MovieChat Forums > Igby Goes Down (2002) Discussion > 'Igby Goes Down': A Waste of Time, Effo...

'Igby Goes Down': A Waste of Time, Effort, Talent, Money


Let me first say that I am a HUGE fan of the IMDB,
and have come here quite frequently for the last few years.
This is the first time I've ever felt the slightest bit compelled
to post a message.

"Igby Goes Down" is a catastrophe. A truly amazing cast is
wasted on some of the most contrived dialogue I've
witnessed in a movie for some time. Negativity pervades
nearly EVERY SINGLE SCENE. Kieran Culkin shows
great promise as an actor, but what attracted
Sarandon, Peet, or Daines to this
film? Even Bill Pullman should have known better!
Daines' character has an especially sloppy
arc...does the indvidual she
portrays in her first scene even REMOTELY resemble the
confused young woman we see in the rest of the film?
Could they have been identical cousins??
Also, could someone please tell Ryan Phillippe that he
needs to stop playing the same character in every film
he appears in?

I am deeply suspicious as to why the critics rallied together and
deemed this a 'hit' . Was there something I missed? Were
they all treated to some sort of luxurious island junket of
some kind? To borrow a line from the
'oh-so clever-beyond-his-years'-Igby:
I felt like *I* was drowning in a**holes!

Every movie takes a great deal of work to make, and I
don't mean to shame or insult those involved. This message
is for the guys out there thinking of taking their girlfriends to
see "Igby Goes Down" this weekend.
I'm warning you fellas! DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY!!
You'll just end up like the couple that
walked out with 45 minutes of the movie to go, or even worse,
be among those who faithfully stayed for the whole thing and
then left in confused, downtrodden silence.

This is not a date movie.
This is not a 'chick flick'.
This is not a 'smart comedy'.
This is not a 'touching drama'.
This is a MESS, and as far as
I can tell, Jeff Goldblum was the only one who KNEW it,
and used that to his advantage in his performance.

Maybe if you're as snide and thoughtless and spoiled as
the majority of the characters, maybe if hearing the
story of several individuals you couldn't
POSSIBLY feel for is your kind of evening ,
maybe if your idea of snappy reparte
revolves around the rolling of a JOINT-----then MAYBE this
might be the movie for you.
For the rest of you, I implore you:
DON'T GO SEE THIS.
And if you DO, don't come crying to me when they try and
make another EIGHT movies EXACTLY LIKE IT.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Somebody give ME a broomstick---I want a turn!


reply

Well I have to say that I sincerely admire your poise and good word usage. But what possesed to come and write about how much you hated the movie. If it's so contrived and unrealistic then why did you even step in the theater? Did a friend drag you in claiming it to be a cinematic masterpiece. Perhaps you read a pleasant and breezy review of the movie by some major newspaper critic who raved that it was a movie "to be prasied and admired." Maybe you had high expectations of this movie and felt it was going to be terrific, but ended up falling short. Maybe its the exact opposite. The point is, where do you get the tenacity to say that a movie was a complete waste of time and shouldn't even be seen?

Did it occur to you that at least a few people (the director, the actors, the audience) thought the movie was worth taking a look at? Treat the movie, and any movie for that matter, with just a little respect.

Plus, I know that the movie wasn't all that original, and that in the end it wasn't much more then a clever stylized vehicle for Keiran Culkin. It was a character show. But at least it was clever and engaging.

PS: You don't have to be snide and thoughtless and spoiled to relate to these characters. You just have to be human.

