Dear Ndugu,

[wumpus]

About Schmidt is amazing. I loved Election, but this is far better; Alexander Payne has whittled his dark comedy of americana to a razor's edge. A brilliant, understated performance by Jack Nicholson doesn't hurt, either.

I'm sure Tom has some nuthouse art flick he's picked as Best Film of 2003 already. Whatever. About Schmidt is the best film of 2003 so far.

It's only playing at two out of the way theaters here in the Research Triangle, NC area, so it was kind of a pain to go see. We went to the 4:15 matinee showing, and I've never seen so many.. uh, elderly people in a theater since I don't know when. I joked about it before we arrived at the theater, but when we arrived and the four people in front of us all asked for senior discount tickets, we weren't laughing any more. Guess this movie has that sizzling "depressing movie that only appeals to old people" appeal that marketing suits just can't get enough of.

[Tom Chick]

My problem with About Schmidt -- and someone else jump in here because god knows I'm not looking forward to going back and forth with a guy who thought Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was no good because flying people are unrealistic, not to mention a guy with crazy ideas about how Hedwig and the Angry Inch is the same as Rushmore* -- is that it lacked any of the bite Alexander Payne had in Election. And, I presume, Citizen Ruth, which I haven't seen.

It's ultimately a pretty toothless movie with another great Jack performance and a memorable contribution from Kathy Bates.

-Tom

* That guy is wumpus.

[Jakub]

* That guy is wumpus.

You're on your own.

Why waste time arguing with someone who say... criticizes your site for writing Avault-like reviews, when he used to write for said site? :D

Enjoy your joust with the dragon, Don Quixote.

[Jim Preston]

is that it lacked any of the bite Alexander Payne had in Election.

Exactly what kind of bite are you looking for Tom? Is Payne's whithering portrayal of middle America as mainly a bunch of mullet wearing, uncultured, gap-toothed, mouth-breathing, Hummel-figurine-buying, beer swilling, MilkBone dog biscuits on the dinner table, witless slobs not enough of an "edge" for you? Or howabout the bittersweet ending where the clueless woodman (here's a check for you Ndugu, I'm sure you want to cash it and grab a bite to eat) comes to realize that he has never really lived life and now his life is pretty much over.

One of the reasons I have trouble with Alexander Payne, and his bottom-of-the-irony-chumbucket chum Todd Solondz, is that he enjoys torturing his characters much in the way I used bottle rockets and jumping jacks to deform GI Joe action figures as a kid. I was fully expecting that letter at the end of About Schmidt to be all of a his letters to Ndugu returned unopened with a note from the nun saying Ndugu died of dysentery last fall. That one last kick in the balls to his protagonist would have been perfectly in line with Election and Citizen Ruth.

As it stands, the fact that the film ends on a bittersweet note and doesn't decide to twist the dagger in Schmidt's side is a hopeful sign that maybe Payne isn't the irredeemable misanthrope his two previous films made him out to be.

Also, the fact that Child Reach and Ndugu are both real (although Ndugu is not his real name) is another hopeful sign. The producers could have made up a fictional outreach group, but maybe this way Child Reach will get a sudden influx of cash from insecure retirerees, or anyone else for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Or howabout the bittersweet ending where the clueless woodman (here's a check for you Ndugu, I'm sure you want to cash it and grab a bite to eat) comes to realize that he has never really lived life and now his life is pretty much over.

This was my interpretation as well. Tears of pain, not joy. My wife had a slightly more positive spin on that last scene: that perhaps having someone-- anyone-- directly acknowledge that you've had some kind of effect on their life is cathartic.


It's ultimately a pretty toothless movie
I thought it was downright brutal. Let me tell you, Ndugu, those American Indians, they got a raw deal. Just a raw deal.


criticizes your site for writing Avault-like reviews, when he used to write for said site?
I'm fairly sure I've never characterized FiringSquad reviews that way. Do you have a quote that proves otherwise? I did criticize the site for belatedly noticing Counter-Strike near the time Diablo II was released, which I thought was downright negligent for a site implicitly devoted to FPS multiplayer (eg, Thresh).

[Jakub]

criticizes your site for writing Avault-like reviews, when he used to write for said site?
I'm fairly sure I've never characterized FiringSquad reviews that way. Do you have a quote that proves otherwise? I did criticize the site for belatedly noticing Counter-Strike near the time Diablo II was released, which I thought was downright negligent for a site implicitly devoted to FPS multiplayer (eg, Thresh).

You forget your own trolls so quickly.

I really can't be bothered to look for it.

[Anonymous]

On the other hand, I must defer to the self-styled expert who gives no examples to support his argument. If you say it's true, Jakub, you must be right-- are you a pro gamer? I mean in addition to your moonlighting writing Adrenaline Vault-esque reviews for FiringSquad.
You misunderstood what I said. I wasn't criticizing the web site, I was criticizing you. Here's the thread:

http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1070&highlight=firingsquad

Now go see About Schmidt, it's fantastic.

