July 28th, 2005
Sideways doesn’t really have a story. Sideways while being character driven, doesn’t rely on achingly interesting characters either. It’s quite amusing that a lot of people on the internet find this film pretentious, and people who like it pretentious, since it was often such a raw–crude–film. Admittedly there was a lot of wine (whining) talk that I did on occasions find annoying, but given the context of how the wine connoisseur Miles Raymond (Paul Giamatti) is so unsure about his life as he passes through middle age, the wine commentary fades into the background making his character anything but pretentious.
Miles Raymond: A little citrus. Maybe some strawberry. Mmm. Passion fruit, mmm, and, oh, there’s just like the faintest soupçon of like, uh, asparagus, and, there’s a, just a flutter of, like a, like a nutty Edam cheese.
The crude elements are brought to the film by Jack (Thomas Hayden Church), Miles’s old friend. Jack instigates a wine-and-dine trip with the odd spot of golf supposedly aimed to rid Miles of his problem of coming to terms with his divorce. This is where the film deserves praise; the way it examines one of those complicated friendships that I’m sure most have experienced: where the friend makes judgements on you–tries to divert you into “acceptable” and “fun” behaviour, when in fact they are seriously flawed themselves, and the carefree attitude they encourage you to embrace gets them into trouble.
At first Jack seems to be the likeable character and Miles the dour depressive, but look who comes crawling back! Look! I like the way it deals favourably with realism; people who are realistic in films are usually shunned–or eaten–hmm, I’m not sure how that Jurassic Park reference slipped in–but can you remember that guy who says “We better get back to the car” when they’re examining the ill dinosaur? He gets eaten.
I don’t like the way it has seemingly been marketed as a comedy; there are some witty remarks, but no more than its fair share. There aren’t any scenes I can remember that deliberately (i.e. put in simply for comedic value) suggest that it’s a comedy. My loose impression of Sideways before seeing it was that it was going to be a quirky road trip comedy, but that’s not what it is.
It was interesting, but by no means the best film of 2004, as some online people claim. I wouldn’t particularly watch it again, it was intriguing first time through, but I’m not sure if I would invest any more time in it; given there is very little change in the characters from the beginning to when it ends. Miles is still miserable downing his prized champagne eating fast food; Jack further lies to his fiancé claiming he was in a car accident. I’m not saying it’s a bad film, but I feel you only need to see it once to get the message. Moreover if you like films with a clear plot, then this film is really not for you.
July 29th, 2005 at 12:01 am
Hi,
Personally I think your opinion about this film is wrong. It does have a plot, about Miles finding happiness again, the entire film is about the romance the two men experience and how it is different based on their personalities and each men do develop, however subtle that may be. Miles goes to meet Mia, depite being so hurt by his ex, as he is finally able to move on, which involves strength. Jack, after the horrible experience with other women recently chooses not to give up on the wedding and gets married, perhaps showing personal growth and courage, that he is not used to.
Plus, it is a comedy not just a few witty lines. The physical humour was subtle in some cases yet very funny, as was the dialogue. Some moments were laugh out loud funny. Yes it is a realistic film, dealing with the personal, and parallel crises of the two men yet the situation was somewhat wacky which made any depressing moments amusing. Perhaps the film appears pretentious based on the context - wine tasting and the characters, but I think that it is just an intelligent film and isn’t aiming to appeal to everyone, maybe that makes it pretentious but I don’t think so. I think it is one of the cleverest and well acted films of 2004 and certainly one of the best.
July 29th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
I didn’t say it doesn’t have plot, just that it was not clear. It also does not have a conventional storyline, given some people dislike this in a film, the review serves the purpose to not recommend it to them.
The Internet Movie Database describes it as “Adventure / Comedy / Drama”, I just find it wrong to market it as a comedy and ignore the adventure / drama facets. I don’t see it primarily as a comedy, simply because when recommending specifically a comedy would Sideways spring to mind over something like Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Austin Powers, or The League of Gentlemen’s Apocalypse? If someone asked me for a good drama adventure story, sure, then I’d recommend Sideways.
From what you are saying, it seems I described it as pretentious, I felt the opposite, and was merely stating other opinions I have found on the internet.
Also my comment on it not being “the best” film of 2004 should be taken literally, some people are calling it “the best” and I think that’s wrong considering the competition.
July 29th, 2005 at 10:50 pm
I didn’t say that you called it pretentious, i was merely commenting on other people’s supposed concept of the film.
I think that ‘Sideways’ would definitely spring to mind as a comedy far more than an adventure, of course it is touching and contains drama but it is certainly more of a comedy. The other films you mentioned are light comedies, whereas this relied on intelligent dialogue more, so it is different in that sense. To not market ‘Sideways’ as a comedy is like not marketing ‘Psycho’ as a horror.
I also think that it does have a clear plot and that it is misleading to suggest otherwise, it is a stag weekend in which the men explore themselves as well as women.
I think that it may well be the best film of 2004, for how well it was directed and acted. Personally I may have enjoyed others more, but I can see clearly how people would see it as the best, you may not, but others certainly do.
July 30th, 2005 at 10:52 am
I was unsure whether you thought I said it was pretentious, I was just clearing it up.
Sure, involve some aspects of highlighting it as a comedy when marketing it, I just feel people over do it. For instance a comment from CNN.com:
I may not be the easiest person to make laugh, but laughing until you cry isn’t the best way I would choose to describe this film. As I have said before I was expecting this film to be a quirky road trip comedy, which is quite wrong as this definition ignores some of the finer parts of the film. Admittedly the given comedies are light, since a lot of comedies by definition are. I think these lighter comedies are much better examples of their genre than Sideways, I don’t agree that Sideways is to comedy as Pysco is to horror.
