Full Version: The Night Listener
Just got back from seeing Patrick Stettner's new film with Robin Williams, Toni Collette, Bobby Cannavale, Rory Culkin. No Oscars here (although Collette is brilliant), but definitely a nicely done story. Semi-autobiographical story by Armistead Maupin. William's character gets fascinated with a story by a 14 year old boy who has written a memoir of his abuse as a child. The problem is if the boy really exists.
Just wondering, do you think the story is MORE relevant nowadays, or LESS relevant nowadays? Apparently it's based on an incident that happened in the early 1990s -- and certain elements in the film do have a kind of datedness, I think (e.g. "Thanks for everything you've done for us" followed shortly by "You've done something for flight attendants?").
Also, what do you think about the possible "icky" factor? I have to admit, this element never occurred to me while I was watching the film myself. Though the question of how we would react if Williams's character was straight and Culkin's character was female IS an interesting one.
Also, do you think the movie played its hand a little too soon? I refer to the fact that, [spoiler]in the scene where Toni Colette takes the phone from Rory Culkin, she does not seem to be blind, yet when Robin Williams first meets her in the flesh several scenes later, she's got the dog and everything; apart from the blindness, there may have been other notable differences too, but I can't recall exactly[/spoiler].
Also, what do you think about the possible "icky" factor? I have to admit, this element never occurred to me while I was watching the film myself. Though the question of how we would react if Williams's character was straight and Culkin's character was female IS an interesting one.
Also, do you think the movie played its hand a little too soon? I refer to the fact that, [spoiler]in the scene where Toni Colette takes the phone from Rory Culkin, she does not seem to be blind, yet when Robin Williams first meets her in the flesh several scenes later, she's got the dog and everything; apart from the blindness, there may have been other notable differences too, but I can't recall exactly[/spoiler].
Well, maybe it tips its hand as you describe, but maybe not. After all, [spoiler]if Pete doesn't really exist, then the scene we see is only in Noone's mind or perhaps in Donna's mind (and she really isn't blind is she?)[/spoiler] Throughout there is a sense of never being able to know if what you see is reality or not. (This is the kind of film that his going to have lots of [spoiler]blacked out lines[/spoiler] through out the discussion.
The "icky" factor actually did occur to me, but not very deeply. I do think that Noone's loneliness after the breakup with Jess has him looking for some sort of emotional connection, but I don't see it as a desire for sexual connection. In fact, he seems to relish being able to feed Pete's hetero fantasies by sending the Playboy.
The "icky" factor actually did occur to me, but not very deeply. I do think that Noone's loneliness after the breakup with Jess has him looking for some sort of emotional connection, but I don't see it as a desire for sexual connection. In fact, he seems to relish being able to feed Pete's hetero fantasies by sending the Playboy.
Darrel Manson wrote:
: Well, maybe it tips its hand as you describe, but maybe not. After all, [spoiler]if Pete doesn't really exist, then[/spoiler]
: [spoiler]the scene we see is only in Noone's mind[/spoiler] . . .
Right. I mean, it would pretty much have to be.
: . . . [spoiler]or perhaps in Donna's mind (and she really isn't blind is she?)[/spoiler]
Oooo, clever. Possibly even more clever than the film itself.
(Though I don't think I would say that any scene that early in the film is [spoiler]in Donna's mind, since we have not yet been introduced to her as a subjective character in that sense -- or have we? maybe even just by being introduced to PETE in a subjective sense[/spoiler]?)
: In fact, he seems to relish being able to feed Pete's hetero fantasies by sending the Playboy.
Heh. And hey, between this film and Little Miss Sunshine, that's TWO films in which comedians play heartbroken gay men who are spotted by their ex-lovers buying heterosexual porn for someone else! If there is a third film that does this, then I sense a "trend" piece in the making!
: Well, maybe it tips its hand as you describe, but maybe not. After all, [spoiler]if Pete doesn't really exist, then[/spoiler]
: [spoiler]the scene we see is only in Noone's mind[/spoiler] . . .
Right. I mean, it would pretty much have to be.
: . . . [spoiler]or perhaps in Donna's mind (and she really isn't blind is she?)[/spoiler]
Oooo, clever. Possibly even more clever than the film itself.
(Though I don't think I would say that any scene that early in the film is [spoiler]in Donna's mind, since we have not yet been introduced to her as a subjective character in that sense -- or have we? maybe even just by being introduced to PETE in a subjective sense[/spoiler]?): In fact, he seems to relish being able to feed Pete's hetero fantasies by sending the Playboy.
Heh. And hey, between this film and Little Miss Sunshine, that's TWO films in which comedians play heartbroken gay men who are spotted by their ex-lovers buying heterosexual porn for someone else! If there is a third film that does this, then I sense a "trend" piece in the making!
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Aug 5 2006, 06:14 PM) [snapback]121942[/snapback]
Heh. And hey, between this film and Little Miss Sunshine, that's TWO films in which comedians play heartbroken gay men who are spotted by their ex-lovers buying heterosexual porn for someone else! If there is a third film that does this, then I sense a "trend" piece in the making!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.