The next best thing to seeing a great film is talking about a great film. It's the premise that has kept The Interviews on Saturday Night at the Movies alive for almost 40 years: Take a great movie and turn it into a great conversation. But just as a good film needs a strong focus and point-of-view, a good film conversations needs a strong and informed opinion. That's where critics and film columnists come in. Rick Groen from the Globe and Mail is one such critic.
In this past weekend's Globe Arts section (February 18, 2012) Groen writes a piece called Men in Payne. His timing could not be better, not because of the upcoming Oscar awards, but because lately I've been in need of a good argument as to why The Descendants deserves a nomination for Best Picture.
I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as a bad Alexander Payne movie. Not everyone agrees.
I believe that the least of Payne's projects is still better than many director's best efforts. (As I was once able to say that of Woody Allen untilI stumbling upon Small Time Crooks ). There are those who would call that absurd.
I am paid to have a strong opinion about film and although I am ready and equiped to express such opinions, I've learned it's best to curb them with a courteous acknowledgement that film appreciation is a matter of taste and not an exact science. When it comes to whether a film is good or not no one comes out on top with an "I'm right, you're wrong" arguement. So when one of the higher ranking executives at TVO (someone whose film knowledge equals if not exceeds my own) tells me they didn't care for The Descendants (*gasp*) or when a co-worker wonder's why the movie is getting such acclaim I restrain my instinct to react passionately (aka poorly) and choose to simply agree to disagree.
With Groen's recent column I have another optionwhen asked why The Descendant's (or any of Payne's movies) should be recognized.
Groen writes, "Payne and his frequent co-writer, Jim Taylor are awfully adroit at serving up social tragedies as mannered comedies." That line is all the fuel you need to strike up a good conversation, but Groen gives us even more by pointing out an imbalance in the sexual politics of a Payne movie. "Payne is an equal-opportunity debunker and, in his social view, both sexes are similarly guilty of lies, deception, adultery and narcissism. It's just that women do it so much better"
To read Groen's article is not to change anyone's opinion, it simply arms you with a slant into Payne's work that may otherwise have not been considered, or considered but not acknowledge. Groen isn't asking us to like Payne, he's pointing out that there are complexities, layers and smarts in Payne's work - and that deserves recognition.
And am I small enough to quote (steal) that line in my next anti-Payne confrontation? Yes I am.
A note about Groen:
Rick Groen is not likely to appear on Saturday Night at the Movies. We want him to, and have asked many times, but the man prefers the anonymity of print. He insists that he works better with the written word rather than the glib, off-the-cuff kind of commentary required of the on-air personality.
Shame, really, because not only has he secured a reputation as one of our Canada's more renowned critics, he also has the kind of good-looks that the industry calls, camera-friendly. Perhaps he's harbouring a fear of on-air jitters, or it could be that Rick simply has no desire to be on television. As confounding as that kind of thinking is to someone like me who basks under the glow of a teleprompter, I'm forever grateful that I don't have to compete with Rick Groen for air time.
