*** Official "MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Sun]

It appears film talent didn't fall from the Zwick family tree. Thanks for the confirmation. Joel definitely learned a lot from setting up jokes from his TV sitcom days.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

MBFGW is not really Best Picture material. Even in a weak year, it shouldn't get nominated. It was a fun movie but nothing more. I'd rather go see The Good Girl get a nomination first.

I'm counting not only the obvious Gangs, but stuff like Chicago and even Piano Teacher.

You mean, Roman Polanski's The Pianist.
~Edwin

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Edwin Pereyra said:

But IMO it is a "fake" independent film - it doesn't embody the values of artistic risk-taking and intelligence that independent film is supposed to honor.

I'd agree. I was referring to artistic independence, that it seemed to be made without studio interference. I think they made the movie they wanted to make. Certainly, though, it isn't a risky movie by any means, although I don't think all independent film has to be, by its nature, risk-taking.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Certainly, though, it isn't a risky movie by any means, although I don't think all independent film has to be, by its nature, risk-taking.

I dunno. Sinking $5 million and lot of work into a film that every studio turned down, starring an actress that agents wouldn't even send up for parts, sounds pretty risky to me. I agree that the end result is almost classical in its themes and approach (which, I suspect, is a big reason for its success). But the idea of "independent cinema" is to make movies that the studios don't want to make for one reason or another. MBFGW fits that definition perfectly.

M.

 

[steve jaros]

Michael Reuben:

I don't think anyone is denying that the film was a significant financial risk. It just wasn't an artistic one.

Tino:

FWIW, i'm not Greek. As for specific examples of stuff i found offensively stereotypical, i can't remember off the top of my head, but i believe i did make some specific comments about that in a thread similar to this one a few months ago.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Well, the father's stereotypical (don't educate women) old world outlook did always quiet the audience, but the screenplay was smart enough to not dwell on it, and always pulled out a quick laugh to move onto the next scene.

 

[Tino]

Steve
Sorry, I thought you said you were Greek previously, and Jaros does sound Greek to me (no pun intended!). But let me ask you this. Did you find other films of this nature to be sterotypically offensive? For example, The Godfather films, or Goodfellas, Do The Right Thing etc..?
What maked MBFGW any less or more offensive than those films? Usually one who shares the nationality being portrayed gets offended. I don't know many non-Italians that were offended by The Sopranos for example.
And I agree with Seth that MBFGW definitely has a chance at a few Oscar noms. If not Best Picture, then perhaps Best Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I don't think anyone is denying that the film was a significant financial risk. It just wasn't an artistic one.

First of all, I don't agree with the distinction. Putting something in front of the public that you've been repeatedly told the public doesn't want to see is a form of artistic risk -- especially when it's your own life and you're the one playing the part. (Obviously, I'm referring to writer/star Nia Vardalos.)
And second, I don't share your implicit definition of "independent" films as films that take "artistic risk" (whatever you mean by that). If a film is made outside the studio system because studios won't make it, that's an independent film. Now, one can like or dislike the product -- and you've made it clear where you stand -- but trying to shore up that opinion by invoking the "true" spirit of independent film is just an empty game of semantics.
M.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

But IMO it is a "fake" independent film - it doesn't embody the values of artistic risk-taking and intelligence that independent film is supposed to honor.

By your definition, you're implying that independent films are higher fare films normally not made within the studio system and automatically comes with it an expectation of "artistic" integrity. As such, that definition is false.

I would have to agree with Michael here. An independent film has nothing to do with the quality of the product.

~Edwin

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't agree with this statement at all in trying to attach independent films to artistic risk-taking and intelligence. Not only that, but I found the film in question both artistically risky and intelligent.

Crawdaddy

 

[James Bergeron]

Ok I guess I'm one of the few. I enjoyed the film, but I found the story to be predicable, forced and the same old same old. I found a few laughs, but I wasn't rolling around like some mentioned here.

The windex thing was funny at first, there wasn't anything that really made me LOL. I actually thought the family was rather "mean" and obnoxious and I "felt" for the couple. I thought the patriotism of the father was too over the top. And the grandmother was added for some laughs but didn't work at all.

I enjoyed the "love" story but that's about it. I give it 3 stars out of 5 maybe a B

 

[Seth Paxton]

You mean, Roman Polanski's The Pianist

Sorry, yes, the Palm D'Or winner, but I get it confused with Haneke's well-received film which has a 2002 US release (and was just making the rounds unless I again have them confused). Both would be considered "contenders" just from some respect at Cannes.

Of course Piano Teacher (Haneke) seems to have polarized some audiences, or rather is simply too harsh for a typical Oscar nom.