I was reluctant to bring in Garden State as I have a soft spot for it (although I would never say it was the best of any year), but this is an example of a serious kind of comedy that Sideways was marketed as. The only point I wanted to make was that while films like Garden State have comedic elements in them that directly suggest it’s a comedy: the surreal knight / doorframe scene, the absurd ark / ravine, the stereotypical characters (like the pyramid scheme guy), the hightened emotions (the character Sam), Sideways lacks these. The only genre I found that Sideways consistently belonged to is the adventure / drama.
I write reviews for the widest target audience possible, as I have said before, the reason why I said that it “didn’t have a clear plot” was to ward off people who know that they prefer films with a very strong plotline like a Hollywood blockbuster. Moreover “exploring yourself” should never leave you with a clear plot, it should be something complicated and not instantly apparent.
In my original post there is nothing to suggest that I don’t understand why they feel it is the best; just that I disagree with them. I haven’t yet discounted anyone’s opinions on this film. I have no problem “seeing” other people’s opinions, in fact the first thing you said was “Personally I think your opinion about this film is wrong.” Not that it’s different, but wrong, so how can you be seeing my opinion?
July 30th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Exactly I put ‘personally’, I didn’t say that noone can agree with your opinion but that is how I felt. I still feel that you are wrong to suggest that is more of an adventure/drama than a comedy. Adventures tend to involve explosions and many exciting twists and turns like films like ‘The Mummy’, and to market ‘Sideways’ as an adventure is not right. In my opinion ‘Sideways’ has considerably more comedic aspects to it than ‘Garden State’ which is a drama primarily.
Exploring yourself is a story, and I doubt many people would expect ‘Sideways’ after looking at the cover to expect a Hollywood blockbuster. Most people who know a lot about films, would know of ‘Sideways’ based on all the nominations it got and would already be prepared for what it is about. If people don’t already know about it then I think it is unfair to say that it does not have a story when it does. I think perhaps you misunderstood the film’s point.
July 30th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
“Personally” is irrelevant, the thing I was drawing attention to was that you think my opinion is wrong, I can understand you disagreeing with my opinion, but I don’t think wrong is appropriate.
I have always referred to it as a “adventure / drama” and feel it should be marketed as such. I have never said just adventure. Also I believe you are describing “action / adventure”.
I could go on all day listing the comedic aspects of Garden State, I have already provided a few of them, in the same way you think Garden State is more drama based, I think Sideways is.
I doubt I would have made a comment to your first if it wasn’t the fact that you think my opinion is “wrong”.
July 31st, 2005 at 12:07 am
‘Personally’ isn’t irrelevant Alex, and I still think that you are wrong that is in an adventure/drama, when it is a comedy - that was part of your opinion and I think that, that was wrong. Like I felt other points you made about the film, weren’t exactly opinions, but more out and out facts about the film, therefore I can feel those to be wrong because I feel that they weren’t true of the film.
July 31st, 2005 at 12:34 pm
I have never discounted its comedy aspects or categorically said it wasn’t a comedy, I just feel that the story wasn’t written specially to make it comedic, the only comedy that came about was in due course of the adventure / drama plot running through. Unlike films like Garden State that have things written in deliberately; like the camouflage bathroom shirt scene.
I think that’s quite apparent in the original post. I get this feeling maybe because the film was an adaptation of a thought-provoking book. I just feel that’s where any brilliance in this film lies, not in the comedy, but with the thoughtful bits; that’s why I believe it should have been marketed as such.
You may think the film deserves praise because of the comedy, considering films are a relatively trivial issue, I won’t say you’re wrong, when you decide what parts of a film are better than others it’s personal. For instance just because I don’t think The Godfather is all people make it out to be, doesn’t mean that other people can tell me I’m wrong.
What I meant as irrelevant was that:
==
Really most things I write about on this site are opinions, I just don’t always prefix them with “personally”. If anyone decides they don’t like them, I welcome comments, but mostly I’m not going to alter my opinion, I rarely hold agendas that you might not know about against things, so I’m always open for a good argument, it definitely adds more interest to the original article.
July 31st, 2005 at 5:46 pm
I just don’t agree with you deciding that the film would be better marketed as an adventure/drama when they wouldn’t market it as a comedy if it wasn’t. Of course you shouldn’t ignore other aspects to a film but you should know the major tagline for it to sell it and in this case it was the comedy. I think that you can expect it to be a comedy because I did and I enjoyed it and found it funny. The emotional side of the film goes along very well also.
So perhaps you misread what I meant, I meant that some of the statements you included in your opinion I consider to be wrong. Of course your personal view of a film is your own, but comments you make seem like you state them as facts and this I diagree with.
You put that they ‘claim’ it when it could be their opinion and based on acting or direction it might well be the best, as something being the best is quite subjective. Also you put how the characters don’t change when I think they do, so I just read some of what you put as statements rather than opinions. Points I mentioned were more your statements than your opinions.
But shall we just agree to disagree?
July 31st, 2005 at 9:13 pm
It’s just a painful issue of semantics: they “claim” their opinion the same way I “claim” it’s not the best film. Claim implies it’s their opinion as they stake-claim to it, or own it, as opposed to facts that aren’t really anyone’s to own.
I didn’t write that, the post says little change.
Yes, they are my statements on the film. You can state an opinion, I’m sorry if you see what I write as fact, but as you said, deciding whether something is good is subjective. I see very little change in the characters, some other person might think there is significant change, but I don’t. Therefore I only write what I feel, I could write “but you may feel otherwise–it’s not gospel” after every value judgement that I make. But now I’m just being facetious, which is probably what’s going to happen if these comments go on any more. So I think you’re right in your last point, I’ll close the comments on this one.
If anyone else really wants to make any further comments email me and I’ll open it back up again, but I think more or less everything has been said.