Conference bookie::movies

    This is a powerful story of a troubled teenaged boy growing up under
    the thumb of an abusive stepfather.  It is actually an autobiographical
    story, based on a book by Tobias Wolff.
    
    DeNiro brings his special pathological charm to bear on the stepfather
    role.  DeNiro's character is insecure, not well educated, and
    resentful; but he was able to exude the charm necessary to lure the
    boy's vulnerable and lonely mother (Ellen Barkin), into marriage.  The
    family moves to Concrete, Washington, a small town north of Seattle,
    and the psychological battle between the boy and the stepfather begin.

    While Deniro's character is detestable, the movie does not aim for
    cheap or simplistic audience responses.  The boy is headstrong, the
    experiences are not all bad, and the movie is hopeful in the face of
    troubles.  The mother often says that you have to see the good in
    things, but the powerful message in this film is about the need to take
    the initiative and work for what is good, rather than just passively
    accepting everything that happens to you.
    
    3.5 stars out of 4.
    
    -- Mike

    I think the title is a play on the magazine "Boys' Life" which figures
    in the movie renamed as "Boys' World" or some such.  Obviously they
    didn't want  any hassle with the Boy Scouts of America because they
    changed title of the magazine that "Jack" AKA Toby gets with his
    membership in the scouts.  The uniforms are also very similar to BSA
    uniforms, but insignia is different to avoid legal issues.
    
    The magazine and the BSA ideal that is held out to this boy is of
    another world, one in which he, and his eventual friend Charles, are
    truly aliens.  The movie shows us THIS Boy's life and it's painful to
    watch.
    
    Great acting all 'round.  Definitely worth seeing.
    

    The Boston Phoenix reports that film critic Michael Medved has
    condemned this film "for its disdain of Family Values".  I have never
    had a very high opinion of Medved as a critic, and this only confirms
    my impression.  Since this film is based on a memoir, it is hard to
    fathom what he is complaining about.  Does he think that people with
    bad experiences in their lives shouldn't make movies about them?  Or
    that movies should only portray families according to a sanitized
    vision that conforms to his and Dan Quayle's conception of political
    correctness?  Medved really needs to get a clue: life doesn't always
    reflect his Family Values either.  This movies tells a deeply moving
    story about a boy's experiences growing up in difficult
    circumstances--which I can only guess that Medved now considers a taboo
    subject for filmmaking.

    -- Mike

    I saw this movie Friday night and can't imagine what Michael Medved is
    talking about either.  But I'll say one thing: the acting was so
    believable that I found it extremely painful to sit through.  I would
    recommend that if anyone reading this note file has ever suffered abuse
    from a stepparent, be warned that it might be too much to watch.  I
    almost walked out at one point, and my hands were clenched throughout
    the movie once "Dwight" came on the scene.  DeNiro's character was
    scary and believable at the same time, a truly horrible man.  The boy
    who suffered under Dwight's abuse and his mother's apathy was a strong
    and resilient character, and if he had been any weaker it would have
    been a horror movie.  Still and all, there ARE people out there like
    Dwight and women like Jack/Toby's mother.  It must have been very
    therapeutic for Tobias Wolff to put his childhood on screen... I just
    wonder how he could have stood watching it after living it.
    
    Leslie

    Michael Medved is a well-known cuckoo.  His recent book claims
    that many of the films out of Hollywood in the last 30 years
    are the cause of the breakdown of "traditional family values"
    (everything from "Bonnie and Clyde" to the "Star Trek" movie
    series).  His book (like his ideas) is a muddle, he takes many
    things out of context to serve his argument, which is none to
    strong to begin with.  I wouldn't take his comments too 
    seriously, as he now seems to be criticizing *every* movie
    from this limited perspective.
    
    Richard

    I think this movie was made because it shows a story that SHOULD be
    foreign to most of us; a fascination with a family gone amok.  This is
    based on the writer's true life, therefore the "family values" thing is
    a moot point.  Unfortunately for Tobias Wolff, his family values came
    from a weak mother and a violent, abusive stepfather.  If that reviewer
    found it offense to "traditional families", who doesn't?  But it was
    real, and it happened, so his review was beside the point.  Maybe he
    should stick with reruns of the Brady Bunch.
    
    Leslie

>    Michael Medved is a well-known cuckoo.  

Don't malign our feathered friends, Richard.   :^)  :^)

Medved is a solid member of the RRR (Reactionary Religious Right) and
leads their attack on Hollywood.  He is not so much a film critic as a
film adversary with a political/social agenda.  

Bob

re: .7 

Bob,

> He is not so much a film critic as a film adversary with a 
> political/social agenda.  

He certainly may appear that way, because so few films support
his political/social agenda.  Hollywood has its own political/social
agenda and I appreciate Medved pointing it out, when almost no
one else will.

Ann Marie

    
    Re: .8
    
    >Hollywood has its own political/social agenda...
    
    
    Only if you call making lots and lots of money a political/social
    agenda. Because in Hollywood the bottom line is always the bottom line.
    
    As a matter of fact, I recently went to a Media Conference that was
    attending by some major players in Hollywood, (head of Columbia, Morgan
    Creek, etc.), and the big thing now is "G" and "PG" films. It seems
    that with the success of Disney, and similar "family" type movies; all the
    major studios want to make more. Specifically, they talked about the
    strategy when making "Major League II". It was pre-planned as a "PG" film,
    whereas "Major League" (I) was an "R" rated film.
    
    Why? Because "PG" is not the kiss of death anymore. And movies like
    "Major League" would have made lots more money had it been "PG". Money
    is the key here.
    
    It seems to be the trend. Not the other way around as some would have
    you believe.
    
    -James               

RE: .8

Oh, I don't think the Hollywood moguls give a poop about the content of their
movies as long as they follow a formula with a history of making money.  They 
keep recycling the same material because it made money the last time, not 
because it represents a social agenda.  

As for Medved, there's a profound difference between "Don't waste your time on 
this movie because the acting is terrible, the writing is trite and the 
violence is gratuitous" and "Avoid this movie because it will challenge your
concept of Christian morality".

I agree that Hollywood presents an appallingly narrow slice of life, 
philosophy, values, etc. and usually falls miles short of its potential, 
but Medved is trying to manufacture an absurd conspiracy case.

Bob

    For what it's worth, Michael Medved is addressing a conservative
    coalition sponsored by Pat Buchanan (forget the name of the group).
    The coalition's purpose is to define the "cultural war"
    that needs to be waged, to "bring back" America to "traditional
    family values."  My feeling is that Hollywood reflects the
    culture rather than defines it; I'm sure Buchanan and Medved
    would disagree with me.
    
    Anyway, back to the topic, I saw "This Boys's Life" and
    thought it was very good, though quite intense.  I expected
    more brutality from DeNiro's character, but perhaps that's
    what contributed to the dramatic tension (the constant
    threat and fear; what he did was certainly bad enough).  The young
    actor who played the main role was excellent, as were
    Barkin and DeNiro.
    
    Richard
    
    

    -1.
    
    I agree!  I think it was scarier because the tension was so high; if
    the stepfather had been beating him constantly in every scene, I don't
    think the movie would have been believable.  There were parts where I
    cringed, just waiting for all hell to break loose, and then it didn't.
    
    I'm getting goosebumps just thinking about it...
    
    Leslie