen through the female gaze. And yes there's a difference."
Men and women don't always see things in the same way. There is such a thing as the male gaze. So too, the female gaze or perspective. Roger has noticed it. He's written about it several times and in movie reviews which speak to it.
But all it amounts to at the end of the day, is that to a certain extent both genders are alike, and yet we've also got differences. Some are more flattering than others, in terms of how they come across or appear to others or etc.
I think a woman can be a sexist and by assuming that ALL men do the same stuff. They don't. That doesn't mean guys don't do stuff - they just don't do THE SAME stuff.
Where you get "Marie doesn't think a woman can be sexist" from that, is beyond me. Unless it's a case of semantics.
And this?
Wow; your issues with women are just bottomless, Karl. :)
No, I don't think you have bottomless issues with women, Karl. It was an intentional over-statement to avoid being taking tooseriously - as to my way of thinking, it borders on the ridiculous.
At the same time, it retains just enough bite, from my point of view, to convey I think the reason you responded was because the observation I'd made, was made by a woman.
I reasoned thus because Roger is never taken to task when he says stuff about men. Which he does in his entry. He asks Cassey about male bloggers. Not a flattering portrait, eh? But it doesn't make it less valid and he's also speaking about what he's personally observed. Which is no less than what I'd done. So?
@ Martin G wrote on September 25, 2010 6:38 PM
"Hi Roger, Sorry to go off-topic (you don't need to publish this), but as the good Anglophile that you are you owe it to yourself to watch the BBC mini-series "Sherlock"..."
GASP!
Are you a member of the Ebert Club?! If not, dude, you need to join the Ebert Club, 'cause I'm all over this! I've been championing the series and Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock, etc.
I've seen the 3 episodes including the un-aired original pilot. I told club members BBC Sherlock was due to air on PBS at the end of October and included a trailer and photos and cool stuff. :)
I wouldn't want to watch a documentary about an actor, liked or not, 'disintegrating'. I was concerned for Joaquin, but totally not interested in his new direction, and contemptuous of it... that's not to say I wished him ill, it's just that I don't care for rap "music" (I call 'rap' a 'performance art' as there's no melody, of which we sing. And it seems too often full of anger.) Not a subject I care to revel in... if it had been painting or some such other art, then it would have been more appealing to me to see the struggle to obtain a level of success. The rap world is too entwined with the 'hype', like 'the media', of shock for sales sake.
If Joaquin was giving a 'performance'... deliberately deceiving the public, I don't care to watch that much either... except to see either how cruel or how compassionate others/media received him as a floundering artist ... but that's still not something I look forward to viewing.
It either reminds too much of Andy Kaufman or smacks of a practical joke on the public. So I look forward to more 'mainstream' performances from Joaquin, and not continued deceptions or wallowing in media treatment.
It's the media that fans these cruel critiques/jokes... fueling sales by shock value (like rap), endless repetition of which is disappointing... for example, Entertainment Tonight or The Insider... both of which manage to cram 5 minutes of "news" into half an hour... with no conscience at all.
Just a couple things.
One: anytime someone complains about lack of concern for apparently flailing celebrities, it reminds me of the line from "A Bronx Tale": "Mickey Mantle don't care about you. Why should you care about him?"
It's not the same as denying them any kind of human compassion; they're still people and we need to keep that in mind, but it's not my responsability to be concerned for Joaquin Pheonix, nor yours. It's up to the people he's cared mutually for. Taking advantage of the downfall is different and indeed ugly.
Two: The question of reality is inherantly bigger and more immediate than further artistic consideration. It's silly to do something like this and expect people to merely engage the potential ideas at hand. In that case, what's the point of bluring reality in the first place? Last I checked, obvious fiction has rarely been the bane of ideas.
Honestly, I just doubt the movie has very much to give. If the gimmick is this big a deal, and the ideas have yet to matter much, what's to suggest otherwise?
I remember the episode where he went on letterman in his "character" as they called it. Well, I didn't believe at all then that it was real, but they were so adamant about it that I stayed quiet and waited. I knew there was a punchline. With the release of I'm Still Here, that was my just deserts I have to say.
Joaquin Phoenix has always been one of my favorite actors -- to tell the truth, the entire Phoenix family has. River Phoenix was my favorite actor in "Stand By Me," which consequently is one of my favorite movies of all time.
I wrote a more in depth view on my own site, if you should care to read it.
http://sincerelyanubis.com/index.php/2010/09/23/dear-joaquin-phoenix-casey-affleck/
"Film critics as a group are skilled at judging the authenticity of films."
No more than a 6-year old is at deciding what flavor of pudding is best for his pallet. Give me a break. There is no "skill" in giving your opinion. If it weren't for the countless number of sheeple, you wouldn't have a career. Also, stop with the psycho-analytical deliberations on the lives of actors. It's just a movie - one that will be forgotten two weeks after it's issued on dvd.
Ebert: If you read carefully, you'll see I wasn't writing about giving an opinion, but about judging the authenticity of films.
Marie Haws,
"Roger wrote that. It hardly flatters men. Yet I don't see anyone taking issue with it."
You can't say any of those things about my blog.
You may be right about the competition thing to whatever extent. Me, I'd like to figure out the secrets of the universe; so I guess you could say that yeah, I'm some extreme male (although, I never saw it as a competition, but as something great that man or women scientist want to know about): anyway, perhaps there is some male "problem-solving" thing going on (I don't get a lot of sleep, hence, the rambling).
However, having seen my share of misery in life and was traumatized by it, I told myself that in trying to discover the secrets of the universe it had to be something felt down here on Earth; saying that we're all floating in space doesn't do much for down here on Earth probably because we're very similar to animals in the sense that what happens up in space ain't matterin' much down here. So, as the fact that we're all in some kind of floating miracle doesn't do anything to bring us together, the problem I solved MUST bring people together. Science in order to bring people together; it's got to not only be something great on the large cosmic-spacial magnitude but it's got to be something that affects the very small (as Stephen Hawking claims to be doing): but by small I mean people, not just atoms etc; I mean us.
So, now that I've figured it out, that there is an exact rhythm to universe that I've discovered, I think I'm quite happy with that. That alone has the potential to bring us together. You look at any person no matter what they look like and you can say "he's on the same comfortable rhythm in the universe that we're all on" and I think a lot of the problems in the world might come from the fact that we're not on rhythm. If we spread the word around about this rhythm, then people will be more connected to each other. All the illusion comes crashing down about our differences because we've found that the illusion is comfortable and is good: and the rhythm is the key to all of the scientific solutions as well. If I or anyone discovers WHY it is THAT PARTICULAR RHYTHM, then every single scientific mystery will unravel after that. We'll solve cancer: everything.
Marie Haws,
Correction to this quote:
You look at any person no matter what they look like and you can say "he's on the same comfortable rhythm in the universe that we're all on" and I think a lot of the problems in the world might come from the fact that we're not on rhythm.
Let's replace "he" with "they"
You can look at any person no matter what they look like and you can say "they are on the same comfortable rhythm in the universe..."
I just came up with a new word today.
Why is there a word for livable but not diable?
My new blog entry on the illusion of our differences, when you click on my name.
Google looks at 106 factors when ranking your site. No one except Google knows them all. People like me study and report what we learn. I have blogs, articles and a podcast that teaches SEO. All for free.