[Jakub]

You misunderstood what I said. I wasn't criticizing the web site, I was criticizing you. Here's the thread:

http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1070&highlight=firingsquad

Now go see About Schmidt, it's fantastic.

*yawn*

Anyway, we'll see. It is tough to pass up a Jack movie.

[Guestacy]

Exactly what kind of bite are you looking for Tom? Is Payne's whithering portrayal of middle America as mainly a bunch of mullet wearing, uncultured, gap-toothed, mouth-breathing, Hummel-figurine-buying, beer swilling, MilkBone dog biscuits on the dinner table, witless slobs not enough of an "edge" for you? Or howabout the bittersweet ending where the clueless woodman (here's a check for you Ndugu, I'm sure you want to cash it and grab a bite to eat) comes to realize that he has never really lived life and now his life is pretty much over.
It's easy to perceive everything through some sort of intellectualized haze; if that's how you are, you can either view Payne's view of midwestern values as comical (which is what the audience I saw it with found most of his little moments and affectations) or insulting.

Or maybe it's actually heartfelt and realistic, since there are a lot of people exactly like Schmidt. Most of them aren't making movies in Hollywood, though. Payne is actually from Omaha, if that matters.

I had the "insulting treatment" vibe after seeing The Good Girl, of all movies. I am sorta sick of this notion that suburbia is a soul sucking experience; hell, my family loves the suburbs. Actually, they aspire to living in suburbs again, since where they live sorta sucks nowadays.

Anyway, I sort of agreed with your analysis here until I realized that Schmidt is my dad. My dad lacks any form of self awareness, worked in a crap job for 20+ years which allowed him to live a fairly comfortable lower-middle class existence, he never got much of anywhere (since he didn't have a college degree), he did work that wasn't particularly glorious and didn't change the world, and he and my mom do all of that sort of weird little collecting. And they own a camper. My mom makes awful crafts she sells, which would be funny if put on screen, at least to people who don't make or buy these same crappy crafts, and it makes her happy. And my dad sits in his chair all day and sleeps (he's retired) or putters around the garage on his 50s car.

So did Payne need to "torture" Schmidt? In a way, yeah. Obviously it wouldn't have been much of a movie without conflict, but what exactly would cause him to even think about evaluating his life in any meaningful way? Whether this type of event would cause my own dad to go through the same sorts of weird things is unknown, and hopefully he'll never know, and I also hope he never sits and thinks, "Shit, I never accomplished anything other than raising an ungrateful son who never visits on holidays."

[Tom Chick]

Exactly what kind of bite are you looking for Tom?

I wasn't necessarily looking for any kind of bite, Jim. But I hardly think Payne's portrayal of Midwestern white trash as clowns is even remotely close to Election sharp wit and keen satire. Of course, Payne was adapting a completely different writer's novel this time around. All told, I'm not complaining so much as making an observation.

As for this, assuming you're talking about the drawing from Africa:


Or howabout the bittersweet ending where the clueless woodman (here's a check for you Ndugu, I'm sure you want to cash it and grab a bite to eat) comes to realize that he has never really lived life and now his life is pretty much over.

I hate to agree with wumpus, especially in a thread where he's being an absolute asshole again, but I don't think that's the significance of the last scene at all. It's a Hallmark moment of typically tear-jerking proportion in which I think he appreciates the difference he's made to Ngudu. It's as powerful as a moment that cliched can be, and it worked for me (yes, I teared up, but don't tell anyone), but I don't think it's as negative as you're making it.

I liked About Schmidt just fine. But the script really was the sort of thing you'd see as a made-for-Lifetime movie. Without Nicholson anchoring it, it would have been completely forgettable fluff to me.

BTW, About Schmidt gets *huge* points from me for the casting of Nicholson's wife. When she first showed up on screen, sitting next to him at the retirement dinner, I wanted to stand up and pump my fist. Fucking A plus, Alexander Payne, finally someone is casting a celebrity next to Real Actual People As They Really Are Outside of Hollywood! Woo-hoo!

-Tom

[Jim Preston]

But I hardly think Payne's portrayal of Midwestern white trash as clowns is even remotely close to Election sharp wit and keen satire. Of course, Payne was adapting a completely different writer's novel this time around. All told, I'm not complaining so much as making an observation.

I would certainly agree there. I don't think About Schmidt was as funny as Election. I guess by "bite" I thought you meant sarcasm, and in that case I see both films as pretty equal.


I hate to agree with wumpus, especially in a thread where he's being an absolute asshole again, but I don't think that's the significance of the last scene at all. It's a Hallmark moment of typically tear-jerking proportion in which I think he appreciates the difference he's made to Ngudu.

I agree that this moment is sweet, but I think it is bittersweet because Schmidt is coming back to an empty house from the disasterous wedding where his daughter made it pretty clear that he was barely, if ever, involved in her life. And now he's made a last, desperate attempt to be involved in someone's, anyone's life even if it is a complete stranger on the other side of the planet. He is both touched by Ndugu's drawing, and crushed the he has done so little so late.

Nonetheless, I regard this as victory for my side as you were forced to admit intellectual bedfellowship with wumpus.