Oh, and in case you want to reply (as you no doubt will if you read this) if not to do anything more but call me an *beep*, what is your favorite movie?

reply

hear hear.
everyone has the right to say that they didn't like a movie. NO ONE has the right to say that a movie was crap. opinions, not facts, are what movies are about. did it occur to you, original message poster, that maybe there's some reason why the rest of the world seemed to really like it? that maybe you did in fact just miss something? or maybe it just didnt strike a chord with you? thats ok, you know. but what you have to acknowledge is that it struck a chord with many others--myself being one of them. and that doesn't make me snide, OR spoiled, OR thoughtless. it just makes me...a different person from you.
sorry. i hope that this stays civil. i really dont want to start a catfight. but i just want to know why your opinion has to be fact. thats all.

reply

Thank you. It's nice to see some intelligent, decent people still exist in the world.

reply

Thank you. It's nice to see some intelligent, decent people still exist in the world.

reply

" NO ONE has the right to say that a movie was crap. opinions, not facts, are what movies are about. "

Emily, please read that again. Don't you see a contradiction in your logic?

Also, Emily, EVERYONE has the right to say that a movie was crap. Or the most wonderful thing ever ....unless you don't live in the U.S.A., I guess. You have heard of freedom of speech, haven't you?

reply

" The point is, where do you get the tenacity to say that a movie was a complete waste of time and shouldn't even be seen? "

Oh, such nonsense! There have been many such movies, and all you have to do is look through the viewer comments about a number of movies, and you will see lots of imdb users with the same tenacity. There are some who are actually saying that about "Titanic"! (By the way, in case you hadn't heard, there's freedom of speech in this nation, and if someone wants to call a movie a complete waste of time, they have the right -- no tenacity needed -- to do so.)

" Treat the movie, and any movie for that matter, with just a little respect. "

Give us a break! All movies deserve respect? Have you never seen a real turkey of a movie? If not, where have you been?

" You don't have to be snide and thoughtless and spoiled to relate to these characters. You just have to be human. "

Sorry, Corey, but I'm as human as you are, but I could not relate to a single character in the movie. I, too, was on the verge of walking out in the middle of the film. As for the snide, thoughtless and spoiled description, I would agree -- that's what they all are, and we are supposed to related to them? These people were marginally human, since they weren't believable at all. On another message board about "Igby", someone even admits that they liked the movie because they saw it in an "art house theatre" as opposed to a "general theater", and admitted that this was an elitist remark. Indeed, it was elitist, and unless you are an elitist, you will not enjoy "Ibgy".

This was one of my worst movie viewing experiences in the past several years. I felt used, cold, empty, chilled to the bone by characters whom I wanted to empathize with, but could not, because they are cold, cold, shallow people.

reply

" " The point is, where do you get the tenacity to say that a movie was a complete waste of time and shouldn't even be seen? "

Oh, such nonsense! There have been many such movies, and all you have to do is look through the viewer comments about a number of movies, and you will see lots of imdb users with the same tenacity. There are some who are actually saying that about "Titanic"! (By the way, in case you hadn't heard, there's freedom of speech in this nation, and if someone wants to call a movie a complete waste of time, they have the right -- no tenacity needed -- to do so.)"


I think the word of which people are thinking is "temerity," not "tenacity."

reply

I agree - I was so disappointed and went to see it because it had such a good review. I think there is no problem writing an honest negative review when a movie has had so much (in my opinion) over-blown praise. My reaction to that is 1) look for more reviews to see if this is a fluke (and I am here to say, it is not), 2) go into the movie with lowered expectations which often will make me enjoy a movie more; if a movie has been getting incredibly high praise, I expect much more from it than one that is deemed quirky or interesting or a fresh approach or has good acting or whatever.

I don't quite understand why the others take your chastisements so personally and I also don't think every movie is deserving of only positive, constructive feedback (nor every band, book or piece of art) from a non-professional critic.

I wish I'd read your review before I saw it. Then I might have seen 8 Women (at the same theatre) instead. I was more interested in it but postponed it since I was with a friend and wanted to go for the sure thing. Half way through Igby, he said to me "Are you enjoying this at all?" My response? "I'm trying really hard to but the movie is making it very difficult." Turns out, except for Susan Sarandon, he liked it even less than I did.

reply

Yes my friend, you did miss something, 'The whole movie'. May I suggest "The Transporter" the ideal movie for your kind of viewing pleasure. Cheers.

reply

Ha ha madshy, exactly.

