Our critic went to see this ghastly movie so that you wouldn't
have to.
We watch so you don't have to -- not that you (or anybody else)
would want to. I notice that, three weeks into its domestic
release, Todd Solondz's Life During Wartime, a movie that
cost $4.5 million to make, had grossed $154,455 at the box office.
Anyone who saw Mr. Solondz's Happiness (1998), to which
his new movie is something between a sequel and a remake, will have
no difficulty understanding why. It is even more gloomy and
miserable than its predecessor, though no less ambitious. In
Happiness, the slightly saving grace was that you were
just about able to glimpse a world outside the hell to which Mr.
Solondz had consigned his characters -- a world in which Happiness
itself could have been something more than the savage irony he
treated it as. He's still at it in Wartime, but now this
patch of blue is no longer visible. The dark clouds of misery
envelop everyone completely. Like Happiness, it is a movie
about sexual perversion and, especially, child rape, but now Mr.
Solondz attempts to equate these things with terrorism, at least as
we fear it in the post-9/11 world. Hence the title.
The looming consciousness of the terrorist threat is
almost the only thing in the movie that produces a sense of
continuity between it and the outside world, that is the world we
actually live in, and this only serves to remind us how different
is the world of the movie. This is not "life during wartime" at
all, but only life in Todd Solondz's still-diseased imagination.
Everybody knows and understands the differences between terrorism
and sex crime, and they overwhelm what trifling similarities remain
in the fact that both involve pain (at the least) to innocent
people. Indeed! What doesn't? It's hard to escape the suspicion
that the people who thought it a good idea to invest $4.5 million
in such a hare-brained project as Life During Wartime did
so because they thought the topicality of terrorism -- nine years
after 9/11! -- would redeem the nastiness of the material and add a
bit of snap to the black humor (as I suppose we must call it) which
is all there is to recommend it. If so, they are justly punished
for their foolishness.
Nor are the feebleness of its central conceit and the
general gloom that envelops it the only things that are wrong with
the picture. It's also a narrative mess. Almost the only thing that
holds it together is the template of Happiness, along with
the sense of time passing since that film was made. We see a guy
just getting out of jail who was just going to jail in the earlier
film -- the same guy played by a different actor -- and the other
characters, also played by different actors, seem to be stuck just
where they were then. Once again, there are three sisters. Trish
(Allison Janney) was married to and had two sons by Bill (Ciarán
Hinds), the jailed pedophile now released. She is now looking for
happiness with an older man (Michael Lerner) whose sexual normality
is enough to make her overlook even his political flaws ("He voted
for Bush and McCain but only because of Israel. He knows those
people are idiots").
Joy (Shirley Henderson) is a social worker of some kind
who tries to rehabilitate sex criminals (among others) and is
dating one of her subjects, Allen (Michael K. Williams), who is
still very much a work in progress. She is also haunted by the
ghost of a former lover (Paul Reubens, physically hardly changed
from his days as Pee Wee Herman) who has since killed himself. The
third sister, Helen (Ally Sheedy), has cut herself off from the
rest of the family. She is a TV screenwriter with a shelf full of
Emmys and is sexually involved with someone named Keanu -- who only
appears as one half of the duet of pleasure sounding in the next
room when Joy briefly comes to visit her in California. While she
is away, Joy is assaulted by the ghost of Pee Wee and Allen
emulates him by killing himself too. Later, Allen's ghost visits
her too and recommends that she take his course: a gun to the head.
She says she prefers pills. "You die for me and I will know you
loved me," says the ghost. Right.
Throughout the film's 98 minutes, one phrase rings out
continually: "forgive and forget" -- but with the same irony as
"Happiness" in the earlier film. No one is able to forgive
or forget. Timmy (Dylan Riley Snyder), the twelve-year-old
son of Bill the pedophile, takes up the philosophical conundrum: we
know that it is possible to forgive without forgetting, but is it
also possible to forget without forgiving? He thinks maybe so. If a
thing that happens to you is so horrible that you don't even want
to think about it, you might succeed in simply putting it out of
your mind without the necessity of forgiving the person who did it
to you. At any rate, this seems to have been what happened to him
in the case of his father, who was imprisoned for raping small
boys, though not Timmy himself. After he manages to break up his
mom's new romance, Timmy appeals for forgiveness to Harvey's nerdy
son Mark (Rich Pecci), who is as miserable as everyone else even
without being involved in sex crime. "Forgive and forget?" says
Mark. "It's like freedom and democracy. In the end China will win
and this will all be over."
Timmy's cri de coeur is the note the film ends
on: "I don't care about freedom and democracy," he says. "I just
want my father."