I may rent this when I see it on DVD, but I may not. It seems gimmicky. I guess, too easily, I can see these two guys trying to increase their star-power by doing something slightly shocking and wacky. I would prefer being wrong - that they were more motivated by illuminating life through art - and I acknowledge that Joaquin deservedly has insight into the tormented lives of artists. Furthermore, I bet Joaquin does feel pigeon-holed as being a certain 'type' of actor.
Nevertheless, I suspect a lot of people go into acting because they are good at it, think they can make money, enjoy it, have a passion for it, crave attention, and a host of other reasons that have nothing to do with being a tormented artist. If the price to pay for fulfilling these motivations is celebrity, than so be it. In this climate of unemployment, I don't think it's going to be easy to garner much sympathy for celebrities gnashing their teeth about celebrity. Of course being rich and famous isn't easy for all; being poor and obscure doesn't always sit well either. If you don't like it, JD Salinger-off. Life is not fair and dwelling on the hard times of stars, at this moment, comes off as self-indulgent and already played.
We have already had the pre-Reality TV version of Marlon Brando. Kaufman explored this genre. Furthermore, more and more people are sceptical that publicists and agents spin public personas of celebrities like Tiger Woods. And who wouldn't act differently in front of a camera when it means money? This cult of celebrity has a well-funded and well-advertised stranglehold. Don't expect it to disappear since it makes money from the next best thing to nothing.
An eccentric person does something eccentric? Who cares? I think the rules show that you need to have breasts and act like a beautiful idiot for most people to care. Men routinely perish beholden to their risk-taking natures that also deliver boldness and success. Male burn outs are natural and don't engender compassion. Poor Owen Wilson... he didn't have breasts and most people didn't give a toss (or buy a tabloid) when he was in real trouble. Rather cynically, I bet the same will be said about Joaquin.
funny how so many people seem to be all bent out of shape, or don't care, or have lots of criticizing to do and yet haven't seen the movie.
Quote...Marie;@ Karl-Heinz wrote: "So by your definition... it's impossible for a woman to be sexist. Interesting. Since you believe that it is a male dynamic..."
You misunderstand me. You often do.
Not to nitpick….but I often misunderstand you? Again with the intentional over-statement I'll assume. I’ve made perhaps 5 or 6 comments directed your way in all the time I’ve been here and as far as I remember this is the first time I’ve ever interpreted what you're saying. Of the other comments, the only ones I can remember are - I love your artwork, or that I agree with you on this or that. I think we would need to talk “often” for me to “often” misunderstand you.
Quote…Marie;I wrote this: "It's an observation of a well-known male dynamic, but as seen through the female gaze. And yes there's a difference."
Quote…Marie;Where you get "Marie doesn't think a woman can be sexist" from that, is beyond me.
You don’t see how your definition leads to that conclusion? Really?
I didn’t misunderstand you. You were perfectly clear as to your definition of sexism. You disagree that "Sexism is an attitude towards a person based on that person's gender rather than on objective knowledge". You think it is a male dynamic. Not a female dynamic or a human dynamic, you believe it to be a male dynamic. You go on to say as seen through the female gaze. So your definition is clear, you believe sexism is something men do and women observe. Your definition of sexism is wrong. You even agree with me in your later posts…
Quote…Marie;I think a woman can be a sexist and by assuming that ALL men do the same stuff
So it is not a male dynamic if women can also be guilty of it and it’s not something that is only seen through the female gaze . Sexism is a human dynamic that is present in both genders and observed by both genders. For example, I observed it in your original post and called you on it. Now that I have, you are beginning to backpeddle but I encourage everyone to reread Marie first comment By Marie Haws on September 23, 2010 6:18 PM
Quote…Marie;Men compete with one another for everything. And why their first thought is often how to best the other fellow and win the race and claim top spot in the pecking order; no one wanting to be the guy on the bottom.
Notice above, how Marie (now) agrees that woman can be sexist by assuming that ALL men do the same stuff, quickly forgetting that she is guilty of that very thing, stating… MEN compete with one another for everything…. THEIR first thought is often how to best the other fellow….. NO ONE (male) wanting to be the GUY on the bottom. I give you three examples but reread her first and second posts and you’ll see her comments are riddled with them….”As children, BOYS play at trying to kill one another”, etc. Not some boys, or most boys, just boys. I suppose if a boy comes along and reads that comment he may feel strange and different if he isn’t doing what all the other male children are supposedly doing (according to Marie). Little boy thinking…”this adult says boys (not some boys….just boys) play at trying to kill one another, I better start doing that…I don’t want to be different”.
Quote…Marie;I think it's sexist to say: "all men are" fill in the blank.
Well, you certainly filled in a lot of blanks so far Marie.
You’ve constructed some stereotypes, little signs that are supposed to apply to ALL men. With these stereotypes firmly in place it’s no wonder that you comes to her conclusions. No wonder David Letterman is “stung and rattled”.. no wonder Roger Ebert is “focused on the fear of being taken for a ride, fooled, etc”. Why do they feel this way according to Marie? Because they were born with a penis, that’s why. It’s a reaction stemming from the male ego, she claims. Not Roger’s movie critic ego, or David Lettermans famous talk show host ego, or New Yorker ego. No no, it’s their maleness that has to drive and define their reactions. Here the complicated individual is replaced by a simple, easy to remember strawman. Men are this, he’s a man, therefore that is why he reacts the way he does.
Quote...Marie;At the same time, it retains just enough bite, from my point of view, to convey I think the reason you responded was because the observation I'd made, was made by a woman.
Yes, of course you think that. Because you see the world through a gender lens, as pointed out above. Therefore, you have no choice but to assign the same bias to everyone else. You take comfort in the quote from Roger and assume you're just taking the same line but don't recognize his qualifiers..."MANY of the snarkier web sites SEEM to be run by men (HARDLY ever women) who, I THINK, take pleasure in the troubles of others". Compare this to your "Men compete with one another for everything..." paragraph. Devoid of qualifiers, it becomes a sexist statement of judgement and that's why I called you out on it and not him.
Quote...Marie;From what I've seen, most of the noise about the film and Phoenix's performance off-screen is coming from men, and they're mostly focused on the fear they've been taken for a ride, fooled, etc.
Yes, of course you've seen that. Of the 104 reviews on rottentomatoes 17 were done by women. That proportion is probably typical of all the people generating 'noise' about the film. The idea that their opinion is focused on a fear that they've been taken for a ride is your own stereotype that you're assigning to them. With all bias, our internal antenna become tuned to pick up those tidbits which reinforce our predetermined conclusions. So while you hear with great clarity the "sound of wounded ego or pride" in Roger's review, you are probably deaf to these two reviews which express the same sentiment.
I think whether you watch this film as a documentary or a mockumentary, it carries much of the same message. Celebrity strips individuals of identity and is destructive in that respect, and there is little or no empathy from the public--especially the media--for the consequences. It also begs the every man question: If someone attempted to truly change who they are, would those around them buy the change? Yet another relevant question, whether the film is a piece of fiction or non fiction. I think people are entirely too caught up in the legitimacy of the film. Whether or not the film is legitimate as a documentary, the performances and the message(s) are legitimate. That should be all that matters.
As proprietor of nitpicking.com, I must point out: "pursue" a musical career, not "peruse". I must assume that this error is either Affleck's or some editor's, not Ebert's. I would bet large sums that Ebert knows both words.