I liked About Schmidt just fine. But the script really was the sort of thing you'd see as a made-for-Lifetime movie. Without Nicholson anchoring it, it would have been completely forgettable fluff to me.

Agreed. In the very first scene where Jack stares at the clock in an empty office my audience just starts cracking up. Hey! There's Jack in a suit! Hey! He's got a comb-over! He's in an office! Har Har! If that role had been played by -- I dunno, Cliff Robertson -- no one would be talking about this movie.

[wumpus]

I hate to agree with wumpus, especially in a thread where he's being an absolute asshole again, but I don't think that's the significance of the last scene at all. It's a Hallmark moment of typically tear-jerking proportion in which I think he appreciates the difference he's made to Ngudu. It's as powerful as a moment that cliched can be, and it worked for me (yes, I teared up, but don't tell anyone), but I don't think it's as negative as you're making it.
You're agreeing with my wife, not me. I can go either way, but I see this as a negative moment-- his life was wasted.

[wumpus]

I don't think that's the significance of the last scene at all. It's a Hallmark moment of typically tear-jerking proportion in which I think he appreciates the difference he's made to Ngudu.
I'm calling this another Wet Hot American Summer Chaise Lounge Moment. You misinterpret the scene. In realizing what small impact his check for $22 and unintelligible letters have had on a child he doesn't even know halfway around the world, Schmidt also realizes that he hasn't made any significant difference to the people in his life for the last 66 years. I don't know what planet you're from, but that is fucking depressing.

It's not as if this is out of left field-- the whole movie lays the groundwork for Schmidt as a man who is completely out of touch with other people. His wife, his daughter, even the way he can't relate to the random strangers he meets at the RV park.

It's a dark, dark movie. Frankly, I was expecting more of a comedy, like Election, not this bleak meditation on a wasted life.

[Anonymous]

This movie was a yawn-fest. Jack was good but the rest of the movie didn't interest me at all.

[Anonymous]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/AboutSchmidt-1117768/

Reviews counted: 134
Fresh: 112 Rotten: 22
Average Rating: 8.2/10

[Tom Chick]

It's a Hallmark moment of typically tear-jerking proportion in which I think he appreciates the difference he's made to Ngudu.

My bad for phrasing this poorly. What I mean is that he appreciates how much it means to get outside yourself, to connect, to make a difference, to reach out, whatever. The child's drawing is a sign of this and the fact that it affects him indicates, to me, that he's finally learned something. In that sense, I see the ending as a hopeful Hallmark moment.

But, yes, I didn't mean to imply that he saved the little African boy from a life of poverty. Now go say something asshole-ish so I can stop agreeing with you. Or your wife.

-Tom

[wumpus]

The child's drawing is a sign of this and the fact that it affects him indicates, to me, that he's finally learned something. In that sense, I see the ending as a hopeful Hallmark moment.
It's important to realize that this scene comes immediately after the inner monologue detailing, in dry actuary table format, how few years he has left to live. So, in that limited amount of time, who exactly is he going to practice these newly learned skills on? His dead wife? His estranged daughter who can't even stand to be around him? His best friend who had an affair with his wife? His cliche-spouting coworkers at the job he just retired from? I hate to be the one to break this to you, but gg Schmidt.

Schmidt never truly connected to anyone; to finally realize in the twilight of his life how much he has retroactively lost is profoundly depressing.

[Tom Chick]

It's important to realize that this scene comes immediately after the inner monologue detailing, in dry actuary table format, how few years he has left to live.

Yeah, all movies about old people are supposed to be really depressing, since it's a given those old people are going to die soon.

-Tom

[Jim Preston]

Yeah, all movies about old people are supposed to be really depressing, since it's a given those old people are going to die soon.


I just wished they would get progressively better looking as they got closer to death, like Ali MacGraw in Love Story.

[wumpus]

Point being, you can't repair 66 years of damage.

Did you notice the cattle truck that was being hosed out near the funeral? And the cattle truck that pulls up alongside Schmidt on his cross-country journey to Denver? When you've lived your entire life in an emotional cage, maybe it's better not to experience a brief moment of freedom near the end.

What I liked most about this movie, to take a phrase from Gordon Cameron, is that the text and the subtext were both so rich.

[Brian Koontz]

Schmidt never truly connected to anyone; to finally realize in the twilight of his life how much he has retroactively lost is profoundly depressing.

What Schmidt lost was during his life, not during the movie. His life was depressing, DISCOVERING the truth about his life is Schmidt's salvation.

What would have been depressing is a movie showing not Schmidt discovering himself, but rather Schmidt *leading* his life up to that point.

Within a cultural trend of dark and/or twisted films, About Schmidt is actually pretty uplifting.

[Tom Chick]

I hate to agree with Brian Koontz too much, especially after the kissing episode Sparky started, but he's right on. About Schmidt is ultimately a movie about redemption.

That this was lost on wumpus is hardly surprising.

-Tom

[Jim Preston]

About Schmidt is ultimately a movie about redemption.