While I don't have a problem with people saying that this movie or that movie is crap (because let's face it, they are out there), at least back your opinion up with valid arguments. I mean in the first post, there are NO arguments to back up the claims that the movie is crap. In dalnop5's whole diatribe, the closest thing to an argument is in the second paragraph, and those don't even hold mch weight.

And you thought that the characters were "snide and thoughtless and spoiled", so what. Is that reason NOT to like the movie? Yeah, I didn't like Raplh Fiennes character in Schindler's List, so that makes it a bad movie. I didn't like Ed Norton's character in American History X, so American History X = BAD MOVIE...yeah, whatever.

reply

And you thought that the characters were "snide and thoughtless and spoiled", so what. Is that reason NOT to like the movie? Yeah, I didn't like Raplh Fiennes character in Schindler's List, so that makes it a bad movie. I didn't like Ed Norton's character in American History X, so American History X = BAD MOVIE...yeah, whatever.

You see, having some a**holes and some sympathetic people in your movie or having an a**hole that becomes sympathetic eventually during the course of the movie is one thing. But when absolutely every single character is intolerably pompous, pretentious or idiotic - that's different. Would you want to hang out with any of these people? I certainly wouldn't, and I'm supposed to enjoy watching them for 90 minutes? At least some of those a**holes could have been interesting or original or at least funny in any way, that would make a movie better, but unfortunately, none of them are.

reply

i noticed that everyone who stands up for this movie is in the habit of patting everyone else who stands up for this movie on the back after they say something like "you have no right to post here if i dont like what your saying."
even though i belive most arguments against this movie were inteligent and articulate i dont belive in order to form an opinion someone has to back them up and these forums do not exist so people can talk about how much they like the movie, they exist so people can talk about the movie period.

this movie was obvious and trite and heavy handed.
i liked it better when it was called rushmore.
and if you dont agree with me then THATS OKAY,
i am attacking the movie, not you.
this is the free and open exchange of ideas,
anyone who tells me to go watch "the transporter" cause i didnt like this film is a nazi.

reply

Thanks, hollywood ghost.

This film is a pretentious mess. And it's dull to boot. I love Orpheus by Cocteau, most Herzog and a lot of people think I'm a pretentious a**h*le. but just because something is self-indulgent, dull and elitist doesn't make it great art and i can tell that. A very disappointing film. The fact that so many people posting here are upset that we don't agree that it's "Catcher part deux" illuminates their own insecurity.

reply

None of the characters are role models. The most sympathetic character in the movie has a nervous breakdown. The hero constantly insults people, throws water balloons at human targets, and is, not surprisingly, battered by 11 different people during the course of the movie (note - my wife thinks that an ice cream cone shoved up his nose does not count; if she's right, he is battered by only 10 different people). It is also true that the characters are larger-than-life and somewhat caricaturish.

However, they are believable in their flaws, and THEY ARE INTERESTING. I was surprised to find that the most sympathetic character - the one who has the nervous breakdown - was only the seventh most interesting character in the movie.

I was impressed by Jeff Goldblum's portrayal of a master-of-the-universe type, to whom it is essential that he preserves the perception that he is in control of every situation, and who deludes himself in order to increase the effectiveness of that perception. The DH character is unlike any other character I have seen Goldblum portray. After repeated viewing, I increasingly empathized with his embarassment (perhaps too subtly conveyed, especially if the viewer is too Igby-focused) in the scene where he is reminded of his moral shortcomings.

Susan Sarandon is excellent, as usual, as one of those life-of-the-party types who make great friends but lousy parents or spouses. After seeing her performance, I wouldn't bet against her in Celebrity Fear Factor, especially if one of the events were being buried alive.