Karl-Heinz,
I think Marie is trying to come at this from a place of established facts about men and women and perhaps is trying to dig a little deeper into the male's side of the "brouhaha" as she called it.
What she said may be accurate.
But perhaps what would be more accurate in what she said is that we're ALL competitive but men are more so than women; I think that might be a better middle ground here and probably is the truth, as we all experience envy.
Karl Heinz,
Also, you will never win an argument with a women; it's just not going to happen, probably because their emotional I.Q. is far greater than ours; they are quicker. While you are still trying to think of the emotion you had a minute ago, they've already went in emotional circles around you 5 times.
The movies themselves often make the best commentary on celebrity, public response to the behavior and apparent health of the very rich, and the art (and con) of pretense. For that reason, I defer to a scene in Enchanted April to describe how my disappointment for Joaquin Phoenix has turned to relief:
Lady Caroline: I am well.
Mrs. Fisher: Then why did you send a message that you were ill?
Lady C: I didn't.
Mrs. F: Then I've had all the trouble of coming out here for nothing.
Lady C: (smiling) But wouldn't you prefer coming out and finding me well than coming out and finding me ill?
"...THAT PARTICULAR RHYTHM..." Keith Carrizosa
And what, pray, is that rhythm?
I agree with some on here that Casey seems to be forgiving of those who are in on the joke and make fun of Joaquin, but unforgiving when other people take the cue from the stars--Ben Stiller, David Letterman, etc, in on it or not, seem to get away with making fun of Joaquin though leading others to do it. As someone else said, It's disingenuous.
Also, Affleck's dismisses James' anger at having "Two Lovers" marketed properly, by saying, in effect, no one would have gone to "Two Lovers" anyway. If I were James, I'd be mad at Magnolia. Phoenix hurt the film. In the same way that Tom Cruise hurts his films....
This reminds me of Christian youth who "play" homeless and come into their church to test everyone's reaction to the homeless... and then get to chastise everyone about their "bad" behavior when the deception actually affects the reactions.... people were upset because they felt like it was a hoax. The hoax affected people's behavior--this is the Heisenberg Principle in a bottle.
Roger, the inventor of Segway did not die. The man who died only bought the company last year. Can you please fix your tweet?
Ebert: Fixed.
By S M Rana on September 27, 2010 12:34 AM
click on my name.
But in case you don't, it's 138 beats per minute.
The universe drums at that rhythm; absolutely everything in the world!
That alone should help us observe things in science to figure things out.
As anyone can see from my clicking on my name, I like to reach out for anyone who is being scapegoated as an outcast or what have you; that's what I live for.
So, my only response to the Joaquin thing was "hey, everyone who is not trying to reach out and help him, take it easy."
Someone mentioned how no one cared about Owen Wilson, but it was quite the contrary with me; when I was in the grocery store and I saw the disgustingly sensationalized words "Owen Wilson Suicide", I literally thought that if he can't make it in this world then I can't and God is officially dead etc., and then I just took a little closer look and looked for any key words that said he was alive, which I found, and then I said "whew" and then went on with my business; I didn't care about anything else that happened except that he's all right and still don't.
About that last comment, it's not that I really felt that I couldn't go on, it's just I think that it didn't seem right, and the tabloids seem to take perverse pleasure in loving what's wrong.
Looking at this and the other enrty about The Crash of the Phoenix, I was reminded of something I found quite unexpectedly wheen I started collecting ancient TV on video.
Back in 1952, ABC had a series on Friday nights called Tales Of Tomorrow. This was a live anthology produced in association with the Science Fiction Writers of America.
On this particular Friday night, the announced episode was called "The Lost Planet". After the opening title and first commercial, the play began with a scientist and his daughter talking with mounting concern about --
Suddenly the picture broke up, and viewers found themselves looking at three people sitting at a table in a cold-water flat. One of them, highly drunk, was berating his wife as loudly and nastily as possible, while a sober friend was trying to calm him down.As this was going on, we heard the guys in the control booth saying things like "This isn't our station!" and "What's going on here?"
After a few minutes, the picture broke up again and we were back in the studio, where the bewildered actors and crew were wondering what the hell had just happened. They're about to start the play over when the picture breaks up again and we're back watching the people at the table, their argument getting louder.
Another few minutes and we're back in the studio.The crew decides to stop the play and make an announcement, but midway through that there's another breakup and we're back at the table again.
After the next return to the studio, the ad agency representative demands that they run the regularly scheduled commercial for Kreisler watchbands. The announcer comes front and center to do the spiel, but just before he finishes, back we go to the table, and the increasingly loud exchange between the drunken husband, his put-upon wife, and the sober friend.
The crew, while watching the break-ins, gradually realizes that the wife and the friend are planning to kill the drunk husband. Now the question is, will the police believe that the people in the studio are actually seeing people in an apartment perhaps miles from the studio.
Finally, the producer and a network guy decide to call the cops, but while they're doing that, there's one last break-in - The deed has been done; the drunk husband is dead. The apartment transmission ends, we're back in the studio, and the cops arrive.
Music up and over, and the announcer tells us that we've been watching "The Window", by Frank DeFelitta. As the credits roll we learn that the crew and tech people of ABC were playing themselves, as were the show's producer and director and the network exec (Robert Lewine, who was ABC's programming boss at the time). Also credited were the actors who played the people in the apartment; the sober friend was the then-unknown Rod Steiger.
This episode aired live in 1952, announced as "The Lost Planet", with no indication of what the real story was going to be about (I have a copy of TV Forecast magazine for that week to prove this).
I believe this program is available on DVD, along with other Tales Of Tomorrow episodes. I still have the VHS tape, and I look at it from time to time and wonder why I'd never heard of this show prior to seeing the tape.I know ABC had very limited reach in 1952 (only half as many affiliates as NBC or CBS), but you'd think a stunt like this would have become legendary in TV history. A tree fell, but no one was there to see it.
I know this doesn't really have anything to do with The Falling of the Leaf (Inside joke there: Joaquin used to go by Leaf Phoenix), but it is an interesting story.
*isn't it?*
Ebert: The entire program is online at Hulu:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/70160/tales-of-tomorrow-the-window
The friend at the kitchen table was Rod Steiger.
Dumb, real dumb to release this film in particular during opening weeks of Fantasy Football. $ix million men right now are all face down in FF. Maybe someone at Magnolia Pictures should have $tudied male trend$ more thoroughly.
Affleck: I wish people hadn't debated so much the films veracity or authenticity, hadn't asked only and dully, "Is this real?"
The question may be dull, but it does influence how I experience a film.
Hoop Dreams, Jesus Camp, Capturing the Friedmans, Southern Comfort would not have provoked as much thought, nor stirred as much emotion if they were pieces of fiction.
I saw the film at TIFF (a few aisles away from pseudo Phoenix in bad wig, shouting to the audience). Suspecting it a "performance" rather than a doc actually did not matter in the end. I was initially fascinated and then, disappointingly, incredibly bored. The deception has become more interesting than the actual film.
Well, back to the topic,
In the movie "Eight Days A Week", which Roger called "enormously entertaining, (and from the director of "Shoot'em Up"), the friend of the main character who is very open about his sex life and other things, mentions how some people just have The Asshole Gene and some don't.
I'm not sure if he mentioned if Most people had the Asshole Gene or not, but maybe most do have it; I don't know.
