The Descendants (Alexander Payne, 2011)

[HistoryProf]

I'm with the consensus here that About Schmidt was Payne's weakest effort - but even that was generally entertaining. I've made no bones about Clooney being on my laminated list to my wife (right in between Sophie Vergara and Christina Hendricks), so I've been doubly excited about seeing this. Glad to hear it's getting a positive resonse.

[mfunk9786]

How many people does your wife let you list?! I've only got one, and I don't think Natalie Portman is looking for the likes of me.

[Professor Wagstaff]

right in between Sophie Vergara and Christina Hendricks

HistoryProf definitely has a type

[James Mills]

I'm with the consensus here that About Schmidt was Payne's weakest effort - but even that was generally entertaining. I've made no bones about Clooney being on my laminated list to my wife (right in between Sophie Vergara and Christina Hendricks), so I've been doubly excited about seeing this. Glad to hear it's getting a positive resonse.

Is that really the consensus around here? Schmidt is probably my favorite actually, though I love them all (except this one, which I merely like... I'm wondering if the consensus will be that this was his weakest in due time).

[hearthesilence]

Calling it the "weakest" would be too misleading since for me, it's pretty much on par with Sideways and The Descendants, and I don't consider any of them to be poor films. Haven't seen Citizen Ruth or his non-feature films.

[HistoryProf]

How many people does your wife let you list?! I've only got one, and I don't think Natalie Portman is looking for the likes of me.

Five. and the list is laminated. But I can change it every two years (hence Sophie's appearance...Poor Diane Lane, i'm sure she's heartbroken).

And yes, I have a type - that type is called a 100% real woman. Unless it's George Clooney. I'm little more than putty in his hands.

I'm with the consensus here that About Schmidt was Payne's weakest effort - but even that was generally entertaining. I've made no bones about Clooney being on my laminated list to my wife (right in between Sophie Vergara and Christina Hendricks), so I've been doubly excited about seeing this. Glad to hear it's getting a positive resonse.

Is that really the consensus around here? Schmidt is probably my favorite actually, though I love them all (except this one, which I merely like... I'm wondering if the consensus will be that this was his weakest in due time).

Payne is one of those for whom "weakest" is relative - it's still a delightful film that I am glad to own and enjoyed immensely. Indeed, it's hard to use any negatives about his films at all...they're all just so damned good. He's a rare talent and combined with Clooney's hunka hunka Cary Grant persona, I can only imagine wonderful things are in store for all of us.

[James Mills]

I had already hit the quote button to tell you that I was in complete agreement until I saw a comparison between Cary and Clooney. Oh boy

[HistoryProf]

You don't think he has a Cary Grantish quality? I certainly do. Two of the most charming men to ever grace the screen.

[mfunk9786]

James Mills just doesn't like Clooney because uh... that part was never made clear.

[Cold Bishop]

Maybe he doesn't like Cary Grant.

[mfunk9786]

Or rainbows!

[Professor Wagstaff]

What if Derek Cianfrance directed George Clooney to convince you otherwise?

[hearthesilence]

I think the Cary Grant comparisons have become overstated throughout the press. Clooney has gotten better over the years, his charm more roguish and less juvenile, in a way that brings his on-screen persona a bit closer to Grant, but the two have very different bodies of work, especially now that Clooney has much more control over his career. Different films, different types/levels of involvement in each project and very different aims in terms of what they want to do with their image (for starters, Grant was much less active politically).

David Thomson's assessments in 2007 and 2010.

FWIW, I think Clooney's persona shares some elements with Clark Gable as well as Grant too, especially in his performances for the Coen brothers.

[James Mills]

I think the Cary Grant comparisons have become overstated throughout the press.

This is what I meant, basically.The looks department is the only area I see similarities, as their work are comprised of roles that aren't really all that similar.

And I don't care for Clooney because I find his nuanced head movements and furrowed brows / pointy eye demeanors to feel very contrived to me. I never get a sense of relaxation or comfort and ease from him when he's on the screen (which, coincidentally, is the direct opposite to my feelings of Mr. Grant). Much like Will Smith, it's very hard for me to watch a film with Clooney without constantly being taken out of the translucent experience of cinema; he has a very self reflexive, presentational style to me, and I guess that's a personal matter of taste at that point.

[Brian C]

And I don't care for Clooney because I find his nuanced head movements and furrowed brows / pointy eye demeanors to feel very contrived to me. I never get a sense of relaxation or comfort and ease from him when he's on the screen (which, coincidentally, is the direct opposite to my feelings of Mr. Grant). Much like Will Smith, it's very hard for me to watch a film with Clooney without constantly being taken out of the translucent experience of cinema; he has a very self reflexive, presentational style to me, and I guess that's a personal matter of taste at that point.

I understand what you mean and even agree to some extent, but to me the interesting thing about Clooney is the way that he presents himself.

Take Matt King, his character in The Descendants. I was thinking while watching the film that this role could have been just as easily played by Payne's Sideways star Paul Giamatti, with few or perhaps even zero changes to the script (depending, I guess, on how willing one is to accept Giamatti as biologically part-Hawaiian). In fact, it has all the hallmarks of a standard Giamatti role; Matt is basically the same put-upon, passive-aggressive sad sack that Giamatti's played his whole career.

