I tried posting this twice and it hasn't taken. So, either Fodors doesn't like me tonite, or this post will show up three times due to a major posting lag! :S-

I agree with you dreamer. I watched this last night. God save me from men like those two. I wouldn't call Miles decent, the man stole what looked to be about a thousand dollars from his own mother, and then snuck out on her birthday without even saying goodbye. What a jerk. And Thomas Hayden Churches character? What a loser. The only likeable character was Maya. Still, I liked the movie for reasons I can't explain.

Ditto, I wouldn't call someone that steals from their mother a "soulful" person. That's part of what really turned me off from the movie.

One doesn't always have to like the characters or have someone to root for to enjoy the work of art or find it thought-provoking or meaningful. I don't think I was rooting for Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, or Humbert in Lolita, just to toss out a couple of examples that come to mind.

Maybe that's the difference between entertainment and art. Entertainment gives us someone to root for; art gives us something to think about.

I can't see a problem with Patrick's comments.

We saw "Sideways" a few weeks ago here in Darkest Oz, and while it hasn't faded from mind as fast as many (like the over-hyped "Gosford Park"), it won't go into my Top 100 list either. My elderly relatives aren't so fragile that they'd find a few curses and a bit of sex a problem. Why is it that so many people can watch unrelenting mayhem without turning a hair, support frying criminals to death and oppose gun control, then get the vapours over a bit of bare flesh and the odd "f" word? Beats me. (bonniebroad, this isn't directed at you - just a general rant.)

It was an OK movie, but I had trouble getting past the fact that two such eminently attractive, intelligent (sort of) and desirable women would end up in bed with those two characters. Having said that, I'll join whoever it was who didn't like "loser". Seems to me that it's usually a roundabout way of saying "Hey, I'm a winner". I'm not sure I want to inhabit a world in which people occupy only those two categories. Unfair!!, you're thinking? Well, think about it for a minute.

Anyway, I'm with Tandoori_Girl - I watch "Groundhog Day" any time it's on. Can't help myself.

And I wish you Americans would stop beating up on yourselves about Hollywood. Of course most of its output is crap - like everyone else's move industry. Ours included.

The reason we are "beating ourselves up" about Hollywood, which I think is an overstatement of what I and one other said, is that it was not always so. Of course, there was always "crap"
movies made but there were some
better quality movies, IMHO and in many others as well, about real peoples' lives, deep characterizations, plots that intrigued etc. Now, I have to run a "Video Store" as part of my college library as it was a sideline the students wanted, and they have great input into the collection. We have 650 most from the last 10 years or so, and I can tell you that there are about 10 that I would consider worth spending any time on.

Like stated, most are action (15 murders before the second half and/or mayhem), horror, or movies, SF fantasy, epics, trilogies or what one professor has said are in the "Friends" category. Where are the "Urban Cowboy" or "Saturday Night Fever" characters- comedies like "Stripes". Now I think the best movies with most wit are coming from the animated field, like "The Incredibles".

And I don't see any movies here except maybe "In America" that could hold a candle to "Bon Voyage" or "Christ Stopped at Eboli" or "The Longest Engagment". You don't see the piles of junk DVD's that I see coming, most probably, there are just about hitting the bottom of the barrel. And this has nothing to do with language used in them either. Just insipid, vampid and characterless characters, little story line, contrived plots, and sensationalism added just to keep the viewer watching. And no satisfaction in the endings as well. VHS copies come back viewed 1/2 way through most of the time and not rewound. Garbage to sell quick and make them money. Little art envolved and more special effects than dialog.

Have to chime in (after a spectacular surprise birthday party last night with guests from around the country) to say I didn't feel Patrick had insulted me -- thought he'd disagreed with me in a comparatively respectful way.

However, one aspect of our disagreement has to do with the dubious area of dealing with the producers'(writers, directors) intent and/or effect. I do think those two buddies were meant to be reluctantly liked by the audience. And notice how many people on this thread do, indeed, think they are "ok" -- as in real, or not losers, or whatever.

Stephanie and and Maya are constructed to be certain men's dream -- one knows and loves wine with the misguided reverence that seems to be rampant since the last 80s; the other can say "I need to be spanked" with all that that promises. Jack is a Peter Pan who can charm everyone, himself above all, into forgiving him for breaking trust over and over again. Miles is the one who clearly believes the meaning of life is anchored in wine, and everything follows from that. His discomfort with all other parts of life is why I accept the term "loser," although I admit it isn't perfect.