 

[Seth Paxton]

While it was comedy, which generally has limits to where it can go artistically, it was a well-tuned one.

But there was a HUGE risk from an artisitic standpoint, one that has already been lauded in another film. Having the lead actress not be a looker, having her be overweight, and most of all putting her against a pretty studly lead type.

By typical film standards, often even indy film standards, you just don't do this. Considering the praise the rather ultra-hot Zellweger got for being a tad chunky (and still pretty fine in the film IMO) in BJD, I'd say that Nia and the producers of the film went even farther with the concept. Nia comes across as a VERY typical, normal looking woman. Not the prettiest by any means, but also not unattractive. It's understandable why someone would want to marry her (esp. considering her personality), but she's no Cameron Diaz either.

And obviously this risk (and perhaps others) was perceived by the studios, thus their continued shunning of the film's production despite its stage success.

Hollywood would love to make another non-risky, boring comedy. They crank them out all the time. Heck, I'd go farther and say the biggest comedic risk the film took was in not being the standard gross-out sex comedy that every other film has to be since Something About Mary. Just being willing to make a family-friendly comedy is a half-risk that studios are scared shitless of.

And the day that independent films all become GOOD, RISKY, INVENTIVE, etc is the day I eat my hat (or buy one and then eat it). The only difference between studio and indy quality is that bad indy films die long before they ever reach most viewers, but ALL studio films are paraded in front of the world.

If Pluto Nash was an indy film, you would never have known it existed.

 

[steve jaros]

Tino:
No need to apologize, i'm not hung-up on my nationality.
And no, i didn't find the Godfather or Goodfellas to be offensively stereotypical. Unlike with BFGW, I didn't see any exaggerated ethnic buffoonery in those films.

 

[steve jaros]

Michael Reuben:

I think you torture the concept of 'artistic risk' when you define it in terms of 'putting something in front of the public you've been told the public doesn't want to see', *without* defining why it is the public doesn't want to see it.

If it's because it is likely to offend the political or cultural values of that public - that's artistic risk. But if it is because the public will be indifferent to it or otherwise not be entertained by it or just think that it isn't any good, then that's financial risk, because the reference is to commercial viability.

In the former case, the artist runs the risk of having their work denounced, and perhaps their personal body threatened by, angry politicians, clerics, law officers, etc.

In the latter, the only substantive risk is economic - the public won't be entertained and the film will lose money. That's more properly defined as financial risk, and that, IMO, is the kind of risk that characterized the making of MBFGW.

 

[Vickie_M]

FWIW, i'm not Greek

?? It's written by and stars a Greek, was discovered by a Greek (Rita Wilson) and seems to be very popular in the Greek community, so why are you so offended?

 

[steve jaros]

Edwin & Robert:

1) I wasn't claiming that independent films are inherently artistically better than non-independent films. I've seen great "commercial" films and i've seen terrible independent films.

2) I believe we are referencing different aspects of what it means for a film to be "independent". In a strictly technical sense, independent means that the film was made outside of the "big 6" studio system. BFGW meets that criteria. But when i called it a "fake" independent film i was referencing what i perceive to be the "values" aspect of what it means for a film to be "independent". IMO, those values include artistic risk-taking and an attempt to appeal to more than the lowest-common-denominator intellectually.

Thus, in a values-sense, it's possible for a company like AOL-Time Warner to make an "independent" film, and it is possible for me (someone definitely not affiliated with the big studios) to make a non-independent, commercial film. IMO, BFGW is just such a picture.

 

[steve jaros]

Vickie_M:

Since when does one have to be a member of an ethnic group to be offended by what you consider to be demeaning stereotypes?

 

[Vickie_M]

If it's because it is likely to offend the political or cultural values of that public - that's artistic risk.

By your standards, MBFGW was/is a HUGE artistic risk!

It's a big fat fun movie, not great, not brilliant, but I had a good time, and I sure don't feel guilty for laughing. Though I'm not close to any of them, I have loud and rowdy relatives that would put those folks to shame. And they're German/Irish!

Now if only Windex would hire Nia's pop to be a spokesperson!

 

[Michael Reuben]

I think you torture the concept of 'artistic risk' when you define it in terms of 'putting something in front of the public you've been told the public doesn't want to see', *without* defining why it is the public doesn't want to see it.

But in this case, the public obviously does want to see it.
This entire discussion of artistic risk is a red herring. A film does not have to "offend the political or cultural values of that public" in order to be good. It's just an irrelevant notion you introduced into the discussion in an effort to justify what, at bottom, is simply a matter of your personal taste.
M.