The best moment in a movie that is desperately short of
even tolerable moments comes just before Bill, having experimented
with (relative) sexual normality in the person of the great
Charlotte Rampling and found her almost as screwed up as he is,
goes to visit his other son, Billy (Chris Marquette), in his
college dorm room. Billy is shown sitting silently in on a typical
late night dorm bull session (as we used to call them in my college
days) on the subject of who may be said to come from "the most
f***ed up family." As Billy gets up to leave without asserting his
own, no doubt championship-winning credentials, we hear another
member of the group saying: "Sarah, your molestation is, like, so
over. It was just fingering anyway." This movie is a lot
like that bull session: a Carrollean Caucus-Race of victimhood in
which compassion becomes just an excuse for wallowing in
sordidness. That, apparently, so few people care to do that is the
most hopeful thing about it.
About the Author
James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.
This goes right along with NathanHarden's article on Gail Dines'
book "Pornland", found elsewhere on American Spectator. These
people seem to think they can solve the problem by contributing to
it.
Alan Brooks| 8.24.10 @ 3:56PM
Thanks for telling us. Unfortunately, the fools we shall always
have with us.
No one goes broke underestimating the pocketbooks of the
clueless.
Petronious| 8.24.10 @ 11:11AM
I wouldn't cross the street to see this piece of agitprop. A
writer with a personal axe to grind and a producer with enough
money to waste in an attempt to force their question from their
neurotic audience, "so what's the problem?" makes me wonder about
whether we are in a recession. Cinesewage like this is about brown
nosing the N Y Times film critic.
Albert| 8.24.10 @ 12:52PM
My! Can a movie really be that bad? A long time ago I used to
wonder if critiques as harsh as this one were truly justified, or
if the critic were over expounding on a hramless piece of trash.
So, I went out a rented one such movie. I was shocked at just how
pretentiously bad a movie really could be. I have sinced stopped
being shocked by anything Hollywood or Pinewood Studios can throw
together. I will take Mr. Bowman's advice and skip this one. It is
a common critique for us ordinary folk to say "I could write
something better than THAT!" I am beginning to think that maybe I
really can.
MAJ Mike| 8.24.10 @ 2:08PM
With a movie like this, there must be a conflict between
ignoring it in the hopes that it will vanish into well-deserved
obscurity, or writing an accurately scathing review so that those
who might have been subjected to it are forewarned and avoid it.
Given the box office, apparently the best possible outcome was a
warning off of a film that no one wanted to see in the first
place.
Evelyn| 8.24.10 @ 2:19PM
The thumbnail photograph showing the male actor was scary
enough. The guy looks like Pee Wee Herman in 20 years.
JeffW| 8.24.10 @ 4:28PM
Evelyn,
That might be because it is Pee Wee Herman.
Evelyn| 8.25.10 @ 10:40AM
Oh, dear, you are correct, and I thought I was being cute.
Shoulda checked IMDB!
Radioman777| 8.25.10 @ 9:52AM
"Life During Wartime"? I'll just listen to the Talking Heads,
they're much better than a movie anyway.
dsayne| 8.24.10 @ 9:18AM
This goes right along with NathanHarden's article on Gail Dines' book "Pornland", found elsewhere on American Spectator. These people seem to think they can solve the problem by contributing to it.
Alan Brooks| 8.24.10 @ 3:56PM
Thanks for telling us. Unfortunately, the fools we shall always have with us.
No one goes broke underestimating the pocketbooks of the clueless.
Petronious| 8.24.10 @ 11:11AM
I wouldn't cross the street to see this piece of agitprop. A writer with a personal axe to grind and a producer with enough money to waste in an attempt to force their question from their neurotic audience, "so what's the problem?" makes me wonder about whether we are in a recession. Cinesewage like this is about brown nosing the N Y Times film critic.
Albert| 8.24.10 @ 12:52PM
My! Can a movie really be that bad? A long time ago I used to wonder if critiques as harsh as this one were truly justified, or if the critic were over expounding on a hramless piece of trash. So, I went out a rented one such movie. I was shocked at just how pretentiously bad a movie really could be. I have sinced stopped being shocked by anything Hollywood or Pinewood Studios can throw together. I will take Mr. Bowman's advice and skip this one. It is a common critique for us ordinary folk to say "I could write something better than THAT!" I am beginning to think that maybe I really can.
MAJ Mike| 8.24.10 @ 2:08PM
With a movie like this, there must be a conflict between ignoring it in the hopes that it will vanish into well-deserved obscurity, or writing an accurately scathing review so that those who might have been subjected to it are forewarned and avoid it. Given the box office, apparently the best possible outcome was a warning off of a film that no one wanted to see in the first place.
Evelyn| 8.24.10 @ 2:19PM
The thumbnail photograph showing the male actor was scary enough. The guy looks like Pee Wee Herman in 20 years.
JeffW| 8.24.10 @ 4:28PM
Evelyn,
That might be because it is Pee Wee Herman.
Evelyn| 8.25.10 @ 10:40AM
Oh, dear, you are correct, and I thought I was being cute. Shoulda checked IMDB!
Radioman777| 8.25.10 @ 9:52AM
"Life During Wartime"? I'll just listen to the Talking Heads, they're much better than a movie anyway.