All I know is I definitely don't have it, as my life is like a litany of being messed with by the people with the Asshole Gene, and maybe that's what's wrong with the world: there's mostly people with the Asshole Gene out there.
I'm not taking this too seriously, but at the same time, I know I don't have it and have experienced my share of those who seem to have it.
In preschool, I remember some kids snook up on my with a handful of dirt to throw in my eyes, which I just couldn't comprehend and am still trying to comprehend it.
Maybe that speech Anthony Hopkins gave in "Nixon" can help explain it, the script of which is online and so now here it is:
NIXON
I think that's when it starts. When
you're a kid. The laughs and snubs
and slights you get because you're
poor or Irish or Jewish or just ugly.
But if you're intelligent, and your
anger is deep enough and strong
enough, you learn you can change these
attitudes by excellence, gut
performance, while those who have
everything are sitting on their fat
butts ...
(then)
But then when you get to the top, you
find you can't stop playing the game
the way you've always played it
because it's a part of you like an arm
or a leg. So you're lean and mean and
you continue to walk the edge of the
precipice, because over the years
you've become fascinated by how close
you can get without falling
But what was the point of the exercise, except to prove that some people have a lot of time on their hands, but not enough cleverness?
Even in high school, there was a girl who slapped me in an advanced class, and who I just met in my junior year.
I had my head down waiting for class to begin and she said "you look dead" and I just gave her a look like "I feel dead" and then she just kept going on about it and I rolled my eyes and then she just slapped me, which I thought was just kind of funny, though I didn't show it, because of how seriously she thought she was teaching me some manners.
It's also funny because I know that the kids in the non-advanced classes would never slap anybody, particularly someone they'd just met.
Another thing I was thinking of doing about the girl who slapped me was telling someone, but I thought, I don't want to hurt this girl's future; I'm just not like that.
Reply to: Men compete with one another for everything. And why their first thought is often how to best the other fellow and win the race and claim top spot in the pecking order; no one wanting to be the guy on the bottom. And if you ever want to see the male ego on full display, gather a bunch of writers together and stick them in a room. :) - Marie
Reply to: you will never win an argument with a women; it's just not going to happen, probably because their emotional I.Q. is far greater than ours; they are quicker. While you are still trying to think of the emotion you had a minute ago, they've already went in emotional circles around you 5 times. - Keith
I've been thinking about the new version of "Roger Ebert presents At the Movies.."
the original was based on a relationship between Gene and Roger. Audiences liked seeing the relationship.
My suggestion? Two female film critics who can keep up to each other, and occasionally, get ahead of the men in the audience. (Who are watching baseball on the other channel, anyway.)
For the PBS audience, that seems like the relationship they could get behind. Two women who come from different places (but in Chicago?) and disagree about film?
I wonder if Marilyn von Sant knows anything about movies?
I had a question about your recent tweet, which is about something you say a lot: which is that you keep saying that people don't know what a scientific theory is?
I assume you are talking about people who are "intelligent design" advocates, or to put it another way, people who always like to say that evolution is not "proven."
Are those the people you mean, or is there some other people you are also referring to, because I don't see how anyone can not know that?
I find that kind of stupidity hypnotic if it you have found there are people out there who don't know what it is.
Mr. Ebert, it appears to me that you've lived your life so long in the artificial world of Hollywood that you not only can't relate to the Real World, you've actually convinced yourself that nothing outside of the movie industry even exists. I note that you (once again) go on the rampage against "snarky websites" who have articles by people who dare question the Divinity of Actors or the Infallibility of anyone who has a job in the Entertainment Industry. I find myself wondering: would it be possible for you, with your own mortality so clearly manifesting itself, to finally pull your head out of your backside and realize that Hollywood is not an alter, and the rest of us are not required to worship at it?
For a very brief moment, you came near to something like honesty in your original review of "I'm Still Here", when you said you'd be angry if the movie were a hoax. However, now faced with the fact that it IS a hoax, you're back to doing what you always do: kissing the butts of the people involved, and blaming the rest of the planet for being so "snarky" and "wanting to see people fail". Yeah, well excuse us for actually feeling the anger that you only pretended to feel. I guess your "anger" went away the moment you thought you could snuggle up to Casey Affleck and join him in sniggering over how stupid everyone was for believing their lie.
Ebert: Written like someone who knows what snarky is and doesn't at all mind seeing people fail. And with bad manners.
You say that "Casey (glad you're on a first-name basis with him now, bro) seems quite sincere".
...yeah, and exactly what you thought about him BEFORE he admitted it was a hoax. Have you ever stopped to consider that you're not a very good judge of character?
Ebert: Many a time.
Karl;
A great deal is taken for granted when women talk amongst themselves and for it being understood. Certain things are considered "common knowledge" and are based on eons of shared experiences. At least that's why I don't constantly stop to qualify my terms - I simply assume that most men don't need to be reassured of the following:
Not all men rape.
Not all men cheat.
Not all men lie.
Not all men are pedophiles.
Not all men beat the wife, kids and the dog.
Not all men are misogynistic.
Not all men are homophobic.
Not all men are aggressive.
Not all men like guns.
Not all men etc etc etc.
And all that goes without saying if you're a woman. At least I've never had to recite that list to another woman when talking about the behavior of men. And because WHAT I'm talking about qualifies how plural the term is meant to be taken.
If you're talking about homophobia for example, and you say: "men have more of an issue with homosexuality than women do" - the term MEN only applies to men who have that issue. It doesn't mean that you're literally speaking about 3 billion total strangers.
Here's an observation about men, by Roger:
"Few movies have been so deliberately told from a woman's point of view. We are informed in all those best-sellers about Mars and Venus, that a man looks for beauty and a woman for security. But a man also looks for autonomy, power, independence and authority, and a woman in 16th century Venice (and even today) is expected to surrender those attributes to her husband. The woman regains her power through an understanding of the male libido: A man in a state of lust is to all intents and purposes hypnotized. Most movies are made by males and show women enthralled by men. This movie knows better." - Roger Ebert, from his review of Dangerous Beauty
I don't see anyone taking issue with that, and it's just as much an observation of gender and behavior. True; it's from 1998, but I think people can see my point.
I think you're being a literal-minded nit-picker, Karl, and for reasons of your own.
I suspect part of the problem this movie faces at this point is no matter what people were willing to believe before the truth became known, was ANYONE really surprised after-the-fact that it wasn't for real?
After all, the fiercely symbiotic relationship between the apparatus of celebrity and the media for generations has mostly been about shaping and controlling image. Does anyone really take anything asserted in the media about a celebrity at face value?
And that question segues into the larger problem, which is that its known to be fiction, does the movie really explore its theme in any stunningly original or compelling way, especially compared to genuine train wrecks such as Britney Spears a few years ago, and Lindsay Lohan as we speak?
Or is it going to be remembered as a one trick pony?
-Matt
Bill Hays,
not a bad idea.
ill tell you an idea for a movie that i think has academy award winner and masterpiece written all over it.
i have an idea for a movie about two lovers who live their life like it is art.
their life is a masterpiece.
that's all i want to say now, but i have ideas.
Obviously it takes someone who knowssomething about great art to make it
Ebert,
You and I (and perhaps we should throw Casey into the pile as well) seem to belong to an increasingly small group of people who seem to appreciate this film as what it is. As was pointed out in your interview, there was no hoax. Affleck wanted to make a film that portrayed the American media and cult of celebrity in a frank and honest light but, like many of us, he wasn't sure exactly what the media "honestly" was. So how do you find out? You capture what they had to say honestly and you feed it back verbatim.
