MovieChat Forums > Waking the Dead (2000) Discussion > I want to start an argument

I want to start an argument

posted 18 years ago by floatingweeds2000
16 replies | jump to latest

Let me get this clear from the start I really wanted to like this movie...

I've always admired Keith Gordon; I thought Midnight Clear and Mother Night were excellent; the latter is possibly a masterpiece. Also Singing Detective was a brave failure but also had many things to praise about it .From the trailer I thought the photography was beautiful .The themes of ghosts from the past ,idealism vs. cynicism (shown as 70s vs. 80s values) also really struck a chord. I’d been looking forward to the movie...

Why then did I not enjoy the finished product? I don't know
First off I haven't read the novel so maybe some of the questions were answered there

For one thing I found the character of Sarah, really smug and superior. For instance that line "Sometimes all we have is meaningless gestures...” delivered in such a knowing tone. you just want to scream "Yes and sometimes life gives us far more than meaningless gestures!" But then to make it so much worse:when Fielding asks her who said that she just smiles and smugly says “Me" .I frankly wanted to slap her.
Furthermore if she’s such a good catholic (as a priest remarks) what's with all the pre-marital sex??? It never even seems to be a slight issue for her. While this isn't that big an issue for me (all the priests she seems to know may be very very liberal Catholics) it's a clear example of my basic problem with the movie -Sarah can apparently can do no wrong. Throughout the entire movie she is never once in error or incorrect, when Billy Cruddup argues with her she always has the last best word or just looks disappointed -which combined often with her flippancy and smugness I just found incredibly irritating -yet the movie seemed to want me to constantly admire her and see her as some kind of perfect creature to which we can only aspire to. We're supposed to fall in love with her. I guess because I found myself disliking the character of Sarah so much that I really lost the movie .
But there were other problems too -I felt there wasn't enough of Fielding’s cynicism. When reading about the whole film I really loved the idea of the idealist boyscout of the 70s, who believes anything can happen, slowly becoming cold and cynical in the 80s .But for me this was really only signified by the scene where he shouts at his brother ,which I found completely fair ,his brother kept on bugging him to help him rescue this prostitute who from the little we saw didn't seem to be that much the innocent trapped angel his brother described ,but that's really because we see nothing of her so it's difficult to accept either side - but furthermore he's asking him to risk his career during an election ,surely the one time when he really can't risk his career ,afterwards sure ,but surely it can wait .He still seems to be a good person but it's election time -sacrifices have to be made -I mean think of all the good he can do IF he gets elected huh? What I'm trying to say is the fault seems to be more with his brother .Other than that most of his behaviour was determined by his obsession with his dead (?) girlfriend rather than any loss of moral compass or selling out
I was thinking perhaps my problems could be answered if I saw the DVD with all the deleted scenes ,but then I realise if a movie can only work with prior knowledge of it's deleted scenes what's the point?

The reason I'm writing this is not to agitate fans, but because I really to be persuaded. I despearately wanted to love this movie and I still feel that Cruddup’s performance and the romantic/haunting atmosphere are very good. What I guess I want is someone to prove me wrong on these points

[–] M_Hossain 18 years ago

>For one thing I found the character of Sarah, really smug and superior.
>the movie seemed to want me to constantly admire her and see her as some kind
>of perfect creature to which we can only aspire to.
>We're supposed to fall in love with her.
That's your opinion and I don't know how you
felt compelled that you have to believe
her superiority in order to like her in the movie.
I think you could go with either of the protagonist
and still end up liking the movie
and that's how the movie has been made!

>About Sarah's Dialogues
She is confident in her own way
and that shows in her dialogues.
Reading your this complain,
I am assuming that you are a woman. :)

>pre-marital Sex
In the initial dinner scene, she had said
that puberty stopped her from being a Nun. So I think
you got your answer. :)

I think you hated "Sarah" so much that
you couldn't believe the feelings of Fielding for her
and his actions/longings for her. I have read the book
also but I don't think it will help you much in that respect.
I think the book is pretty ordinary.
Surprisingly, the movie is much much better than the book!

