(no subject)
Nov. 6th, 2005 09:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
unbibiumI saw Melvin Goes to Dinner.
I didn't see it because I wanted to see a movie about infidelity. I saw it because it was directed by Bob Odenkirk, and I loved Mr. Show with Bob and David.
But, yes, it's about infidelity, but that theme snuck up on me about halfway through the movie. Up to then, I thought it was about coincidences, or about social awkwardness, or, most naïvely, maybe it was about someone going to dinner. But, not to disappoint the audience by springing a "message" on us, it's not the usual kind of Hollywood infidelity where A cheats on B by sleeping with C, and if A's the villain then he leaves B for D, and if A's an anti-hero he leaves B for C eventually. It's about all those complicated real-life things that end up happening instead.
And there's a lot of non-linear editing, which confused me at first.
Also, dinner conversations are kind of fun to watch. It made me miss the talk show Dinner for Five, in which Jon Favreau would have dinner with four people in the film industry, and sometimes the guests had loose connections to each other or to the host. The round-table format, finally taken to its literal meaning, was a refreshing change from the standard sequential-guest desk+couch format that's been the standard for celebrity interviews since the 50's. Sometimes a group of actors would reminisce about a movie they were all in, and sometimes they'd all sit back and watch Burt Reynolds tell stories for a half hour. It was too magical to last. So perhaps I'll cancel my subscription to IFC, and cling to the three episodes I have floating on the lifeboat that is my TiVo.
Strangely enough, Dinner for Five seems more scripted than Melvin Goes to Dinner. I imagine it's because DfF edits out the strange tangents that MGtD writes purposefully into the script, those tangents that characterize dinner conversations with four or more participants. But in real life, those tangents almost never fit back together into a nice little bow at the end of the evening. Indeed, it's only the last ten minutes where the entire plot and purpose of the movie becomes apparent. And it still didn't look scripted to me. (I hope I'm not the only one who feels that way, as it's entirely possible that I'm easily fooled.)
I didn't see it because I wanted to see a movie about infidelity. I saw it because it was directed by Bob Odenkirk, and I loved Mr. Show with Bob and David.
But, yes, it's about infidelity, but that theme snuck up on me about halfway through the movie. Up to then, I thought it was about coincidences, or about social awkwardness, or, most naïvely, maybe it was about someone going to dinner. But, not to disappoint the audience by springing a "message" on us, it's not the usual kind of Hollywood infidelity where A cheats on B by sleeping with C, and if A's the villain then he leaves B for D, and if A's an anti-hero he leaves B for C eventually. It's about all those complicated real-life things that end up happening instead.
And there's a lot of non-linear editing, which confused me at first.
Also, dinner conversations are kind of fun to watch. It made me miss the talk show Dinner for Five, in which Jon Favreau would have dinner with four people in the film industry, and sometimes the guests had loose connections to each other or to the host. The round-table format, finally taken to its literal meaning, was a refreshing change from the standard sequential-guest desk+couch format that's been the standard for celebrity interviews since the 50's. Sometimes a group of actors would reminisce about a movie they were all in, and sometimes they'd all sit back and watch Burt Reynolds tell stories for a half hour. It was too magical to last. So perhaps I'll cancel my subscription to IFC, and cling to the three episodes I have floating on the lifeboat that is my TiVo.
Strangely enough, Dinner for Five seems more scripted than Melvin Goes to Dinner. I imagine it's because DfF edits out the strange tangents that MGtD writes purposefully into the script, those tangents that characterize dinner conversations with four or more participants. But in real life, those tangents almost never fit back together into a nice little bow at the end of the evening. Indeed, it's only the last ten minutes where the entire plot and purpose of the movie becomes apparent. And it still didn't look scripted to me. (I hope I'm not the only one who feels that way, as it's entirely possible that I'm easily fooled.)