It almost gives you the sense that he would have shut the world off from it if he could. He would have hung a sign telling us filming was in progress just one foot behind where the press would ever see it. He would have told us everything was okay.
Sadly, I don't think he needed to tell us it was all okay. I don't think anyone cared if it was all okay and I think that was the message. Public outings that made huge spectacles of Phoenix got media attention. They were the butt of America's jokes but they were noticed. The times that I thought about Phoenix most, the times America should have thought about Phoenix most, were when months went by with no spectactle made. No music released, no acting announced, no signs of any improvement or even that he was getting worse. Just a sense that we wouldn't see much more from the talent.
If we couldn't make fun of him or celebrate his return we just didn't care. He could just exist and we could just ignore it. Thats a bit sad, a bit profound, and a bit hard to piece together. I suspect it will continue to be hard (if not impossible) to piece together for a couple of years to come. We almost need Affleck to stand up and volunteer his time for I'm Still Here 2: Electric Boogaloo so we can sit and watch a neat two hour package of the aftermath. Of the media explaining itself and the film explaining what it ended up saying, if it said anything at all.
I enjoyed this film, even watching it with the knowledge that it wasn't necessarily "real". That shouldn't affect me or my opinions on the movie. The movie isn't about me, its about all of us and the way we make our society work. I tend to agree with Affleck, this almost would have worked better if he'd explained himself before the premiere.
I feel a bit ignoble doing this, but its something I have to do: please spare 10 seconds to visit this link and click the 'I Like This' button:
http://www.filmnation.org.uk/watch/film/ekins-shots
If me and my friends get 100 more votes by the end of the month then the film gets shown at the 2012 Olympics (we're all under 18s).
Also, since I'm selling here, you might enjoy this film I wrote the poem for:
http://vimeo.com/12014741
It was featured on the regional BBC news show North West Tonight in England.
I liked the interview with Casey Affleck, you brought out all the essential problems surrounding the film that needed settling.
I'd reserve the description of Letterman as a genius though.
Sorry- I know this is off-topic, but you aren't going to stop adding films to the Great Movies canon... are you? I grew up with that list.
Ebert: In the process of writing my memoirs, I have fallen behind in both the Great Movies and the Answer Man, but resolve to get back in gear.
concern for a character, real or imagined, is the parsed goal of any film. that mr. ebert voiced this concern, that he was made to, speaks to the right of the film and its world to exist.
because it is celebrity, and because we exist within those parameters as viewers, it is made more poignant that in the past river phoenix gave such a speech in 'stand by me' enough to make most men remember as boys that they were still. in paraphrase- (did you just ever want to get away and go somewhere where no one knows who you are, or where you came from...)
***
the ghost of joaquin phoenix
***
might stand
by you
middle of
some warehouse
sells
any video
mourned
its case.
(more @ celebrityghosts.wordpress.com)
What should be my goal in life?
Quote…Marie; If you're talking about homophobia for example, and you say: "men have more of an issue with homosexuality than women do" - the term MEN only applies to men who have that issue. It doesn't mean that you're literally speaking about 3 billion total strangers.
Again, you’re backpeddling and avoiding your original statement by trying to rephrase it in non-offensive language. If only that was your first instinct back when you wrote the original post. To paraphrase and compare….
It’s as if you had said…
-Men have an issue with homosexuality.
Instead of…
-Men have more of an issue with homosexuality than women do.
The first version is sexist, obviously wrong and silly. This mirrors your language. The second is not automatically sexist because it could very well be true, it’s a matter of statistics, not gender.
Huge difference.
Like if you heard a man talking and he said “Women can’t drive. The reason they can’t drive is based on their need to look pretty – thus – they become distracted by looking into the mirror and applying makeup”.
You, as a woman, would no doubt call this person out on their sexism. You might start by saying the first point is not a fact at all. Perhaps he would defend himself by saying “oh I don’t literally mean all 3 billion women on the planet, when I say Women can’t drive I’m obviously only talking about the women who can’t – this is understood amongst men, it goes without saying – pity you just don’t get it. I never have to explain these things to my guy friends”. I guess you would accept this answer Marie. I wouldn’t. He started by stating something as fact that clearly isn’t a fact. He then laid out an explanation based on his sexism and bias.
So please Marie, stop rationalizing. Accept that your original post was sexist, at least to yourself. Wouldn’t you rather suffer the fleeting embarrassment of admitting you were wrong then to actually BE wrong? Sadly, most people wouldn’t. Men do not compete with one another about everything. That’s not even close to being true. The first thought of men is not how to best the other fellow and win the race. You’re speaking in stereotype and it’s rubbish. Your gut instinct towards sexism is that it is something men do and women observe. You’re wrong. You disagree that sexism is an attitude towards a person based on that person's gender rather than on objective knowledge. You’re wrong again.
I am so glad I stopped by your blog today, because I'm 'way behind in the controversy about this film. I saw it last week, via cable, and was devastated by it. I couldn't believe it was real and yet I suspected, up until that last walk in the river, that it might be. So my initial reaction was simply, "PUT THE CAMERA DOWN AND HELP THIS MAN!"
Now that I know that it was a work of "fiction," I will have to re-evaluate it more systematically. I do know that there were moments that didn't ring true to me somehow, intuitively, but I was never able to decide whether I was being deceived or pulled into a world so tortured that I didn't really want to watch the whole thing.
Early verdict? On the one hand, it's brilliant guerilla "movie making." On the other...the story itself, the premise, is almost a cliche in this day and age--it doesn't say anything we don't already know about The Business of Show and the people in it. But...incredible performance, and they GOT me, to be sure!
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
brilliant!!!!!! Absolutely amazing!
We have been watching this movie for over a year now, watching it unfold, trying to figure what happened to JP! I truely didnt know what the hell was going on.
I didn't know the truth until after I had watched the movie. My only doubt about the events that transpired was, I couldnt marry his current role in this epic character (Im Still here)with the person Ive seen in all his prior movies. Most people, specially actors do pull from their experiences and you can see the transition from that to their current role (Perspective). Anyways
This film took things to so many different levels, haha. In the end, a lot of people are looking at themselves and the role they took part in all of this.
wow, nicely done:) Also, I am happy he didnt turn out like that, He is once of my fave's and I do enjoy his performances.
About the movie "Dangerous Beauty", I'm pretty certain I have that film.
I have literally about 200 movies I bought but haven't watched yet.
Maybe that will be the next one to watch.
Karl-Heinz,
You keep quoting Marie Haws original comment, but you neglect to quote the last sentence of it, which was the following:
"Affleck and Phoenix handed everyone a rope, and more hung themselves with it than not; callousness easier than compassion and because it's faster and takes less effort."
I didn't mention this at first because it was over.
But if you wanted a qualifier there's one right there: it says "More" hung themselves with it than not; that means that she directly expressed that it was not ALL men.
Karl-Heinz,
You obviously didn't read the WHOLE comment very carefully.
Karl-Heinz,
You should have just accepted my advice and backed out of the argument.