That's a pretty thin conception of redemption, isn't it?

Woodman sleepwalks through life.
Woodman sleepwalks through wife's death.
Woodman sleepwalks through daughter's wedding.
Woodman slowly begins to wake up.
"Oh no! I've been asleep this whole time!"
The End.

As a mild mannered games journalist who is secretly a crime-fighting theologian at night, you understand more than most Tom that redemption is a moral and religious concept usually involving A) God, B) a sinner, C) a realization of that sin, and D) some sort of act to abrogate for all previous sins and ignorance. Usually Hollywood replaces (A) with secular, humanistic ideals because it doesn't want to alienate the non-religious folks and their non-religious money.

But given that there probably isn't going to be a whole lot of agreement on this board on what (A) is (What counts as a truly lived life? Is it OK to collect Hummels and still be authentic? This guy reminds me of my Dad/Uncle/Neighbor...he isn't clueless. What's wrong with RVing?). Schmidt is clearly (B), but the very end of the movie is (C), the realization.

Remember that Schmidt is motivated to write about Ndugu out of guilt from a television commercial and loneliness. When he writes to Ndugu, it is for his own benefit, not Ndugu's. He needs to get some stuff off his chest and his willing to write some kid a $22 check to do it. He is completely clueless about what he is doing or what Ndugu's real situation is.

There is never a (D) because that is where the movie ends. Does Schmidt devote himself to Child Reach? Does he attempt to reconcile with his daughter now that she has made it plain how little he means to her? Who knows? Payne's not really interested in that stuff.

If About Schmidt were a Chirstmas Carol, it would end somewhere in the middle of the ghost of Christmas present when Scrooge is just starting to realize: "Wait a minute...I'm a complete dick, and I'm going to hell." Dickens wisely chose not to shrug his shoulders and write "The End."

I seriously doubt whether Alexander Payne is capable of making a film about redemption because he is too busy sneering at the world and all the silly abortionists, religious nuts, opportunists, adulterers, and wooden insurance actuaries. If About Schmidt is About Redemption then it is the word stretched so thin as to be almost see-through.

(Note: I've never met you in person Tom, but when I do I am going to bring a soap box with me so I can get up on it and respond longwindedly to even casual questions like "how's the weather there?")

[Anonymous]

I hate to agree with Brian Koontz too much
Mistakenly thinking you agree with me is one thing, but when you actually type the words "agree" and "Brian Koontz" in the same sentence-- you've bottomed out.

The ending is somewhat open to interpretation, in that I suppose it is theoretically possible Schmidt manages to turn everything around. But there is nothing in the movie itself to support the hypothesis that this small event does anything other than open Schmidt's eyes to what he was missing for the last 66 years, and the lack of connection he has to everyone in his life.

I'm not sure I completely agree with Jim's assertion that Payne hates these characters, though; he seems sympathetic to Schmidt's small-minded foibles. Heck, it's hard not to walk out of the movie worrying there might be a little bit of Schmidt inside you. Are you really living your life, or just sleepwalking through a string of platitudes and greetings?


He is completely clueless about what he is doing or what Ndugu's real situation is.
Exactly. The lines "Dear Ndugu, I've got some big news. I hope you're sitting down for this." absolutely killed us. Unfortunately, we were the only people in the theater laughing at that one.

-wumpus

[Brian Koontz]

The ending is somewhat open to interpretation, in that I suppose it is theoretically possible Schmidt manages to turn everything around. But there is nothing in the movie itself to support the hypothesis that this small event does anything other than open Schmidt's eyes to what he was missing for the last 66 years, and the lack of connection he has to everyone in his life.

You are wanting way more out of this picture than it is. Schmidt finally opens his eyes, he finally starts to LEARN. That doesn't mean that magically the 66 previous years to his life become a fairytale. It means that Schmidt is greater than he was prior to the occurrence. Schmidt has done something good for a change.

Your argument that its better for Schmidt to NOT know that his life has been pathetic is bad. Now, in however much time remains in Schmidt's life, he can take action on his knowledge. Better late than never.

[Anonymous]

he can take action on his knowledge
See above posts. With his dead wife? Yeah. That'll work.

[DrCrypt]

Okay, thanks to Ireland's absolutely impenetrable American film release schedule, I finally saw this. I hated it. Some comments.

Watching this film, a metaquote from Orwell kept on running through my mind, the gyst of which is: "Writers are so alienated from the experiences of the average man that all novels are now, in fact, about writers." I think this is one of Orwell's goofier quotes, actually (the common man is a myth), but About Schmidt actually toward, down, toward high punches it, and in a way far more depressing than Orwell's original thesis.

I'll leave alone the already cited fact that About Schmidt portrays suburbia as a hellish apocalypse of surreal Hummels, salmon chaise lounges, infomercials, hot tubs and hicks, to which introspectiveless doofuses like Schmidt unwittingly find themselves exiled after decades of delusion that his life has meaning. No, scratch that shit, I won't leave it alone, because this portrayal of "life not as a self-referential genius auteur, but as the hapless common man" is exactly what is wrong with this sort of movie; that which makes its ultimate message so absurdly meaningless and self-contradicting, and ultimately transforms the entire film almost into Alexander Payne's own smug, unwitting autobiography.