[–] leucotomy 18 years ago

What's with the quotes around Sarah in the last paragraph? Are you suggesting the author hates something other than the character?

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 8 years ago

In the initial dinner scene, she had said that puberty stopped her from being a Nun. So I think you got your answer.

That statement doesn't indicate that she lost her virginity at that time. A person can be a good Christian and have hormones. It doesn't mandate that she be promiscuous and it doesn't excuse her for engaging in premarital sex, so your reply is way off base.

Tolerance Is Intolerant Of Politically Incorrect Thought...🇺🇸

[–] AgPie 18 years ago

I actually didn't feel like the movie was asking me to idealize Sarah...there is a scene where they are having dinner with the people that they brought back from Chile and Fielding is being ganged up on by everyone...he makes his points very concisely and I realized at that moment that Sarah is just very set in her ways...not necessarily that she is always right, but that her and Fielding have two different outlooks on the world...later on because she is dead she takes on that "concience" persona because she is no longer there. His internalized "Sarah" voice is just a part of himself that will question the path that he put himself on.

[–] floatingweeds2000 18 years ago

Exactly! That's a scene I mentioned , I felt (and you felt) very much on the side of Fielding ,I feel he made some good points ,but if you watch the way it's filmed with medium shots of Fielding , then reaction shots of everyone looking upsets ,and then deep close ups on Sarah , you feel that the film wants you to side with Sarah ,especially as she crucially has the last word "You're in this argument by yourself" followed by another shot of the distraught couple. Through (admittedly very) subtle mise en scene the director is clearly showing his views of what could've been a balanced argument. Furthermore if you think about it if that really is the closest time Sarah comes to being wrong then she really is almost never wrong. I mean I felt she was like the liberals in the West Wing in that she always gets the last smart word and is never wrong(I hastily add that I myself am left wing before someone jumps on me). This compounded with what I find a deep smugness ,mean I can'y enjoy the film

Also while people have argued with me about Sarah's portrayal ,which is more debatable as it is filtered through Fielding's memeory ,no-one has actually taken me up on my problem of not feeling Fielding was compromised enough. Other than that one scene of him shouting at his brother (a problem I addressed earlier), we're mainly told it through the mise en scne)

[–] AgPie 18 years ago

I guess i can understand what you're saying but when i was watching the movie I remember feeling like maybe i was somewhat supposed to be seeing all the accusing faces through Fielding's eyes and being put on the spot. I suppose that maybe the way it was shot was not too clear or if the director was siding with Sarah then that didn't come across to me and therefore the her idealization didn't ruin the movie for me.

Plus the scene where she bitches out the newspaper editor is one where they were both portrayed as quite faulty. Her: a harping idealogue and Him: someone who will put aside his ideals to save face in front of society's elite and influential.
there is also a scene where Sarah gets very snappy with Fielding for considering the ADA position...to me this painted her as a bit naive...just all these little details that made her seem as quite flawed (plus she seemed to be devoutly religous which always gives me the shivers yet she was having premaital sex and therefore being a hypocrite/ but I didnt mind because she seemed aware of her hypocricy)

Anywho...as for Fielding I think I kind of agree that looking back in retrospect Fielding was maybe a bit too pure to be going through the crisis of concience that he was going through...especially if he really believed in the system...i would say that maybe he was so nuts because he was actually going through a crisis of Sarah's concience...he suddenly realized that he had left Sarah and her idealism behind completely and finally embraced the political machine.

[–] susie_not_sad 18 years ago

I think Fielding's crisis was something he knew would most likely happen to him. He knew he had been fast-tracked by the political powers.
He was going to sky rocket to the top if he played the game.
In the end he decided to serve his district instead of selling out .