I'd like to hear what Roger thought about the veracity of the movie Catfish. I was inspired to find out more about the movie after reading the Ebert review... It appears most observers have indicated their belief that the "Angela" character is a 'real' person and not an actress, even if the assertions of the documentary itself were not entirely true. However, the commenters in this blog piece have apparently unearthed evidence that the Angela character is a filmmaker and actress or at least is not in reality at all the person she portrays in the film. http://www.movieline.com/2010/01/does-sundance-sensation-catfish-have-a-truth-problem.php?page=all (see the posts by ASLI OMUR in the comments)
karl and marie, sitting in a tree...
@ Karl;
"Again, you’re back-peddling and avoiding your original statement by trying to rephrase it in non-offensive language."
I wrote a post and you took exception to how I'd worded it. You thought I was being sexist. I disagreed.
Thinking it was a case of semantics, I tried to explain myself better and used examples and drew parallels - even quoted a paragraph from one of Roger's reviews: Dangerous Beauty. As it struck me as similar to how I'd put things: ie: our terms are figurative. Not literal.
Your reaction?
I'm accused now of back-peddling. Sigh.
I saw something and observed it. I didn't employ literal-minded terms in my post because it didn't seem necessary in face of the obvious:
Unless you've actually met every single man on the planet, you can't literally say they all do the same stuff. Ergo, any observation of behavior (male or female) could only ever extend to a percentage, never the whole.
I think I'm guilty of assuming too much in your case, but no more than that.
Thanks for this level-headed interview. I would have been less objective.
And I am glad to know that I can watch Gladiator again now, without the subtext of Joaquin's "downslide."
Roger, I'm teaching movie reviews at part of my first-year writing class, and in class, I use footage from Siskel and Ebert, as well as your reviews, as models. Love your work... thanks so much!
Karl and Marie: stop comparing penis sizes.
Quote...Marie;I think I'm guilty of assuming too much in your case, but no more than that.
And Agatha's. And I'm sure many other people.
Quote...Agatha;It isn't a male thing to pile onto someone in serious trouble or to ignore his troubles because of his horrendous behavior. It's a human thing.
As to Marie's comment about men being embarrassed to express sincere emotion and empathy only to have it turn out to be a hoax-
I'm a woman. I hate expressing empathy and kindness and then learning that it wasn't needed and was wasted on the wrong person.
It's not a male thing to feel like a schmuck when you've been lied to and fooled into expressing sympathy.
You saw a male dynamic that wasn't at play anywhere but in your own head. I'm sure if you had read the reviews by Kristy and Marjorie that I quoted above, you wouldn't have thought anything of it. You would have disagreed with them, that's fine, but you wouldn't have assigned them a reason for why they held the views that they did based on their gender. Like you did with David Letterman, and all the other people you read both here and across the pond. For you it was all about ego and a fight to win at all cost, not wanting to lose the race and playing at killing other boys when they were youngsters. All this mishmash, somehow, is supposed to be at the root of why a man doesn't like a bad movie. Or why a talk show host doesn't like being taken advantage of and used as a prop.
In other words, you weren't (aren't) giving these people the respect of treating them like individuals instead of caricatures. *double sigh*
It's kind of weird, but I think Casey Affleck and Ben Affleck direct the same way.
They both go for, I don't know, a kind of realism, that was really kind of bland.
There's a scene at the end of the movie where Joaquin Phoenix is walking through a lake or river, and I just kind of wasn't feeling anything, at least on an emotional level, by the directing.
I also felt the same way about "the Town" in certain parts, where I think perhaps they were going for realism.
Bland is better than sentimental though, and I suppose it did feel pretty real, but artistically those moments were flat emotionally.
Realism isn't necessarily artistic.
Maybe it's the movie.
I think, perhaps, they might be pretty good at realism, but they didn't capitalize on it.
For their next movies, they should try maybe doing some long takes, and get a lot of things going on and really see what they can do with that realism, rather than use it for establishing shots of punctuation.
So, I think they seem to be good at showing us the bland realism, but now there needs to some other things going on within that realism besides just buildings and lakes.
Adding onto this,
So, I think they seem to be good at showing us the bland realism, but now there needs to some other things going on within that realism besides just buildings and lakes.
Show us the building and lakes, but with acting and things going on in front it.
@ Karl
"For you it was all about ego and a fight to win at all cost, not wanting to lose the race and playing at killing other boys when they were youngsters."
It seems to me that the ego on display in your posts makes Marie's point about men who fight to win at all costs.
Why would Joaquin want to "own" this behavior now? It seems he has "cleaned it up" has a new girlfriend, and it's sort of like "just kidding" you know? His brother in law has obviously invested much time and money in this presentation, so the obvious thing to do is disclaim the reality of the film. In other words, it's a win win situation. No one loses if it must play out! I watched the movie feeling very sad and depressed. If this is not a documentary, what's the message? It just doesn't make sense.
To me this film has so many layers we haven't even begun talking about it. Scary layers, like nine circles of hell, and the discussion is only now entering layer two.
The last scene through the river (River!) was so heavy and sad it disturbs me still. It legitimizes a subtext that I worried I was projecting onto the rest of the movie as I was watching, even as I laughed at the funny parts. I watched it again: the subtext is still there, underneath the bad behavior, underneath the ugly culture of celebrity that Joaquin has amplified, underneath the loneliness in a room full of cameras and/or fans.
We carry a collective guilt for what happens to our child stars. If we don't, we should.
When Heath Ledger passed away, audiences went to see "The Dark Knight" to celebrate a wonderful talent in an exciting role.
I didn't attend "I'm Still Here" because I didn't want to be witness to a wonderful talent self-destructing.
Maybe the box office was low because others felt the same way.
Damn bold experiment. I'm as glad to see artists exploring possibilities in cinema as I am to see abusive media sharks get baited.
Now I'll check it out.
The best hoax would be if this "it's a hoax" assertion was in fact the hoax -- that Phoenix came to his senses one day after the documentary was filmed, and realized that if he wanted to have any more success in life, he would have to pretend it was all a ruse.
This could be a new trend. Perhaps Mel Gibson will have a fake documentary made of him, and then claim that all his wicked behavior was just part of building a character!
hmmmm, this is quite interesting. i have not seen im still here, but i wonder if it is seen from a completely fictional view, say, like just another movie and not a documentary, if it is good. i guess the question im posing is, if it is good as a movie? i wonder what phoenix is going to do after this. he can really go into any field. also, just a quick note about the dark knight, i thought heath ledger was just fantastic in it, but the movie's pace was just 120 mph most of the way through. action to action to more fast paced action, no break to develop characters and make us care about them.
Mr. Ebert,
Wonderfully done interview. I see now how your e-mail interviews resemble letter correspondence between people of a certain trade. Did Mr. Affleck take much time to respond between questions posed? I am just wondering how close a written interview comes to a live, and (pardon me for saying so, but) spoken interview.
I agree with the suggestion that, sub-consciously or otherwise, Phoenix was revealing his loathing for the whole media process of us who witnessed his erratic behavior at the media weekend for the Johnny Cash still don't regard as a put-on or as a performance. Those walk-outs were for real. The guy does have issues
Amazing the lengths some people would go; to persevere their art; "The Art".
I think most of your fans are missing the point,
what made it fine television in the first place.
Since no one has pointed it out; here is my conclusion.
Both men were not on it, therefore it brought out their true personas;
leaning more towards Mr. Letterman.
On one hand we see Mr. Letterman being gracious and a gentleman
to his guest and on the other hand we see Joaquin Phoenix doing his shtick.
