Let's compare GWH to the earlier, better "Ordinary People", shall we? Both are psychiatrist savior movies set in large, urban American communities that feature plenty of good acting and perceptive dialogue. So why is it then that I care deeply about Timothy Hutton's Conrad Jarrett in "People" and give not a cold Guinness about the title character of this film?
Maybe it's because in Redford's film it mattered very much to me that a suicidal and troubled youth with a messed up home life learns to survive in the world and not withdraw from it whereas in Gus Van Sant's film, (which is really Ben Affleck and Matt Damon's film...more about this later), it really doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever that Will would rather be a janitor than an MIT math whiz. If anything, Will's shrink, well played by Robin Williams, seems far more damaged than he is, what with anger issues over his dead wife and lack of success compared to Stellan Skarsgaard and all. Perhaps if the film had focused on him, and been called "Sean Maguire Floundering", it would have caused me to exhibit some empathy, but, then, if it had focused on how unstable the shrink was you would not have had the therapist as healer trope so beloved by Hollywood ever since Claude Raines sat down next to Bette Davis in "Now, Voyager".
I also did not particularly care for the lack of visual interest or flow in this film. It tended toward the closed in feel of "prestige" TV, like a Hallmark Hall of Fame with the F word, as Van Sant's camera continually retreats before the onslaught of Damon and Affleck's dialogue, with all the main characters afforded at least one long, self revealing monologue and Williams and Damon given more than one. And while the monologues are all intelligent and even at times funny they render the film more of a literary than a cinematic experience. Thus the Oscar win for best writing rather than best directing.
Give it a B minus.
Maybe it's because in Redford's film it mattered very much to me that a suicidal and troubled youth with a messed up home life learns to survive in the world and not withdraw from it whereas in Gus Van Sant's film, (which is really Ben Affleck and Matt Damon's film...more about this later), it really doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever that Will would rather be a janitor than an MIT math whiz. If anything, Will's shrink, well played by Robin Williams, seems far more damaged than he is, what with anger issues over his dead wife and lack of success compared to Stellan Skarsgaard and all. Perhaps if the film had focused on him, and been called "Sean Maguire Floundering", it would have caused me to exhibit some empathy, but, then, if it had focused on how unstable the shrink was you would not have had the therapist as healer trope so beloved by Hollywood ever since Claude Raines sat down next to Bette Davis in "Now, Voyager".
I also did not particularly care for the lack of visual interest or flow in this film. It tended toward the closed in feel of "prestige" TV, like a Hallmark Hall of Fame with the F word, as Van Sant's camera continually retreats before the onslaught of Damon and Affleck's dialogue, with all the main characters afforded at least one long, self revealing monologue and Williams and Damon given more than one. And while the monologues are all intelligent and even at times funny they render the film more of a literary than a cinematic experience. Thus the Oscar win for best writing rather than best directing.
Give it a B minus.