Running with Scissors (Ryan Murphy, 2006)

[David Ehrenstein]

I have no idea if Augustin Burroughs' celebrated memoir is real or just another James Frey con job, but the film that has been made of it doesn't have one believeable moment. Annette Benning pulls out all the stops as a women-in-the-midst-of-a-nervous-breakdown but the script and direction require her to play one note over and over again. Joseph Cross is just OK as the hero -- a "sensitive" neo-Salinger type who loves his crazy mother (just like in Tarnation ) and doesn't much care for his father (Alec Baldwin has maybe four scenes in this.) She forces him to live with her psychiatrist -- a wacky nut-job (Brian Cox) whose house appears to have been decorated by Edith Bouvier beale. In fact Grey Gardens appears to have been on writer-director Ryan Murphy's mind throughout -- when he wasn't thinking of The Royal Tenenbaums.

Without question this is the least gay film I've ever seen from an openly gay filmmaker. You'd think the shade of Herbert Ross was nipping at his heals -- carry notes from Jerry Robbins to "tone it down" or something. I also suspect the MPAA had a hand in turning the seduction scene into a plethora of incomprehensible editing choices. Joseph Fiennes as our hero's bi-polar inamorata (of sorts) seems game but his part makes no sense. Neither does Gwyneth Paltrow's or Evan Rachel Wood ( a Leelee Sobieski look-alike), or Jill Clayburgh (back from career purgatory and a semi-welcome sight.)

A huge amount of money was poured into this thing. Had it been scaled back to the size of an indie it might stand a chance of recouping, or at least finding an audience. But in the end I don't know who would want to see this thing, much less find it to their liking.

[Antoine Doinel]

I'm not surprised by the negative review. The trailer gave me the impression of an American Beauty (a film that is completely overrated) meets Squid & The Whale sort of thing but this is supposed to be based on a true story? Really? I hope that psychiatrist got his license revoked.

It just seems like a bunch of eccentric characters saying and doing a bunch of eccentric things.

[Matt]

I have no idea if Augusten Burroughs' celebrated memoir is real or just another James Frey co job, but the film that has been made of it doesn't have one believeable moment.

Neither does the book, for that matter. It's ridiculously over-the-top. It was after reading this that I vowed never to read another Gen-X memoir again. That resolution saved me from reading Frey's work of imagination.

[The Invunche]

I'll watch this because Ryan Murphy's Nip/Tuck is deliciously immoral.

[Antoine Doinel]

I vowed never to read another Gen-X memoir again. That resolution saved me from reading Frey's work of imagination.

Actually, there is nothing "Gen-X" about Frey's book at all. True or not (I read it after the whole Oprah scandal) it's a remarkably strong and affecting piece of writing. I suggest you give it a shot.

[David Ehrenstein]

It just seems like a bunch of eccentric characters saying and doing a bunch of eccentric things.

Precisely. Except I'd put quotation marks around "eccentric." Everything these characters say and do is studied and inauthentic. I've known dysfunctional people in my time, with mental problems ranging from the minor to the severe. None of that figures in this movie. We're invited to enjoy the characters' "quirks" in a You Can't Take It With You fashion.

[Matt]

Actually, there is nothing "Gen-X" about Frey's book at all. True or not (I read it after the whole Oprah scandal) it's a remarkably strong and affecting piece of writing. I suggest you give it a shot.

I wasn't judging Frey's book in calling it a "Gen-X memoir": he was born in 1969, which places him squarely in what is considered Generation X. The book is a fanciful memoir of a person spending their adolescence and/or twenties "on the edge of a knife," in the same vein as (if not identical to) books by Elizabeth Wurtzel, Dave Eggers, Augusten Burroughs, Nick Flynn, Chuck Klosterman, Koren Zailckas, Haven Kimmel, and so on and so forth. In short: it's a Gen-X memoir, regardless of its literary qualities.

[Mr Sausage]

I vowed never to read another Gen-X memoir again. That resolution saved me from reading Frey's work of imagination.

Actually, there is nothing "Gen-X" about Frey's book at all. True or not (I read it after the whole Oprah scandal) it's a remarkably strong and affecting piece of writing. I suggest you give it a shot.

Although I have not read the whole of Frey's book, it seems like an aesthetic nightmare. The brusk Hemingway-esque prose jarrs with the supposed sensitivity of the subject of recovery. The lack of subordinate clauses makes the style all about surface when the subject is about recovering a sense of inner life. There is just far too much posturing, both here and in most recent "Gen-X" (in the sense Matt uses) memoirs and fiction, that all truth is drowned.

Matt's "edge of a knife" was indeed there, and it was being grinded down a brick wall.

[Antoine Doinel]

It's one person's trip through recovery. It's blunt, straight forward, not particularly pretty and Frey never intended for it to be "sensitive" (not sure where you got that from).

Again, I suggest you actually read the book. It's certainly far better than Klosterman's nauseating pop culture "insights" and Eggers self-aware hypermodern writing style.

[Mr Sausage]

It's one person's trip through recovery. It's blunt, straight forward, not particularly pretty and Frey never intended for it to be "sensitive" (not sure where you got that from).

Again, I suggest you actually read the book.

Well the basic idea of presenting your recovery, drugs or otherwise, is to examine yourself and bring something out of yourself for others to understand. I think you're taking sensitivity far too simply; it implies a keen sensibility for emotion, experience, details, and most importantly meaning (things required by any art). It may be blunt and straightforward, but that does not preclude sensitivity--on the contrary, such a subject demands sensitivity else it becomes little more than useless shock value, and I never got the impression that is all Frye wanted (nor do I think the socially conscious Oprah would choose a book that didn't in some sense try to understand itself). As you said, it was affecting, and I'm guessing it wasn't so while at the same time lacking any and all sensitivity.

Fair enough, I should really read the book before making too many judgements--but what I felt while reading substantial portions is only what I intended to convey. Frankly, I cannot bring myself to read the whole book, it was too difficult to digest even in sections.

[mikeohhh]

I thought the book was hilarious, but yeah, I don't believe a word of it.

edit: Running With Scissors

[David Ehrenstein]

Now read this.

My sentiments precisely.

[jon]

is it that bad? looking for a mid-day film today and was wondering if it was really that bad...

if so, i might go see Science at 4

[Barmy]

It really isn't that bad. The crix seem to be viewing it as a failed black comedy. Frankly, I viewed it as a drama with a handful of funny moments. Jill Clayburgh was quite good. So was Evan Rachel Wood. I'm not a big fan of Annette, but she was fine. The Augusten character was boring as batshit, but I assume that was intentional. Gwyneth was AWFUL, but that's what she does. Yes, the book was probably full of lies, but so what. Anyway, I'm a sucker for 70s atmosphere.

[tavernier]

Gwyneth was AWFUL, but that's what she does.

Word.