I'm not going to spend time factually refuting the diaroma of clichés that Payne presents to the class about suburbia. It is just pseudo-intelligentsia propoganda trying to justify the equally vacuous and introspectiveless lives of never-planned rote self-congratulating people live in Los Angeles, New York, Paris or a thousand other places. What I do want to take to task though is Payne's definition of the common man: a mindless drone exiled to hell on earth because he lacks the capacity to examine his soul, and consequently realize how absolutely worthless his pathetic little life is.

Unlike Orwell, Payne is positive that he understands the common man: the common man is an idiot and a complete failure. What never occurs to Payne during the entire snicker-fist-masturbation festival that is About Schmidt is that Schmidt life is the absolute standard of success for the vast majority of people (a lovely daughter, a wife who loves him, a large home, a vacuous old age and a large retirement fund). Never mind that all of this starts being peeled away from Schmidt as the movie goes on: Payne just uses those subsequent events to double-underline his contempt for the common man's standard of living. But the problem is that the life Schmidt is living is no more meaningless or unfulfilling than that which an "enlightened" writer or artist lives, simply a different alignment with no less of a chance of making a person die happy and fulfilled. The world brushes us aside and sets automotons in motion to take our place no matter who we are, from a hobo to the Pope: fulfillment (obvious from the word itself) is ultimately about what you feel you've gotten out of life, rather than what you have put in. It is worth noting that Schmidt is happy for the first ten seconds of the film, as he stares at the clock counting down to his retirement: his destruction starts when he undergoes a perfectly understandable crises brought on by his retirement and his wife's death.

What "redeems" Schmidt, and what is it that the "common man" lacks, according to Payne? Introspection, by which Payne means "the obvious realization that Schmidt's life is absolute hell and he has, haw haw, wasted his life". What is not really ironic about this view of Payne's is that if you removed that smarmy undercurrent from the film, Schmidt's problems actually begin when he starts to examine the "meaning" of his life. I haven't read the book, but one can only hope that was what the original author was getting at was that our lives are most meaningless when we are actively trying to assign a feel-good blurb to define it, as opposed to allowing it to assign itself. Because Payne's assertion is contradicted by Schmidt's entire journey of morbid, self-loathing introspection, as he actively destroys all of the pre-existing accrual of meaning in his own life.

Also not ironic is that Payne lacks the very introspection that he is criticizing the common man for lacking. Because otherwise, he would already have started to see in the vestiges of his own existence that no one's life is a meticulously self-latticed pattern of meanings that ultimately spells out a symbolic cryptogram that, like the secret name of God, leaves our brief burst of life in an ocean of non-existence fulfilling. Rather, life is a silent accrual of events and meanings which introspection (at its best) does not necessarily allow us to pattern as we like, but instead appreciate for what they are. At its worst, it destroys meaning for looking for nebulous metaphysics that undermine the loveliness that is already naturally there.

In real life, the "common man" does not lack self-awareness and introspection, or at least any more so than that lack of introspection which absolutely defines the oblivion of modern artistic circles or accademmia. What he lacks is morbid self-loathing that can never be fulfilled. Payne has this in spades and inadvertently reads it onto Schmidt while deluding himself that this is the key to redemption. Which is exactly the sort of lack of self-awareness that Payne asserts is the key quality of the idiot common man.

What Orwell didn't get at in his quote, Payne has ultimately appended: artists are now so alienated from the experiences of the common man that they smugly make even the common man self-loathing artists.

If you like smug movies filled with bleak self-destruction and internal hypocrisies, plus an ending redemption that makes no sense in the scheme of the message of the film, go see About Schmidt.

Edit: Some wording, and also another reason to hate About Schmidt: Kathy Bates gets fully frontal nude in it at one point.

[MikeOberly]

If you like smug movies filled with bleak self-destruction and internal hypocrisies, plus an ending redemption that makes no sense in the scheme of the message of the film,

And really,who doesn't??

[wumpus]

plus an ending redemption
Dear Dr. Crypt,

I hope you're sitting down for this. The ending isn't any kind of redemption. It's the realization that-- now that it's practically over-- he never truly lived his life. See relationship with daughter. See relationship with wife. See letters to ndugu.

Yours,

Wumpus

[Tom Chick]

I think we've been over this before and four out of five moviegoers have said that wumpus missed the point of the movie (cf. Rushmore, Crouching Tiger, and Counter-Strike).

My dislike for About Schmidt was based on the fact that it was so toothless as to almost be a Lifetime movie of the week.

If I was Alexander Payne, it would have been a revenge story about Jack trying to get back at the man who'd had an affair with his wife twenty years ago. It would have been like Dirty Rotten Scoundrels meets The Sunshine Boys.

And Hope Davis would have had the hot tub nude scene instead.