Clooney, though, doesn't play the role in the obvious, Giamatti-style way. His Matt is a bit of a schlub, but he's not born to be a sucker, like a Giamatti character. He comes across as charming and engaging when he feels like it, but just as often aloof and complacent. It's easy to imagine how he made himself successful, but also easy to imagine how his life might have started to unravel without him really noticing it. Clooney has an established movie-star persona at this point in his career, but he allows that persona to be shown in a different way, one that allows for his natural charisma but also emphasizes that - like a movie star - this is a guy who is used to having things taken care of for him.

To be sure, I don't think it's an entirely successful performance. The scene when he makes his final decision about the land, for example, seems poorly written (like so much of the film) and I don't think Clooney's performance really built up to that moment very well. But I think he's always interesting to watch, because he obviously chooses his roles with care, and he makes up for what he lacks in naturalistic talent by approaching his characters (very much unlike Will Smith) with intelligence and humanity.

[J Adams]

I will grant you that Clooney is a more interesting actor than Will Smith. That said, he is extremely, EXTREMELY "ticcy". He does choose his roles well. All of the supporting characters in Descendants were more interesting to watch than GeClo.

[James Mills]

And I don't care for Clooney because I find his nuanced head movements and furrowed brows / pointy eye demeanors to feel very contrived to me. I never get a sense of relaxation or comfort and ease from him when he's on the screen (which, coincidentally, is the direct opposite to my feelings of Mr. Grant). Much like Will Smith, it's very hard for me to watch a film with Clooney without constantly being taken out of the translucent experience of cinema; he has a very self reflexive, presentational style to me, and I guess that's a personal matter of taste at that point.

I understand what you mean and even agree to some extent, but to me the interesting thing about Clooney is the way that he presents himself.

Take Matt King, his character in The Descendants. I was thinking while watching the film that this role could have been just as easily played by Payne's Sideways star Paul Giamatti, with few or perhaps even zero changes to the script (depending, I guess, on how willing one is to accept Giamatti as biologically part-Hawaiian). In fact, it has all the hallmarks of a standard Giamatti role; Matt is basically the same put-upon, passive-aggressive sad sack that Giamatti's played his whole career.

Clooney, though, doesn't play the role in the obvious, Giamatti-style way. His Matt is a bit of a schlub, but he's not born to be a sucker, like a Giamatti character. He comes across as charming and engaging when he feels like it, but just as often aloof and complacent. It's easy to imagine how he made himself successful, but also easy to imagine how his life might have started to unravel without him really noticing it. Clooney has an established movie-star persona at this point in his career, but he allows that persona to be shown in a different way, one that allows for his natural charisma but also emphasizes that - like a movie star - this is a guy who is used to having things taken care of for him.

To be sure, I don't think it's an entirely successful performance. The scene when he makes his final decision about the land, for example, seems poorly written (like so much of the film) and I don't think Clooney's performance really built up to that moment very well. But I think he's always interesting to watch, because he obviously chooses his roles with care, and he makes up for what he lacks in naturalistic talent by approaching his characters (very much unlike Will Smith) with intelligence and humanity.

Great post. This is a side that I never thought, but I agree in some ways. I also agree with J Adams.

[Luke M]

I don't think Clooney can be as funny as Grant was in his films. He also can't pull off showering in a suit... but then again probably no one can.

I liked this movie but I think it's overpraised. Though that seems to be rather common nowadays.

[knives]

A lukewarm reaction is overpraised? Everywhere I've heard it as a good movie that doesn't mark the best of Payne's career.

[Brian C]

He also can't pull off showering in a suit... but then again probably no one can.

I can. I'd prove it, too, if I had a suit I could afford to ruin.

[James Mills]

A lukewarm reaction is overpraised? Everywhere I've heard it as a good movie that doesn't mark the best of Payne's career.

Better than lukewarm; I believe an 8.3 aggregated average rating is top five for the year thus far. That's actually the weird part about it, and I mentioned it earlier: it seems that even the reviews seem to read only tepidly emphatic, yet the reviewer still goes off and gives it a 4.5/5 or whatever.

And that was funny, I mistook Luke M's avatar as mfunk's when I first read the post and thought to myself "This is peculiar, he's agreeing with me in every facet..."

[knives]

Numbers aren't really important compared to words in this case. Those scores are arbitrary.

[Roger Ryan]

What the film does well is find a fresh and interesting way to approach a very formulaic storyline that contains all the scenes you anticipate given the subject matter. In the hands of a less thoughtful writer/director, THE DESCENDANTS would play out just like the dozens of other films this one is similar to. That being said, the major subplot of Matt King and his cousins negotiating a land sale (the one unique aspect of this story) feels undercooked. I also came away wishing that Payne would have found a way to establish the film's exposition without resorting to first-person narration, a device that simply vanishes mid-film. Fine performances and a deft hand at avoiding sentimentality are the main attributes.

[MoonlitKnight]

Saw this a few days ago. Not as good as "Sideways;" maybe on par with (or just slightly below) "About Schmidt." The acting, as expected, is uniformly excellent... and Beau Bridges does a good job impersonating his now-far-more-famous-than-he-is kid brother. :-"

[Brian C]

Maybe all these years Jeff has just been doing an impersonation of Beau.