A physics professor approaching middle age decides to change his life with unexpected results. A rising young prosecuting attorney's plans are thrown into disarray as the result of a single careless act while distracted. A woman reluctantly faces her husband's infidelity. An envious insurance claims manager with family problems seeks revenge on a cheerful coworker, but has second thoughts. And an optimistic young cleaning woman awaits a miracle, only to have her faith shaken by a traumatic event. These ordinary people all find themselves asking the fundamental question philosophers have pondered throughout history: What is happiness, and how does one achieve it?Written by
The films story is inspired by two different head injuries that director Jill Sprecher endured. See more »
After Beatrice (the house cleaner) gets out of the hospital and goes to live with her mother, she has candles lit on the bureau. Her mother says that they're a "fire hazard" and blows them out; we see her bend down, blow out the four candles on the right of the mirror (accompanied with four blowing sounds) and stand up. When she stands up, we see that all six candles, including the two to the left of the mirror, are smoking; however, she never extinguished the two on the left. See more »
Richard 'Dick' Lacey:
it seems that in the court of law there's no way to prove the effectiveness of prayer, or as judge put it: "Faith is the antithesis of proof"
See more »
Shawn Elliott is correctly spelled in the first set of credits, but is spelled as 'Shawn Elliot" in the end credits. See more »
It must be quite something to know about screen writing and sit down to a blank sheet of paper. You can start with images, or characters or situations. You have to choose the type of thread and how you trace it, including the key decision about who you are. These sisters take a different approach, very writerly, very clever. They start with the simple question of happiness in a life and come at it from multiple directions, surrounding and probing it. The characters are secondary to the writer's curiosity, and the 'stories' even more incidental. Sometimes you have a film that works with the viewer to grow a world and ideas; here you simply watch as ideas grown on a page are revealed to you. Quite different, precious, but never close to lifealtering or even viscerally engaging.
The film itself superficially resembles a 'Short Cuts' or 'Things You Can Tell' in that many story lines are interwoven. But the differences are profound. Altman's projects are driven by characters and situations that touch because they ramble. The 'Things You Can Tell' project is similar to this one in that its several components are all about the same idea. But 'Things' uses the device of one woman in many bodies, each with a different actress. In this project, the device is deliberate diversity of the characters, each facet having a discernible face.
I liked it. Its not highly cinematic, rather small theater. Its not the stuff that changes one's imagination. But it is literate, refined, and well woven in terms of the words.
As to the actors and their roles, one thing all these multifaceted projects have is the option for the viewer to select a backbone. As a matter of hardwiring we reflexively choose one thread as foreground and the others as background. For me, the anchor was Beatrice, which probably tells you a lot about me. The resurrection from disillusionment (with the opening of the doll's eye!) was a bit heavy so far as the character, but DuVall as an actor really impressed me. All of these actors played characters with an unrecognized inner life. Some, like Turturro work with more self-referential techniques, but with her it seemed true.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
18 of 25 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this