[–] osopestoso 15 years ago

Why is everybody pussyfooting around this? Sarah is a communist involved with communist clergy bringing Chilean communists into the U.S. illegally. The politically correct (Only correct if you're a communitarian)BS is FINALLY called out by Fielding, Sarah the red abandons him, and he's left "Choking on the collective self-righteousness". That's the best line of the film and describes communist dupes to a tee.
Sarah is nothing but an indoctrinated sheep, and a criminal to boot.

[–] denise1234 11 years ago

osopestoso^

Agree.

I didn't like her character one whit.

I think she had a bit of a Messianic complex also, while trying to subvert her 'I I I Me Me Me' by cloaking it in 'helping others' and simplistically crying ‘corrupt! corrupt!' like a Kindergartner who just found out that life isn't always fair.

She also had no problem abandoning (and torturing) Fielding for her ‘higher calling’ LOL

Funny how people like her give their 'help' and 'compassion' so conditionally. Hypocrite.

The kind of person if she got power would have no problem sacrificing others who got in her way, to get her way – whatever that took.

All this and her superior self-righteousness and absolute intolerance for other people’s opinions and choices ... ingredients to the recipe for dictators and oppressive regimes when folks like her get *real* power.

It's an old story...same circus, different clowns.

BTW: I love the lecture Fielding gives to Sarah & her cohorts at the dinner table.

11/16/12: The day the Twinkie died :(

[–] juicye 17 years ago

I just have to agree with you floatingweeds. Sarah seemed to be the person sabotaging the relationship and all Fielding would do was love her. He didn't even freak out on her when she embarrassed him at the political shindig. Honestly, I thought that was very disloyal of her, and on the train ride back, he just sort of shrugs and accepts her apology. And then...when she shows up after all these years of being dead, (assuming Fielding thinks she's real)again, Fielding just accepts that she loves him and doesn't question her insane and heart-breaking actions, isn't upset that she is emotionally torturing him. I was not a fan of Sarah, I'm not gonna lie.

[–] HerNameIsRenee 16 years ago

Haha it seems your problem is more with the character than the film...a mark of a truly great film. Real people, no b.s.

Abraham Lincoln once said...If you're a racist...I will attack you with the North.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] peccavi-1 16 years ago

For instance that line "Sometimes all we have is meaningless gestures...” delivered in such a knowing tone. you just want to scream "Yes and sometimes life gives us far more than meaningless gestures!" But then to make it so much worse:when Fielding asks her who said that she just smiles and smugly says “Me" .I frankly wanted to slap her.

You're thinking of the line "Ambition is the ice on the lake of emotion," which was taken from the narrative of the book, and never should have entered the dialogue of the movie (in my humble opinion). That line made me want to reach for the mute button.

Jennifer delivered the line as well as it could have been delivered, though.

[–] holloman 15 years ago

"Ambition is the ice on the lake of emotion"? So that was the line? For the life of me I could not make out what she was saying, even after replaying it about 10 times on my DVR. The best I could figure it to be was "ambition is the eyes of life in motion", or something similar. Neither one makes any sense.

[–] seanymphette 15 years ago

Since we don't know if Sarah was really there at the end or not, it's hard to guess if the director was attempting to depict her as a saint or a sadist. I thought she was a selfish, self-righteous twit, who helped others more to validate her own need to have a meaningful life, and make a difference in the world, than because of her concern for humanity. After all, wasn't Fielding a human being? Look how she sacrificed his sanity to her "oh so important" cause, her "higher purpose", as though she were leading a lamb to slaughter. The man was actually hearing voices, talking to himself in the street and having a psychotic break like a schizophrenic because of the psychological torture of her calling him! Charity begins at home. Having been born in the early 60s and raised during the 70s in the California Bay area, I've encountered many of these revolutionary types in real life. Although they have the best of intentions, at their core they're narcissistic "look how many lives I've saved!". It's a god complex of sorts. I think the director exposed many of her flaws, but of course I'm viewing her character through the filter of my own life experience. I'm biased, as are we all. I think the director knew that, hence the ambiguous ending.

[–] osopestoso 14 years ago

What do you expect from a communist?

"They sucked his brains out!"