I got the sense that Goldblum and Sarandon were familiar with these types of characters, and enjoyed playing them in this film. I myself am familiar, to varying degrees, with these types of characters and enjoyed watching them in this film.

As portrayed by Claire Danes and Ryan Phillippe, Sookie and Oliver both emerge as flawed, interesting, human individuals. Sookie initially - and believably - would not give Igby the time of day until she learns that he is Oliver's brother. She nevertheless becomes a supportive friend and a charmingly quirky - if somewhat idealized - character. Oliver is cold and arrogant (perhaps "numb"), but he is dependable and the type whom you would like to have on your financial team. After repeated viewings, I was impressed with Phillippe's conveyance of a combination of embarassment and envy (perhaps too subtly conveyed, especially, once again, if the viewer is too Igby-focused) of the genuineness of Igby's emotions at the end. The characters' betrayal of Igby may have been manipulative and insensitive, but it is certainly not unprecedented in the annals of human history and probably has been done by/to us/our-friends more times than we care to remember.

Igby's kindred spirit is Rachel (Amanda Peet), inasmuch as they are the cause of much of their own misery.

Amanda Peet is an especially haunting spectre in Russell's bathroom of the fate not only to which DH consigned her, but also to which she was a willing - if naive - accomplice.

Kieran Culkin was especially impressive in the role of Igby. He has that Culkin smugness that leads me to wonder (a) if the writer-director originally had his lead character being battered by 11 different characters during the course of the story or (b) if he added a few beatings after casting the role. In light of the nasty things that he does - both to himself and to others, Igby is clearly not meant to be as much a likeable character as an identifiable character. As portrayed by Culkin, he is a refreshing and welcomed, identifiable, morally uncertain change of pace from (a) the scrubbed-clean, upstanding teen role-model heroes who set the moral bar so high that we might as well all join a satanic cult and (b) their caricaturishly evil teen doppelganger villains who appear just to give the heroes a conflict.

In the end, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. For me, the characters are what make this movie great. The choice versus destiny theme is a bonus, but the flawed, identifiable characters and their brilliant portrayers are what led me back to watch this film again and again.

reply

You know, I think that part of the movie was to show that most of the people were snide, thoughtless, and spoiled - except for Igby. Well, yes, he was a bit spoiled, but I thought one of the beautiful things about Igby was that he was so much less snide and thoughtless than the rest of the characters. He did the only kind things in the movie. He is about the only person to show emotion in the movie. He cries when he finds out that Sooky has chosen his brother over him. He cries after his mother dies. He goes to visit his father, even though his father is catatonic. He forgives Sooky for hurting him. Yes, I guess he's spoiled, but I would not say Igby was thoughtless or snide. Igby was not idiotic, though. He was intelligent. He was witty. Certainly he was not the normal 17 year old, thinking he is the center of the world, drinking & smoking every day, wondering when his next lay will be, etc. Yeah he smoked, yeah he had sex, but Igby was somehow more mature, I think, than normal people his age. And for REAL, who would be normal with an upbringing like his? Oliver turned into a cold, creul, selfish prick to protect himself, but Igby had to grow up differently than that. Igby had to be a little more sensitive than his familly members. Maybe on the surface, after only one viewing, the movie may seem heartless, but it isn't...really...if you look a little closer. :0)

reply

I agree....I think Igby was the only one you're supposed to feel sympathy for, in part because everyone around him is so cold and unemotional. I agree though about what people said about Claire Danes...unless she's jsut a whore, why would she jump from one brother to the next? They're nothing alike. My opinion was that she just went with the older brother because he had money. I can't think of any other reason. Her character was pretty inconsistent.

reply

I disagree with your opinion, but there's nothing wrong with either of our views.

