Rating 2
Directed by Marc Klein
Written by Marc Klein from the novel by Melissa Bank
Starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, Alec Baldwin, Maggie Grace, James Naughton, Jill Eikenberry and Vanessa Branch
This light romantic film, based on two chapters/stories in the Melissa Bank novel ‘The Girls Guide To Hunting and Fishing’ (‘My Old Man’ and ‘The Worst Thing a Suburban Girl Could Imagine’), is described as a romantic comedy, but that is not what it is. At the same time, it is too frothy to call a drama. It has something of the feel of lightweight 1950s films like ‘Roman Holiday’ and ‘Sabrina’, although this is not my attempt to suggest that Sarah Michelle Gellar should be thought of as the new Audrey Hepburn.
‘Suburban Girl’ had successful screenings at the TriBeCa Film Festival in April and May 2007, but was then released direct to DVD. The film is just about of cinema-release standard, despite the ridiculous wig Gellar is required to wear in the opening scene, but even with her name attached to it I don’t imagine it would have made much of an impact at the box office – and neither is it likely to make enough of an impression to rid us of the on-going misconception that she is typecast as a horror “scream queen”.
Although she is clearly too old for the role, Gellar puts in a perfectly decent performance in the role of Brett Eisenberg, a somewhat insecure and sometimes almost childlike associate editor in a small publishing firm. She is undoubtedly the best thing about the film. Alec Baldwin plays Archie Knox, the older man she falls in love with when he takes her under his wing.The potential ick factor of the relationship between the young woman and older man is largely held at bay, although I am not sure what qualities Brett sees in Archie to make her fall for him so completely. Presumably, she is looking for a father figure; something the film vaguely touches on in her relationship with her actual father – not to mention Archie’s power, wealth and apparent sophistication. However, I cannot escape the impression that he is persistently borderline condescending and patronising, something that I also felt came across in the book.
Sarah Michelle Gellar is one of the most non-sexual actors I can bring to mind. It’s difficult to put my finger on exactly what it is, but this is something I have always felt about her. It is not intended in any way as a criticism – Gellar is an actress I like very much. However, it could get in the way of a film dealing with a romantic/sexual relationship. In the end, it doesn’t prove to be an obstacle here, even if once again I don’t really see what attracts Brett to Archie so much, although the older man taking the easy route with his young conquest is plain enough.
The film contains every cliché possible. The characters are tissue-thin, with only Brett and Archie given any kind of substance. Maggie Grace is wasted in the role of Brett’s best friend. Vanessa Branch does nothing with the role of Brett’s new, predatory editor, coming off like a caricature out of ‘Ugly Betty’, rather than someone capable of making or breaking a career in the publishing world.
I would have liked to see Brett’s relationship with her father and her family explored in more detail. There was a rather strange publicity still released prior to the DVD that shows Brett sitting in the child seat of a supermarket trolley being wheeled around a store by her father. The story references her father’s view of her as a “child”, but thankfully, this particular piece of decidedly odd imagery did not make it into the film itself.I think the film in general would have worked better given a more serious approach. Having said that, it was easy enough to watch and I quite enjoyed it, more so in the second half when the story began to adopt a sharper tone. It’s another half-decent addition to Gellar’s portfolio of films, but I hope that one day she finds a film role to genuinely make the most of her quirky screen persona.
To put my comments into perspective, my partner thinks the films is a “sack of shit”.
...
2 comments:
Presumably, she is looking for a father figure; something the film vaguely touches on in her relationship with her actual father – not to mention Archie’s power, wealth and apparent sophistication. However, I cannot escape the impression that he is persistently borderline condescending and patronising, something that I also felt came across in the book.
Watched this last night - interestingly (or not), for me, that was a major point of the film (e.g., the scene outside the Badly Drawn Boy concert; the ending, where she tells him the thing about girls growing up - in fact, watching that last scene, then reading your comment here, couldn't help bringing to mind our different responses when Buffy closes the door on Giles in "Lies My Parents Told Me".) From the moment Brett meets Archie, I was willing her to get rid of him; again, for me, the patronizing/condescening thing wasn't so much hinted at than entirely obvious. And, while the film may not have been suggesting that all relationships with an age discrepancy are prone to this kind of father/daughter, teacher/student dynamic, it was nice to see at least one movie explore the potential 'ick' factor behind one of the most openly flaunted double-standards in Hollywood.
Anyway ... I quite enjoyed it, but a lot of it seemed to fall a little flat. As you say, it's not quite comedy, not quite drama, but not quite a successful hybrid either. I was expecting something with a little more 'swing' to it - maybe a little sharper and funnier. Gellar and Baldwin were both fine, though (and it was nice to see Jill Eikenberry again - yes, I did watch "LA Law" back in the day).
(And it was way better than the other "Buffy"-alumni vehicle I watched recently, Sex and Breakfast. 'Ick' doesn't even begin to describe that one!)
I agree with everything you say – except for the reference to ‘Sex and Breakfast’, which I haven’t seen and therefore cannot comment on. I should, perhaps have been more forceful and forthright about the Archie’s patronising, patriarchal attitude – which I skirted around by referring to the mystery of what exactly Brett could possibly see in him.
The point about Brett breaking free of the patriarchal security blanket is clear enough, but the film is too feather-light for it to be an entirely successful journey. I guess that was the point I was trying to make when I suggested the film needed a more serious tone. It’s a worthwhile story hampered by its execution.
I understand what you mean about the film feeling rather flat in places, but it would take a lot more than this to get me to be openly critical of a Gellar film!
Post a Comment