Shortly after Sundance 2009, Paul wrote a post explaining why he walked out of one of the festival’s biggest buzz-suckers, the romantic comedy 500 Days of Summer. “I figured I’d never write, “It was so-so” for a review, so I left,” he wrote. Acknowledging that he couldn’t “write a “review” of a movie I didn’t fully watch,” he instead decided to “write a review of my decision to walk out a half hour into it,” using a particularly glowing blurb about the film as a bounceboard. Pouncing on a much friendlier comparison to Garden State, Paul wrote 500 off as a weak copy of Zach Braff’s break-out: “It’s kind of like if Garden State had been turned into a TV series, recast, cancelled, then bought by USA network and restarted.”
I did see (500) Days of Summer all the way through (the parentheses were added to the title after Sundance, presumably in a nod to one of the film’s visual tics), so I can review it, but I can’t say Paul’s instinct based on the first thirty minutes was off the mark. The film begins with an on screen disclaimer, an “author’s note” declaring that what we’re about to see is not based on real people or events (punchline: someone named “Jenny Beckman” is nonetheless a “bitch”); shortly after the picture begins to roll in earnest, a deep-voiced gentleman narrator informs us that “This is not a love story.” The aggressive out-of-the-gate broadcasting of all that (500) Days of Summer is not foreshadows what it actually is: a film full of signs with nothing to signify, a mashup of a decade’s worth of Sundance cliche, a confirmation of the obsolescence of the notion that “independent film” could seek to subvert business as usual.
Joseph Gordon Levitt plays Tom, a wannabe architect who falls in love with Summer (Zooey Deschanel) at the Los Angeles greeting card production company where both work. Summer, the narrator tells us, was “just another girl … except she wasn’t” — as evidenced by her power to get landlords to offer lower rents and high school boys to buy Belle & Sebastian records. Tom falls in love with this minx in bangs and high-waisted pants at first sight, but the swoon is not quite mutual. After they more or less reenact the famous “but do you like me like me” scene from The Wonder Years at the only karaoke bar in the world that has The Pixies on the books but not “Born to Run,” Summer soon assents to “holding hands in IKEA and having shower sex,” but she repeatedly reminds Tom that she’s “not looking for anything serious.” So suckered by what he likes that he can’t see what Summer is like, Tom chooses to ignore this warning. In scenes shuffled between and/or rendered redundant by inconsistently deployed structuring devices (the aforementioned narration, intertitles assigning action to specific points on a 500 day timeline), the narrative hopskotches between Tom and Summer’s courtship, their break-up, and Tom’s varying attempts to either get over it or get Summer back.
These structural agitations might have had more power if employed by filmmakers with original insight into age-old romantic disconnects, but unfortunately, there’s little going on under the surface here beyond a gender flip of the thesis of He’s Just Not That Into You. That studio comedy, as I wrote when it was released, is “tougher, bleaker, and much more talky than you’d expect it to be,” but it also “understands who its audience is, and that ultimately, that audience doesn’t come to the movies to get their expectations subverted.” The first film to market is ultimately the more interesting one, and it’s less manipulative, too. Where He’s Just Not That Into You teases nuance before conforming to genre expectations, 500 uses its high concept design and totems of a romanticized long-lost counterculture (Joy Division t-shirts, conversations about The Smiths) as cover for a rendering of the rules of the romantic game that’s as deeply shallow and and ready-to-eat safe as any studio product. Of course, awareness of its artifice is built in. Late in the film, too lovelorn to write greeting cards, Tom breaks down at work and rants about how “it’s these cards, and the movies and the pop songs, that are responsible for all the lies!” Well, only some of them.
Co-produced by Diablo Cody’s agent Mason Novick and lensed by the cinematographer of Juno, there’s no question that Summer, though Marc Webb’s directorial debut, comes from a by-now-familiar cinematic line. Like Napoleon Dynamite and Waitress, Little Miss Sunshine and Garden State, before it, 500 Days of Summer was distrubuted by studio dependent Fox Searchlight after a Sundance premiere; like those films, it melds dysfunctional romantic and/or familial relationship drama with cutesy visual quirk and a catchy (though totally milquetoast) hipster soundtrack. Not every Fox Searchlight release hews to this template, but those that don’t tend to end up playing second banana as cultural phenoms to those that do (see the distributor’s two 2008 Oscar horses, Slumdog Millionaire and The Wrestler).
You can’t blame Searchlight for buying these films — all of the Sundance pick-ups named above earned enough in their initial box office runs to rank amongst the distributor’s Top 25 grossers to date, far out-performing award winners and critical favorites such as Boys Don’t Cry, The Ice Storm and Waking Life. The numbers speak for themselves: where their corporate parent and other “real” studios use explosions and comic book heros to foot the bill for the rest of the year’s production/distribution slate, Searchlight has sad sack underdog heroes and loveably eccentric kewpie-cute girls. (500) Days of Summer has both. Think of it as the Searchlight house style perfected and taken to the brink of self-parody (judging by the trailer alone, the upcoming Aspergers love story Adam would seem to push fully into Weird Al territory, but we’ll see). Its biggest selling point is its formula, but its most lasting effect is the extent to which it reveals the formula’s limitations.
“500 uses its high concept design and totems of a romanticized long-lost counterculture (Joy Division t-shirts, conversations about The Smiths) as cover for a rendering of the rules of the romantic game that’s as deeply shallow and and ready-to-eat safe as any studio product.”
This is the movie in a nutshell, IMO. I saw “500 Days” at High Falls in May by a crowd that like, everywhere else, was bowled over by it. While it’s not a terrible movie (at least in “500 Days”, the expectations of the “ideal woman” deflate later), I’m sort of tired of seeing movies that think putting indie rock and making references to Bergman will give their movie some redeeming artistic value. Sorry, guys, but placing “Just Like Heaven” in a pivotal scene will not save your movie from being shit.
Sociologist George Ritzer created the concept of “McDonaldization”, wherein services and products conform to four components: Efficiency, Calculability, Predictability, and Control. “500 Days” and similar films (”Garden State”, “Little Miss Sunshine”, “Juno”, “Away We Go”, etc) seem to conform to a similar paradigm, but are presented in such a way that the audience is made to believe what they’re watching is “quirky”, “offbeat”, and special. I think I have a name for this subgenre: “The Starbucks Movie”.
I’ll respectfully disagree. Sure, (500) Days is formulaic even as it’s trying to be self-aware about it. But why can’t we enjoy a slightly-smarter summer romantic movie with some clever film references? It can’t be Pedro Costa and Lars von Trier all the time.
I don’t mind adherence to formula as long as it makes sense within the movie.
I don’t expect this to subvert my expectations but it looks like it’s trying to at least shake things up a bit. Even if it’ll only impress those young enough for Smiths/Joy Division references to be a big deal, at least that’s something.
Yes, Karina, “Adam” does go full-front into Weird Al territory
[...] Days of Summer,” is already experiencing what may be the start of a small critical backlash, which is seemingly inevitable with successful indie comedies. Given the track record of [...]
WOW! Awful review, you are WAY off!
Yawn…. This review is a bore. Self-important reviewers make me walk out of the review 30 seconds into it….
That’s pretty much exactly how I felt about it - another step in the “Napoleon Dynamite and Waitress, Little Miss Sunshine and Garden State” line. Fingers crossed that this is going to peter off sooner rather than later.
[...] too-cool-for-schoolery, it looks to be incredibly well written. Reviews so far have been mixed: see here and [...]
Smartly written review, Karina. Only a few minutes into it, my wife and I looked at each other with horrified, gaping-mouth expressions. We didn’t walk out early (we did cover our faces in embarrassment at the seen-it-before-done-better dance number in the park), but if nothing else, our $5.50 bought us sufficient fuel for the fire of an interesting and lengthy discussion about hack directors, lazy filmmaking, and clichés gone wild.
On the walk home from the theater, we dug into the (500) Reasons the movie was so terribly awful. (example: Reason #423 — The “wise old” younger sibling we’ve seen before several times… WTF? His adolescent sister is more worldly wise than him *and* seems to be a wise old sage on the subject of interpersonal relationships?!? WHY does this keep popping up in these movies? Do that many depressed white kids in their 20’s fantasize about getting deep, personal relationship adivce from their pre-teen siblings rather than healthy, normal pestering?)
And I 100% agree, that if this movie doesn’t do it, SOME movie will have to eventually come along and kill this whole moneymaking pseudo “indie” subgenre.
Sorry but this review is badly written. First paragraph put me off instantly.
Could not understand why anyone would, ever, be attracted to anyone as annoying as the female character in this film.
This review is so off…..once again the popularity of a film makes it target for those who want us who don’t want to sit in our seats and be bored by looking at a bee landing on a flower at 50 different angles in the name of art.
I didn’t like the first 15 mins of the film either. I felt like walking out. But I stayed- and in the end I realized I was being stabbed to the core by the honesty (and chill) of the female character’s answers to the male character’s questions. This movie’s power is in the surprise - for all the formula- truth emerged.
And for the dance scene- my friend and I laughed out loud. What a refreshing break from a sex-scene. I have recommended this film to intelligent discriminating friends and they’ve all loved it.