I do agree that it seems Philippe plays the same person in every movie though.

reply

Whoa! It seems that 'Igby' has caused quite the stir of emotions among my fellow movie viewers. The bottom line is, this movie isn't for everyone. I'm not saying that it's only for intelligent people and that all the people that hate the movie are idiots, but every movie can't appeal to everyone's taste. 'Igby Goes Down' has character-driven plot, meaning that hey, not a lot is actually going to HAPPEN. It's just meant to be a kind of insight into one person's life. We don't have to like this person, but didn't everyone who saw it kind of sympathize with Igby? Another thing I have to say is that satire seems to be lost on the new generation. These characters are overly cold and distant to make we, the viewers, ask why are humans so terrible to one another?
Movies serve another purpose than entertainment. Movies, good movies, are supposed to make people think, spark conversations. I believe 'Igby' has done its job. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go have this same conversation with the people on the 'Donnie Darko' message board who didn't like that movie.

reply

Donnie Darko is the *beep* :)

reply

Since everyone seems to have personally praised or condemned this film, I figured I might be the one to take a non-biased viewpoint and share why I felt that the film was every bit as good as the reviews made it out to be. Yes, it is to be expected that many will not be impressed by "Igby Goes Down;" it's a black comedy with some truly tragic outcomes. But the reason I felt a need for cheering about "Igby" is that it is possibly the only movie to ever truly capture the spirit of J.D. Salinger's, "The Catcher in the Rye." "The Graduate"'s Benjamin Braddock is too naive to match Holden's personality. "Harold and Maude" caught the tone but failed to develop it on a bigger scale (which actually works to it's advantage). More recently, "Rushmore" and "Ghost World" were both highly influenced by Salinger's cynicism and sarcasm. But "Igby" seems to have gotten it all right: the hypocrisy, the lack of empathy, and the wit to take them both seriously. If you haven't read "Catcher" or did but didn't like it, I encourage you to not insult the film but be apprehensive of the fact that you couldn't relate to it. This is the most mature thing to do, in my humble opinion. As for the film itself, I thought it was very well-acted and well-filmed, and I look forward to more from Burr Steers.

reply

<applause>

Perfectly said. This film isn't about making something that you walk into, sit down and want to befriend all the characters. That's typical Hollywood formula, and if you want that - go see it.

For me, and a lot of others here, we enjoy watching these movies to have a nice dose of perspective. Does every person you meet in your everyday life turn out to be someone that you care deeply about? No. Lots of people are a**holes, and have no seemingly redeeming qualities. And those are the people that are in this movie.

And, of course, if you really look - you'll see, somewhere, that inside each person is a human. A human that has hurt, and a lot of pain. They don't know how to express it, or are raised to ignore it, and they put up a defensive wall to protect themselves, god forbid they actually show someone their true self.

For example, in the scene where Igby is outside Sookie's apartment, banging on her door and crying... saying "I'm so scared", or something to that effect. Personally, in that scene, I was very much able to feel compassion for him.

I think so many people are just so harsh on the character's of others. They work a 9-5 job where everything just fits in. Well, not everyone is in the same boat, not everyone copes with things in the same way. Child A could grow up in an abusive family and be perfectly normal, where Child B could end up killing himself before he ever gets to college. People can't strip their beliefs of what is "normal" and possibly look at things in a different perspective. If ignorance is bliss, then the world must be a happy place...

Oh, and one other note - jjh6519, get off of the "YAY YAY USA" boat. I agree everyone has the right to say what they want, but it's not restricted to the country you live in, and the fact that you continue to focus on that just shows how out of touch with "it" you are.

Just my 2 cents.

Nick

reply

Nick, If letting someone know that they shouldn't tell another person that they shouldn't be saying something about a movie, by pointing out that we have freedom of speech in this country, is "Yay Yay USA", then you'll never get me to get off that boat. I have made a couple of comments about this simply because there seems to be so much intolerance of others' opinions as expressed on imdb. The USA has freedom of speech in its constitution, as a right for every person. Not every country has that. Perhaps you need to consider just how out of touch you are with this fact.

reply

Forgive us, jj. It's not that you don't have the right to say "this was crap," its just that doing so without providing an argument makes your argument hopelessly weak. If I told you that the movie was horrible because Burr Steer's mother smells of cabbage, I would have done very little to support my claim.

