Girl, Interrupted
Seen: 2000-01-20
Overall: ***
Writing: ** 1/2
Acting: ****
Cinematography: ** 1/2
Art: ***
Direction: ***
Enjoyment: *** 1/2
Venue: Mann Colony Square 12
Medium: Silver Screen
I'll start this by saying that I went to this movie mostly because of the thread I read about it over on good old Nutforum, where one astute person mentioned its vaguely "uber"-ish qualities. Well, they also said it was a good movie. Which it was. I don't think I would have thought, "Oh look, uber characters!" had I not been exposed to the idea beforehand, however. Oh, and subtext? Yes. Definitely there. :)
Winona Ryder plays Susanna, a girl who, having attempted suicide, ends up in Claymore, the local nut house (in the most politically correct sense of the term, mind you ;) ). During her time there, she meets a whole slew of, shall we say... interesting, characters. Most prominent among those is Lisa, the local psychopath, who, despite being a psychopath, has won over many of the other patients (and even some staff) with her wacky charm.
A lot of what makes this movie interesting -- besides the excellent acting by Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie in the lead roles -- is the way it teeters on the brink of portraying Susanna and the mental patients as totally sensible people caught in a world that's insane. Almost. Ok, maybe not some of those people, but Susanna, and sometimes Lisa, make the viewer's POV. If the movie can allow the audience to experience life through the eyes of a borderline case, all without compromising either the protagonist's inner mind or the external reality, then that's a success for a movie of this genre. If that statement makes any sense. Probably not. Oh well.
Underscoring the story is the historical backdrop of the 60s, during which women's expected role in society was... confusing. This shown as exacerbating Susanna's uncertainty about her place in the world, which, along with other factors, undoubtly contributed to her depression and ambivilance. Feelings of uncertainty already being a common at that age anyway, regardless of time period, gender, or social status (I for one should know about that, right?). Add to that a time of such social upheaval, plus unique circumstances regarding her parents, and other personal factors. A formula for alienation, confusion, self-destructive behavior.
Enter the mental hospital scene. A community of strange, insane women, each with their peculiarities, all watched over by the ever vigilant, ever caring, ever persistent nurse Valerie, played by Whoopi Goldberg. Despite their oddities, the patients pretty much stick up for one another through thick and thin. I would say another big part of this movie's appeal lies in the tried and true "build a sense of community by bringing together a rag-tag bunch of disparate but lovable characters" approach to storytelling. Formulaic as hell, but it does work on the emotions (which is probably why Hollywood makes use of the technique so often).
Complaints: The story did drag in spots, particularly during the last half hour. Some of the foreshadowing was about as subtle as dropping 905 kilograms of bricks on the head. The scenes leading up to the end seemed forced to me.
Plusses: As I already said, Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie's acting was supurb. Flashbacks during the exposition were really well done. Did a good job of bringing the viewer into Susanna's frayed world. They also did a really good job catching a lot of the little details about what goes on inside a mental hospital. Accuracy counts.
Finally, I realize many would probably regard this movie as a "chick flick", and wonder why I, a male, would actively choose to watch it. I refer such readers to the commentary in the "Ever After" entry, made over a year ago. (Blast! I wish I had a way to link to other internal SQL documents without blowing site consistency all to hell. Another day...)
Info at Ebert's page (Until Amazon/IMDB decides to play fair. I keep hoping they'll just drop this patent crap so I can feel good about linking there again. Alas, it doesn't seem to be happening, so Ebert's info provides a better alternative than nothing.)
I'll start this by saying that I went to this movie mostly because of the thread I read about it over on good old Nutforum, where one astute person mentioned its vaguely "uber"-ish qualities. Well, they also said it was a good movie. Which it was. I don't think I would have thought, "Oh look, uber characters!" had I not been exposed to the idea beforehand, however. Oh, and subtext? Yes. Definitely there. :)
Winona Ryder plays Susanna, a girl who, having attempted suicide, ends up in Claymore, the local nut house (in the most politically correct sense of the term, mind you ;) ). During her time there, she meets a whole slew of, shall we say... interesting, characters. Most prominent among those is Lisa, the local psychopath, who, despite being a psychopath, has won over many of the other patients (and even some staff) with her wacky charm.
A lot of what makes this movie interesting -- besides the excellent acting by Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie in the lead roles -- is the way it teeters on the brink of portraying Susanna and the mental patients as totally sensible people caught in a world that's insane. Almost. Ok, maybe not some of those people, but Susanna, and sometimes Lisa, make the viewer's POV. If the movie can allow the audience to experience life through the eyes of a borderline case, all without compromising either the protagonist's inner mind or the external reality, then that's a success for a movie of this genre. If that statement makes any sense. Probably not. Oh well.
Underscoring the story is the historical backdrop of the 60s, during which women's expected role in society was... confusing. This shown as exacerbating Susanna's uncertainty about her place in the world, which, along with other factors, undoubtly contributed to her depression and ambivilance. Feelings of uncertainty already being a common at that age anyway, regardless of time period, gender, or social status (I for one should know about that, right?). Add to that a time of such social upheaval, plus unique circumstances regarding her parents, and other personal factors. A formula for alienation, confusion, self-destructive behavior.
Enter the mental hospital scene. A community of strange, insane women, each with their peculiarities, all watched over by the ever vigilant, ever caring, ever persistent nurse Valerie, played by Whoopi Goldberg. Despite their oddities, the patients pretty much stick up for one another through thick and thin. I would say another big part of this movie's appeal lies in the tried and true "build a sense of community by bringing together a rag-tag bunch of disparate but lovable characters" approach to storytelling. Formulaic as hell, but it does work on the emotions (which is probably why Hollywood makes use of the technique so often).
Complaints: The story did drag in spots, particularly during the last half hour. Some of the foreshadowing was about as subtle as dropping 905 kilograms of bricks on the head. The scenes leading up to the end seemed forced to me.
Plusses: As I already said, Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie's acting was supurb. Flashbacks during the exposition were really well done. Did a good job of bringing the viewer into Susanna's frayed world. They also did a really good job catching a lot of the little details about what goes on inside a mental hospital. Accuracy counts.
Finally, I realize many would probably regard this movie as a "chick flick", and wonder why I, a male, would actively choose to watch it. I refer such readers to the commentary in the "Ever After" entry, made over a year ago. (Blast! I wish I had a way to link to other internal SQL documents without blowing site consistency all to hell. Another day...)
Info at Ebert's page (Until Amazon/IMDB decides to play fair. I keep hoping they'll just drop this patent crap so I can feel good about linking there again. Alas, it doesn't seem to be happening, so Ebert's info provides a better alternative than nothing.)