How do you tell whether a film's creators intend you to like or dislike their characters? One way is, of course, what they have the plot do to them -- that's the writer's perogative but a producer with full rights can do whatever he/she likes. What remains to be decided is whether Miles or Jack "got away" with their foibles. I'd say they did -- both are heading for lives that will, seemingly, serve their choices.

Another way is whether they cast people with positive, attractive traits -- and again I'd say they did. True, Paul Giamatti is no Johnny Depp, but he is certainly intended to be something of an Everyman Everyshlub. Hayden Church has that smile.

If you've got a film where the male audience is intended to identify with the male leads, then obviously the characters are not intended to be found contemptible -- just ruefully familiar.

That's the short version. That'll be $.02 please.

I think that was worth far more than 2 cents, Cassandra. Thanks for the honest rebuttal. I am sad to think that any men would use these guys of role models of a sort or find admirable traits in them, but I fear you may indeed be right. Otherwise why would there be so many men who act just like them -- particularly the Thomas Hayden Church role? I guess I must admit that the audience is driven to want to at least feel sorry if not "like" Paul's character at the end.

And to Dreamer2, yes I DO like a good debate. I debated in college and taught and coached debate in high schools. I have never felt there was anything wrong with that. I only object when people try to pretend an intelligent debate is some sort of nasty argument. This one sure wasn't.

Cassandra, I really enjoyed your comments.
((F))

And I'm glad everyone has kissed and made up.

What kind of movie might we make? I wonder if Hollywood did a version of Fodors Forums, who might be cast in which roles?

Perhaps Andie McDowell as Scarlett?

I envision someone very exotic playing Tandoori Girl (to keep up the facade...).

I am envisoning an actress/model who was in a Bond movie...but can't remember the name! Long dark hair - face that reflected an ethnic heritage (perhaps that includes Pacific Islander). I'll keep on trying to pull it out this grey matter)

Very intelligent post, as usual, Cassandra.

Patrick, I would say that it is not a case of men using the characters as role models. Rather, the characters strike us as "real" people because so many men DO behave like that. I have certainly seen male friends behave not quite so badly as the Jack character, but shall we say, allow themselves to be led in their actions by a certain part of their anatomy?

"Message: And I'm glad everyone has kissed and made up."

Huh? There was never anything to "kiss and make up about" except for one very nasty and rude post which insulted me. I haven't seen any retraction of that post? Not that I expect one, but why is it seemingly OK for someone to mistakenly insult someone here accusing them of doing things they didn't do or saying things they didn't say?

There was nothing ever meant as insulting here, so why on earth are people acting like there was? Again, aren't people allowed to have an intelligent debate and question each other about their meanings without being attacked?

And Marilyn I agree wholeheartedly, except that unlike you I HAVE known men who act just as bad and (believe it or not) worse than Jack! My mention of "role models" was referring to trying to understand Cassandra's point about the producers "making" the characters adorable or likeable, and I'll agree role models isn't quite the right word.

Now about the casting of that Fodors movie. . . Tandoori Girl, after your refusal to meet those people who offered, I've decided you are probably in real life a 300 pound man who works as a bouncer in a tacky strip joint who is hiding behind that mask here as "Tandoori Girl". I think John Goodman will play you in the film.
LOL, only kidding, TG.

I will no doubt be portrayed by Brad Pitt or Will Smith, depending on who's available.

Patrick, LOL on the casting for yourself! I think Salma Hayek could do a good job as moi.

Patrick, how did you find out 8-} ??????

Are you? Hmmmm -- perhaps you're that she-Patrick I bounced out of my strip joint last night!!!

Turn-about fair play....nanananana!

How about this fodors film:

Fodors: A Real-Life Trailer Trash Adventure

Could I be played by Candace Bergen?

Cassandra, that's EXACTLY how I picture you!

I thought Miles stealing the money was representative of him getting some "payback".. enabling himself to enjoy the wine/ getting even for seeming somewhat "less than" in his mother's eyes. It was a pattern, as he knew where the money was hidden, and had obviously(to me anyway), done it before and gotten away with it.
The fact that his wife knew of his drinking problem meant he brought unresolved issues into their marriage, that it hadn't been to fairytale union, and he couldn't accept the divorce or his demons. His whole speech to Maya about the wine was a comparison to his inner workings I thought.
Anyway, I agree with other posters on his character physically. If he had been Colin Farrell or Tom Cruise, I doubt the audience empathy(to some) would have been the same.
I'm frequently disappointed by poor casting choices in other movies due to box office draw, but in this case, I agreed with the choices.