And by the way, where do you get off telling someone that they don't have the right to say that other people don't have the right to say that something is crap? Talk about a violation of free speech! I'll tell whomever I want to that they don't have the right to say what they want to say. That's MY free speech. Whether or not you believe me, or listen to me, or care even a little bit is entirely up to you. If you want me to pull out a copy of the constitution, we'll give it a nice looking over together.

reply

xenkylm, I have already stated the reasons for my not liking this movie, several times, above. So I have provided an argument. You obviously don't agree with my argument, and that's OK.

Yes, freedom of speech allows anyone to say anything, so I apologize that I said that a poster had "no right" to say that someone else didn't have the right to free speech. Rather, I guess I should have phrased it more nicely, as follows: If a person thinks they can tell someone else that they have no right to say that something is crap, then that person 1) has the legal right to say it, but 2) has just demonstrated that they do not understand the principle behind the right of free speech.

I've seen too many posters tell others on a number of imdb boards to "shut up" and "butt out, who asked your opinion?" etc. That's wrong, not just rude, and little immature to boot. Now, if a private citizen were told by someone in the public sector that the citizen had no right to make a statement, the public sector person's statement would be technically free speech -- but take one guess how the courts would come down on that person in the public sector? (OK, OK... I know, this is a dispute between two private citizens, so it's not a legal battle, but I think that the spirit of the principle of free speech should apply to every person in every case. Which is why I apologize once again.)

My point is simply: We on imdb boards should, in all civility, allow others to disagree, as much as we might like to tell them to shut up. For anyone to say that we should not disagree regarding a movie on this board, is a lot of crap. That's my opinion, and I'd be surprised if you disagree.

reply

xenkylm, What am I apologizing for? I just re-read the postings, especially mine, on this board, and apparently I NEVER said that someone had "no right" to tell someone else that they had no right to say something.

Unless you are looking at something else that I wrote and I'm not aware of it. If so, I stand corrected, but please show me exactly where I used the words "you have no right" to say that someone else has no right to say something.

reply

Freedom of speech also means having the right to tell someone else you disagree with their opinion or, yes, that their opinion that a film is crap is, indeed, crap. That's not intolerance...it's an exercise of free speech :)

reply

Cheers! Bravo! Good for you! Amen! Love ya'! Right on! You said it!

reply

I usually like indie flicks and deep art types, and that is why I was excited to see this movie because I had heard such great things about it. But I was kind of disappointed, the plot was all over the place and lot of it just didn't fit. It seems like they started off really well but then rushed everything and it got all jumbled and mixed up. The thing they needed was better character development, even igby didn't have that good of a development and he was the main character. If they had taken the time to think things out more the movie would have been alot better.

reply

First off, there's nothing wrong with having pride in a great country. Secondly, I think someone above mentioned that one of "Igby"'s traits was it's character development. Yes, maybe that's true, but it'd be a helluva lot better to judge on that score if the movie had any character development.

Some say this is a "cold" film. Others say it's a perspective, satirical film wherein the characters given are not meant to be the soul voice of the movie. I say that this is a cold movie that was not directed by the Coen Brothers and does, by it's tone and direction, take itself at point value. Igby Goes Down was a cultural dupe of a movie, trying too hard in all aspects, "A jack of all trades is a master of none." This movie so badly wants the spirit of James Dean and JD Salinger but in it's flashiness, take the song "Bohemian like you," and the entire script as an example of said flashiness, it rapes and destroys any of the emotion and humanity they had and replaces that with an excess of unbecoming and boring wit. Maybe this sounds too harsh, and given the fact that most movie-enthusiasts were looking forward to it, