Liberal Arts
(8/10)
by Tony Medley
Runtime 97
minutes.
OK for children.
For some reason,
I sometimes fight a movie when it starts. Maybe it's because while I
subconsciously realize that the movie strikes a good note, I'm dubious
that it's really doing what I think it might be doing.
That's the way
it was with this one. I was fighting it for the first 45 minutes.
However, once I relaxed I got into it. This movie reminds me so much of
a young Albert Brooks movie (which includes 1985's Lost in America,
which is one of the best and funniest Indies ever made). Although not as
funny as Brooks at his best, this is deep and complex.
Like Albert,
this is an auteur performance by Josh Radnor, who wrote, directed, and
starred in the film. He has an appealing presence, with an easy smile
and projects an immense likeability.
As a 35-year-old
graduate of an unnamed Midwestern college, Jesse (Radnor), who has just
been dumped by significant other (interestingly, she is never identified
as his wife), is invited back to his alma mater by his favored English
professor, Peter Hoberg (Richard Jenkins, in another one of his
trademark fine performances), to attend Peter's retirement party. There
he meets 19-year-old Zibby (Elizabeth Olsen), with whom he quickly
develops sparks, much to the sensitive Jesse's dismay as he has a hard
time coming to grips with the 16 year disparity in their ages. What
follows is a tender comedy of morals, rare to today's films, with
terrific dialogue.
Olsen is a
beautiful actress who gives a wonderful performance, capturing her
character's youthful, devil-may-care pseudo-sophistication along with
her inexperience and sensitivity.
Adding charm to
the movie is that it was shot on location at Radnor's alma mater, Kenyon
College, an impossibly picturesque Ohio location with tree-lined
walkways, comfy dormitories, and delightful white brick buildings.
Zac Efron gives
a memorable performance as a weird guy who appears on campus
occasionally whose only purpose in life seems to be to make Jesse looser
and enable him to have more fun. Efron looks like a homeless person but
he's so upbeat that the screen lights up whenever he appears. The way he
moves his body and hands is magical.
Adding charm to
the movie is that it was shot on location at Radnor's alma mater, Kenyon
College, an impossibly picturesque Ohio location with tree-lined
walkways, comfy dormitories, and delightful white brick buildings.
There is,
however, one scene that either contains an unforgivable faux pas, or is
an extremely subtle jab at the hypocrisy of self-deluding intellectual
professors. One of Jesse's revered Romantics professors (Allison Janney)
is a cold, unhappy woman and she's putting him down. He says something
along the lines of "It's depressing to learn this about a professor I
took English from," and she immediately corrects him that the correct
grammar is "from whom I took English." He then replies something along
the lines about what kind of person she seems to be and she replies,
"Yes, that is me." Anybody who is such a purist that she won't accept a
terminal preposition (as am I, incidentally), would know that in
traditional English the verb "to be" takes the nominative case, not the
objective, and her reply should be "Yes, that is I," not "…that is me."
It is true, however, that colloquial usage has resulted in many
grammarians accepting "that is me" in ordinary conversation. While it
may sound insufferably pretentious to say "that is I," since Janney's
character is, in fact, insufferably pretentious, as a purist who would
correct Jessie about his terminal preposition, she would never consider
saying in her next breath, "that is me." Since she says it in such a
matter of fact way, though, and since it is not made an issue, I can't
help but think that Radnor wrote it that way simply because he really
doesn't know correct grammar (nor, apparently, does anybody else on the
production team). If it is a subtle jab, it is too understated to be
effective.
Whew! That was
like Tom Sawyer painting his fence. Once I got into it, I couldn't stop
until it was finished.
Another problem
I had with the film was that it was far too loud at my screening. After
the screening I spoke with the projectionist and asked him about the
volume. He said he usually runs films at a 7 and that he actually ran
this at a 6.5, so there could be something wrong with the audio.
But those are
minor complaints that as a critic I'm duty-bound to report. They
certainly don't destroy a wonderful movie.
September 4,
2012
|