Although I would have done it without the shades; interior shades always gives
it away, either their blind, in disguise, trying for the kill,......... sorry; to be cool,
low self esteem, etc......................
It's everything here exactly what I was looking for :) I'm so happy that I step in right here.
Just watched the film last night. I had thought Two Lovers was Phoenix's best performance before seeing it - so I can understand why Gray was upset with the project. But that struggle for (creative) control is what the movie is about. The opening scene is telling: Phoenix claims to be tired of acting because as an actor he is just a doll, the model in Bresson-speak, the celebrity that is a surface to project upon. So, the film is not a hoax because the dilemma is real, what's happening is real: a great actor is exercising his talent, but outside the proscribed role. This makes people angry. But he survives the slings and arrows and prevails creatively - if not critically or financially.
The irony is that pop culture moved on in the time it took to edit the footage, which was hardly any time at all. But that's how quickly the machine processes it's material. The fact that the public's interest had faded by the release date may not make the film's investors terribly happy, but it strengthens the film's internal logic and integrity.
I feel they got exactly what they wanted by making this film. They woke people up for a minute. Existentially it feels amazing to break people away from lives little codes of conduct. It's like truth. This movie may have been fiction. But the truth behind the movie is more reel than life itself. Your life is media, your life is fed to you and when you have been awoken it feels wrong not to take the spoon from peoples mouths. It consumes you and eats at you. I would say this movie was a fix for Affleck and Joaquin. Like a drug. It probably was an enormous weight being lifted. Watching people wriggle with the same old shit stinking up their shoes.
The film also makes you wonder if just maybe. Maybe! That part was great. The suspense of wondering if you would never be able to enjoy another wonderful performance by Joaquin.
To tell you the truth I thought from the beginning it was bull!
I wondered if it was a publicity stunt set up by the director of his so called last film
to have a drama sell tons of tickets which does not happen that often.
But in the back of my mind oh shit I felt horrified if it was true.
They had me. I watched it didn't I. Damn it!
It's kind of like cant live with um, cant kill em! You have an interesting view of this movie.
I like it.
Well, I guess now that the film is streaming on Netflix, there'll be a bunch more comments on this post. For most of the film, I thought I hated it for its self-indulgence. When it was finally over, I decided I didn't know if I hated it or not and didn't really know what to think at all. I think the ending was cheesy, but otherwise after reading this interview and (especially!) the comments, I've decided the movie was actually a huge triumph. The key is in the role the media plays, as Affleck puts it in the interview. People's response to the film as being self-indulgent and boring is actually a response to the minute-by-minute TMZ coverage of the whole thing while it was ongoing. The film itself, taken as its own entity, does a really nice job of showing how our culture loves to tear down its celebrities. The empathy and concern in your review, Roger, was almost unique among responses to both the 'performance art' thing and the film. Most people were snarky, dismissive, and even giddy at watching someone fall from the 'mountaintop.' If the movie is about what I think it is - the sadism of celebrity 'journalism' - then I'm not sure how it could've been a bigger success. Even the film itself has been treated that way.
Clearly Joaquin has some unresolved media issues with the unfortunate death of his brother. To witness the destruction of his brother's image with his death and joaquin's own involvement in the media scandel of it is something he has never fully overcome. Here i think he seeks his revenge as he turns himself against his significant career and the media who helped build him. It almost reads as if he wants to return to mainstream society but cannot let this happen until he first orchestrates his own demise. Sure, it was a simple joke. But all comedy comes from pain and truth, a way to highlight a fact of life through a different lense.And This appears to be joaquin's comedic stunt of choice.
But should it even be evaluated as standard fiction now that we know it is a hoax? It's like - ah... cool, it's a hoax, we don't have to think hard about what it is we're looking at. It's fiction - so we can apply our usual standards of criticism.
I think that's pretty lazy...
http://reviewsindepth.com/2011/01/im-still-here-2010-but-most-of-us-arent/
When I heard Casey Affleck revealed it being a "hoax," I thought "Oh, disappointing, it was probably a fun bit of performance art without him ruining it." That is, having not seen the film.
Now that I've seen it I think the mistake was not revealing that much earlier.
It is absolutely infuriating that people now can't look at the film for what it is - a work of brilliant fiction. Joaquin Phoenix plays the role of an alternate Joaquin Phoenix, and he plays it absolutely flawlessly.
If you watch the movie knowing it is fake, and watch it as just that, a movie, I think many critics would be surprised to find a funny, biting, poignant, and ultimately heartbreaking film. Instead they're caught up on criticizing the reality of it - ultimately irrelevant to the piece itself. If it's so "obviously fake" as everyone claims they knew immediately, then why couldn't they get over that and look at it as fiction?
Gio-
I believe you've truly hit the nail on the head. I do not for a minute think it was a hoax. I believe Joaquin realized he wasn't going to make it as a rap artist- why was it only acceptable for him to go the P Diddy route of producing with so many other venues open- and he had ostracized Hollywood and hence his entire future acting career and he woke up and panicked and began damage control orchestrated by Casey and his agents. The documentary revealed Joaquin for the shallow, vulgar man he apparently really is.
Gio | September 23, 2010 2:26 AM | Reply
After Casey Affleck announced that it was nothing but a joke, everywhere and everybody was ready to believe it. Well I don’t doubt that the documentary is really a joke, what a doubt is what it implied: that Phoenix’s first appearance on Letterman was a joke as well.
Why does everyone think the first appearance on Letterman’s was a joke? I see the whole thing from a different perspective: Mr. Phoenix was really gone back then, he unwisely sank his career down the drain… what came after is a an act of artificial resurrection, a clever one indeed. One that attempts to cover everything, even that stupid appearance on the Letterman’s show, with a larger-than-life blanket that says that everything was nothing but a joke.
This is a very clever PR move, one that makes the appearance on the Letterman impossible to prove either way: bluff or truth? Casey Afflelck shoots a documentary, creates a huge media interest by selling it as a true documentary and then…oops it’s not, the documentary is a mock-documentary about stardom (as it were the season finale of Entorurage (Series 7); and while Affleck was at it, he threw in the fact, that, actually, it was all a joke, since that infamous start at Letterman… so Phoenix has never been crazy or thrown his career down the drain, in fact the whole thing shows how great an actor he is. …hence the actor can start working again, if he wants.
I am sorry but i don’t buy it, it is more likely a clever way to resurrect a career that was dead, a clever way to offer an impossible explanation to a career-suicide move as it was Phoenix’s at Letterman’s. I have only one question for Hollywood execs: who would have hired Phoenix before Affleck’s documentary? I guess no one! After Affleck’s explanation and Phoenix new visit at Letterman’s? Well… Hollywood’s got back one of its stars and Studios can invest on him again. So my congratulations on Casey and Joaquim to put together such a perfect PR act.
Why the worry if it is a hoax? Listen to the story...It could be you, me, or anyone that is fed up with our life. Someone with maybe too much time, drugs, and self pity, to really see what they have, and what is important to them in life....To me it was a man, with little if any morals, very insecure, who wrapped himself in a fog of, who I want to be when I grow up...someone who has never known real hardship....(poor me why doesn't anyone listen to me)....Hats off to
Joaquin for this film...I was rooted to my seat! Very strong acting! Awards shouldn't even be given a thought...Joaquin you've won them all...
Wasn't a fan till now....