-Tom

[Brian Koontz]

Okay, thanks to Ireland's absolutely impenetrable American film release schedule, I finally saw this. I hated it. Some comments.

LOL. Weren't you one of the humans objecting to me understanding Mulholland Drive as offensive and degrading? Here, borrow my shoes for the rest of this post.


Watching this film, a metaquote from Orwell kept on running through my mind, the gyst of which is: "Writers are so alienated from the experiences of the average man that all novels are now, in fact, about writers." I think this is one of Orwell's goofier quotes, actually (the common man is a myth), but About Schmidt actually toward, down, toward high punches it, and in a way far more depressing than Orwell's original thesis.

Nah... go to the bookstore and check out the Bestseller lists... these writers have their pulse on Joe Average and they love to keep it right there.

Now if you're talking SERIOUS writers, then I'd agree with you. The common man only exists in order to be molded into something else.


Unlike Orwell, Payne is positive that he understands the common man: the common man is an idiot and a complete failure. What never occurs to Payne during the entire snicker-fist-masturbation festival that is About Schmidt is that Schmidt life is the absolute standard of success for the vast majority of people (a lovely daughter, a wife who loves him, a large home, a vacuous old age and a large retirement fund). Never mind that all of this starts being peeled away from Schmidt as the movie goes on: Payne just uses those subsequent events to double-underline his contempt for the common man's standard of living.

No. No. No.

According to Payne, Schmidt is *becoming* introspective... he is rejecting his old life. He is *just starting* to become as you put it, "life ... as a self-referential genius auteur". The whole movie addresses this development in identity.

Its the perfect time for a common man to do so, wouldn't you say? Retirement with a dead wife. No job to suck your soul, no wife to provide financial obligations. Now is the best time for Schmidt to undergo his final hobby.

To me, for a man to take on such a hobby at such a late time in his life is much like tilting at windmills. A romantic venture. But opposites attract and Schmidt in his final years will see how the OTHER side lives.

Another movie could be made about the "self-referential genius auteur" who in his later years sees all that he is... his writings, his alienations, his introspections, his insights as ultimately unfulfilling. And so the cliches are presented... the silent thinker, the outsider shown missing out, the eccentric. And this man, upon a "retirement" of sorts undergoes his final project. To become human. He joins clubs, kicks back beers with the guys... loses his introspection. He tilts at windmills as well, seeing how the OTHER side lives.

Would you have the same objections then? Surely you aren't objecting that because you have seen the cliches of Suburbia more often than you have seen those other cliches that Payne has no right to use them. Or are you objecting out of favoritism toward the common man? Egalitarian, defender of the common man also known as DrCrypt?

Schmidt's self-loathing is SELF-SERVING. He has no use for his old life and old ways. He is *retired*. Give the guy a break and let him do something different ;).


But the problem is that the life Schmidt is living is no more meaningless or unfulfilling than that which an "enlightened" writer or artist lives, simply a different alignment with no less of a chance of making a person die happy and fulfilled.

Can Schmidt believe that and still undergo his final hobby? Take Schmidt's belief away from him and he will die unhappy. Schmidt has to see his future life as better if he's going to pursue it.


The world brushes us aside and sets automotons in motion to take our place no matter who we are, from a hobo to the Pope: fulfillment (obvious from the word itself) is ultimately about what you feel you've gotten out of life, rather than what you have put in. It is worth noting that Schmidt is happy for the first ten seconds of the film, as he stares at the clock counting down to his retirement: his destruction starts when he undergoes a perfectly understandable crises brought on by his retirement and his wife's death.

Herein is your problem. I see Schmidt as undertaking a self-serving action (undergoing his final hobby) and you see him as a pawn in a crisis beyond his control.

His retirement and wife's death allow him the *opportunity* to become what he could not become due to that job and that wife before. He must know this on at least a subconscious level... he waits until retirement and a corpsey wife to seriously begin the hobby.

Humans construct realities to serve their needs. A truth you apparently need to learn. Self-loathing is a tool.


What "redeems" Schmidt, and what is it that the "common man" lacks, according to Payne? Introspection, by which Payne means "the obvious realization that Schmidt's life is absolute hell and he has, haw haw, wasted his life".

A self-serving realization, just as the "self-referential genius auteur" demonizes his life IN ORDER to become the common man.

You are taking the movie far too cosmically. Its just Schmidt's final hobby. Its Local about a man's life... not societal.


What is not really ironic about this view of Payne's is that if you removed that smarmy undercurrent from the film, Schmidt's problems actually begin when he starts to examine the "meaning" of his life.

Actually, they begin when Schmidt began planning his retirement.

Otherwise I agree with you here. But problems are not something bad. Problems are part of Schmidt's transition to the new identity.


I haven't read the book, but one can only hope that was what the original author was getting at was that our lives are most meaningless when we are actively trying to assign a feel-good blurb to define it, as opposed to allowing it to assign itself. Because Payne's assertion is contradicted by Schmidt's entire journey of morbid, self-loathing introspection, as he actively destroys all of the pre-existing accrual of meaning in his own life.