Judy
Ebert I have to say that you are one of a special few who can view any
piece of film and cut to the core of it, analyse it in context of the
political and socio-economic period in which it was released. I dare say
that you might be the film authority of our time. You don't fall for movie
bullshit, you call others out on their movie failings and tritness, while
enlightening the public. That being said you got it 100 percent right the
first time you reviewed this movie, concluding that this is a portrait of a
man in crisis, walking the edge of an abyss. He is not acting, he is NOT
going to be ok.
A cleanly shaven PR spin off after the fact does not sway my opinion, oh
the contrary, having seen the entire movie and both letterman interviews
and both your original review and follow up, I am more SURE than EVER that
this is in fact an ACCURATE portrayal of a man that has become deluded on
drugs and grandeur, with literally no one to tell him that he shouldnt be
behaving that way.
This is the ultimate truth behind this movie, that in fact it was not some
very cleaverly devised, expertly engineered ruse by Casey affelck, designed
to show how "great" Joaquin is at portraying a total douche bag, the utter
bottom of the human capacity. Little timmy exclaims, "I almost cant believe
he's acting in this piece, as he extrudes a smile from ear to ear. Jaokin
in this is the most well acted, absolutely deserving, best goddamn acting
job Ive seen in a long time. WOW, I cannot believe and literally am beside
myself at how good his goddamn acting was in portraying a totally self
absorbed, glutton of a man-child that has done enough cocaine and other
drugs to be, I dunno, river phoenix's brother?"
But what an asshole for making me feel anything close to compassion for
this "obviously trite and-everyone-knew-he-was-joking-and-really-oka-the-
whole-time asshole! Right?
Well what of the flipside to that coin? What if this movie was, in fact,
dare I say, a fucking goddamn INTERVENTION, plyayed out in the public
arena because phoenix himself was actually so deluded that his brother and
friend casey affleck thought the only way to SAVE HIS FUCKING LIFE was to
make this documentary, release it, phoenix would have to read the public
opinion, and then agree to snap out of his downward spiral to death, if
only BECAUSE he is actually a megalomaniacal person that couldn't and
wouldn;t be able to see the reality of his life unless something DRASTIC
like this movie/intervention was forced upon him?
How can I be so sure you ask? Well, because I'm a private person that has
experienced firsthand the debauchery and utter self-destruction that he
showed in the documentary. I have personally gone through a midlife crisis
that is still unfolding in everyday life. I experienced a very public,
humiliating, and literal ego beat down in front of a crowd of people. This
was about 3 years ago and I havent been the same since. In fact I am
actually a broken down shell of my former self, almost unable to function
in society on my own. Those close to me cannot grasp the reality that I
might very well be utterly detached and insane with no way of
reconciliation. Coming from an affluent background, I can assure you that
if you are, in all honesty to yourself, possibly crazy, that those affluent
around you will do nothing but dismiss, and explain why someone of your
"stature" cannot be crazy, ect, that you are acually only lazy. I have
actually been advised by my parents that " you better get your shit
together, you don't want to be sent to a mental institution where they will
pick your brain do you?" I of course would answer no to their face, all the
while thinking to myself that yes I would like exactly that. I want to know
if im certifiable or not?, is this just my drug use and/or insecuity or am
I really fucking insane? But this conclusion cannot and will not happen,
for my parents,family and upper-middle class america do not want me to go
and be scrutinized by psychiatrists, they do not want to know the truth as
I do want, they want me to pretend everything is ok and to continue my
"role" as their "affulent son".
This is the cold, sobering fact of mental illness in our modern society.
The laugher from the audience on Letterman during the phenoix interview was
very telling of our modern, unflinching society. We laugh at the
misfortunes of others, if and only if, we are sure they deserve it. And the
public opinion has spoken, phoenix is deserving of scorn. Why? Well because
there are only two true reactions to this film, 1)utter disgust at how
people that are labeled "weird" continue to annoy us and beg for our utter
public humiliation, and 2) holy shit this guy is actually being sincere
about being an asshole, who doesn't and can't see how others see him
because of the circle jerk that surrounds him about his army of "yes" men
that he kept on salary.
I can honestly say that if he wasn't rich, wasn't famous, was just a
regualr guy with delusions of grandeur and possibly phychosis, he would end
up alone, with no one truly there for him. WHy? Because that is the life I
lead as a non-famous insane person.
Believe me when you are out at the grocery store and you're just another
loon, people are this cruel and worse. No one knows if you're ok, if your
not actually on the brink of suicide; believe me they dont care. They only
stare at you at the starbucks or the publix and as soon as you've left from
view, they wisper to their friends " DID YOU SEE THAT FUCKING WEIRDO!?" And
most times they say it to each other while you are still present. And as
someone who isn't famous, when i see these goddamn people whispering about
me I literally want to die. Or kill them and somehow show the irony and
absurdness of this life. But I won't. I can't. And HERE IS THE CATHARSIS: I
am insane. Yes, I'm fucking insane. But I don't get to show my follow up
interview on letterman to show how ok I might be with a clean shaven face
and haircut. I don't get a second chance. My life is over as a respectable
person, period. I can't see anyone "really getting" my fucking tradjegic
genuis. All I see in the future of America is PR spin, and "this economist
coulnd't possibly have sexually harassed anyone, he is an economist for
christ sake."
What I see is much, much worse than what you see. If the normal person
thinks him/herself to be "one step removed" from the media opinion, than I
am a goddamn alien, traveling from another dimension to step outside the
mainstream opinion and try to say something real, even though Im sure I
haven't expressed myself well at all.
This is as much a rambling tirade as it is a self examination. I am in all
honesty insane, however, I cannot disregard the spectacle that was quain
phoenix."wowo" "what an awesome way for a talented artist to show that he's
infact not mainstream" and totally awesome in his regard to pretending to
be a mal-adjusted rich kid from the 60s with a seriously dubious childhood!
He's such a great actor, I ryan secreast/wolf blitzer/ nancy grace think
that he has overexposedhimself in a weird/hip way. WOW! what a guy! what
does that statment even fucking mean in real life? Anyone?
My episode is not on youtube,
I am not famous, I will get no second chance.
This trial is a great example of how the media convicts and quite honestly refreshing to see that they don't always have to power to convict.
I think the jurors just couldn't believe someone could be so shallow that they would even consider killing their baby just to be able to continue living a party lifestyle. Unfortunately I believe its possible so I feel differently than the jury pool but who knows I only caught coverage in passing so I'll accept they know better than me.
Personally I can't believe they let her off, but then again I had Nancy Grace explain the motive to me...
4 years time served seems like a weak sentence. Regardless though she was given a life judgement by the media, this trial is something she will never escape.
I just watched "I'm still here".
I loved it.
While watching this film, if you wondered if it was real or not, then it was a good film.
Art is not easily defined. But the one common denominator art has is, if it makes you think, then the purpose was served.
The film was good...knowing or unknowing if it was real.
Sorry, I know I am responding more than a year after your post, but I am so glad to have read what you've written, because I completely agree with you, Sammy!
I just finished watching I'm Still Here. I personally think it was real as h*ll! There is so much about it that points to serious drug use. Hoe would he fake it so perfectly,down to dialated pupils for God's sake? No, I think it was all too real. I believe once he saw the finished product the only way to spin it was to play it off as a mockumentary. I hope he has found some help in the two years since it's release!