Those are not accruals of meaning. Those are results of identity. Now Schmidt is ready for a new identity with new results. And as a means of attaining that new identity, he demonizes his old one. Destroys strictly in order to Create.


Also not ironic is that Payne lacks the very introspection that he is criticizing the common man for lacking. Because otherwise, he would already have started to see in the vestiges of his own existence that no one's life is a meticulously self-latticed pattern of meanings that ultimately spells out a symbolic cryptogram that, like the secret name of God, leaves our brief burst of life in an ocean of non-existence fulfilling.

Of what relevance is Payne? Filmmakers do not create art... they create a film. Viewers of the film create the art (as we are doing in this thread). I'm not interested in Payne... I'm interested in Payne's film. Regardless of what he intended, he created a film about a common man undergoing a final hobby to become something he has never been before. A great adventure filled with lots of necessary self-loathing as means of accomplishing his goals.


Rather, life is a silent accrual of events and meanings which introspection (at its best) does not necessarily allow us to pattern as we like, but instead appreciate for what they are. At its worst, it destroys meaning for looking for nebulous metaphysics that undermine the loveliness that is already naturally there.

More Localism, less Globalism. This story is about a man, not about men.


In real life, the "common man" does not lack self-awareness and introspection, or at least any more so than that lack of introspection which absolutely defines the oblivion of modern artistic circles or accademmia. What he lacks is morbid self-loathing that can never be fulfilled. Payne has this in spades and inadvertently reads it onto Schmidt while deluding himself that this is the key to redemption. Which is exactly the sort of lack of self-awareness that Payne asserts is the key quality of the idiot common man.

I'll quote myself...

"What Schmidt lost was during his life, not during the movie. His life was depressing, DISCOVERING the truth about his life is Schmidt's salvation."

You have destroyed that truth and I thank you for it. I hadn't seen the film and STILL haven't seen the film, but Tom Chick agreed with me who HAD seen the film, so there must be something to it.

This is not a story about redemption. Its a story about a man's last adventure... about becoming his opposite and what he has to do, the *attitudes* he has to cultivate to enable this.


What Orwell didn't get at in his quote, Payne has ultimately appended: artists are now so alienated from the experiences of the common man that they smugly make even the common man self-loathing artists.

Perhaps some filmmaker will take my idea and do the opposite... the self-loathing artist who becomes a vapid common man late in life.

DrCrypt would be sure to see it.

[Jeff Green]

Perhaps some filmmaker will take my idea and do the opposite... the self-loathing artist who becomes a vapid common man late in life.

That was already done in another Jack Nicholson movie: Five Easy Pieces.

[Ron Dulin]

You have destroyed that truth and I thank you for it. I hadn't seen the film and STILL haven't seen the film...

Genius.

[mtkafka]

Wanted to add that this is a really great movie. Just saw it on dvd. What I like about it is that it IS sincere. And the ending is positive, imo. Also, compared to Chick's almighty Royal T, About Schmidt with the same theme of sorta deadbeat fathers, About Schmidt is better. Instead of watching the director being a showoff in RT, in About Schmidt its all about characters. And it doesn't have to hit you over the head with colorful cool pop culture like RT. AS has real characters that you can actually belive exist, well at least for me they did.

And no talk of common man (Crypt) whatever or biting satire (Wumpus)... its just a good character driven (drama/comedy) movie focused on Schmidt. plus the ending suggests that even as mechanical as Schmidt was, he deserves as much forgiveness as anybody else. I liked it alot!

Also watch the movie intro extras and the outtakes. they are pretty cool on the DVD!

Oops late to thread btw.

etc

[Gundaliro]

I wasn't big on this film when I saw it, but I have to say, re-reading this thread makes me think that anything which can support the multiple readings I've seen here isn't that bad. On a related note, why does the Election DVD keep showing up in the used bin and for discounted prices -- it's the Rodney Dangerfield of decent movies, at least on DVD.

[Gary Whitta]

Since somebody evoked the name of the great Rodney, here's a quick bit of Dangerfield trivia:

Can you name the only Rodney Dangerfield movie in which his character is killed?

[Doug Erickson]

I liked About Schmidt, and for precisely the reasons Crypt articulated (but didn't appreciate what with his egalitarian desire to save the world from performance artists, mimes, and Wagner James Au): I like seeing a straw man take on Joe Sixpack get a metaphysical football in the groin after living a purportedly smug life free of geeky artistic introspection.

Call it schadenfreude for the socially maladjusted; this movie was wish fulfillment, plain and simple.

[mtkafka]

I don't understand this 'common' man thing that Crypt and others rail about on this movie. IF anyhting Schmidt is far from common/middle class. Actuaries easily make three figure incomes. And thinking that his daughters fiancee's family are the 'common' man exemplified... whatever. they are just like anybody else. a little less inhibited by social conformity.

And the movie is about Schimidt... like the title says, not the 'common' man social movie ala Steinbeck of the thirties. Its about Schmidt's own prejudices, anger and repressions- like the lady in the trailer EXACTLY says, its all there uncomplicated.. And I think most people don't get that Schmidt isn't completely a bad guy. Numerous times in the movie he asks for forgiveness (on top of the trailer) or when he realizes its the right thing to give thanks for his daughers happiness in getting married, instead of spouting off his own opinions. If anything in the movie, I thought the daughter was harsh, sometimes but understandably so. Everybody has there own hangups, just like Schmidt. I dont get how Wumpus thinks the movies a very dark satire with Schmidt completely wasting his whole life. I think Schmidt is shown as not realizing how GOOD his life was or could have been, that life passed him by, but that even realizing it at the end, that he can still be loved despite his shortcomiongs, and that he can still be happy, and even change it in a little way. People don't make big changes in there peronality, but upon a realization, an enlightenment (almost religious), there life DOES change, sometimes not for the better or worse, but just in the knowledge. Another movie like this, iirc, is Wild Strawberries... same theme except its with a literature professor?. Its an Ingmar Bergman film of the same type... old age and life wasted and whatnut. Schmidt is like this movie but American.

If anything I think the director tries hard not to go down the road of gen x irony, or as Chick says a Lifetime channel movie of the week (for women?!?). As a retiree crisis senility whatever they call em type movie, its done believably well.

etc

[wumpus]

I dont get how Wumpus thinks the movies a very dark satire with Schmidt completely wasting his whole life. I think Schmidt is shown as not realizing how GOOD his life was or could have been, that life passed him by, but that even realizing it at the end, that he can still be loved despite his shortcomiongs, and that he can still be happy, and even change it in a little way. People don't make big changes in there peronality, but upon a realization, an enlightenment (almost religious), there life DOES change, sometimes not for the better or worse, but just in the knowledge.
You really don't want to find this out at the end of your life; in that case the knowledge isn't cathartic but painful. His wife is dead, his daugher is permanently estranged and utterly rejects his tentative offer to reconcile, and he has no real friends-- witness the episode in the RV park with the couple.

How exactly is he going to "turn it around"? Nothing in the actual text of the movie supports this weird positive reading. If you're guessing at what he might do after the credits roll, then it's just unsupportable, because I'm guessing he becomes a costumed superhero who fights crime!

[Kyle Wilson]

Actuaries easily make three figure incomes.

Golly. That's over... ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS!

:)

Counting in kilodollars, huh?

[DavidCPA]

Since somebody evoked the name of the great Rodney, here's a quick bit of Dangerfield trivia:

Can you name the only Rodney Dangerfield movie in which his character is killed?

Natural Born Killers

-DavidCPA

[mtkafka]

I dont get how Wumpus thinks the movies a very dark satire with Schmidt completely wasting his whole life. I think Schmidt is shown as not realizing how GOOD his life was or could have been, that life passed him by, but that even realizing it at the end, that he can still be loved despite his shortcomiongs, and that he can still be happy, and even change it in a little way. People don't make big changes in there peronality, but upon a realization, an enlightenment (almost religious), there life DOES change, sometimes not for the better or worse, but just in the knowledge.
You really don't want to find this out at the end of your life; in that case the knowledge isn't cathartic but painful. His wife is dead, his daugher is permanently estranged and utterly rejects his tentative offer to reconcile, and he has no real friends-- witness the episode in the RV park with the couple.

How exactly is he going to "turn it around"? Nothing in the actual text of the movie supports this weird positive reading. If you're guessing at what he might do after the credits roll, then it's just unsupportable, because I'm guessing he becomes a costumed superhero who fights crime!

Maybe I'm saying it wrong, but Schimidt recongnizes hes been wrong alot in his life, the tone of the movie acknowledges Schmidt knows he wasted parts of his life, but its more about his own thinking about his own life at that moment, his own feelings being repressed not as his life being terrible and permanently damaged. Believe me, as cold and distant as Schmidt was he still had good intentions for the most part, albeit he represses alot ofhis frustration. The ending is in no way dark, imo, I cant judge if the guy becomes anti Archie Bunker and a bleeding heary after the credits but I'm pretty sure hes forgiven and has acknowledged fully his own faults. The whole movie is basically a confessional in the guise of a letter to Ndugu.

etc

[mtkafka]

Actuaries easily make three figure incomes.

Golly. That's over... ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS!

:)

Counting in kilodollars, huh?

oops i meant six figures! also I dont think the movie differentiates in wealth but in how one values there life, be it rich or modest or low income.

etc

[Reeko]

I love dragging up old threads....

I finally saw this tonight on DVD. Simply an incredible movie. Tom, I'm with you about the non-Hollywood casting. Great move, and the sign that the studio has some confidence in a director.

As far as the midwestern white trash angle goes, I don't think the director's point was to portray lower-middle class whites as barbaric buffoons. I think he was trying to illustrate the culture shock that Schmidt was going through. When Nicholson looks out the window and sees the guy in shorts and no shirt throwing a bag of trash onto an already impressive collection of garbage in his front yard, it helps us empathize better with Schmidt's discomfort. Exaggeration for effect.

I don't know about the ending, I am still digesting it.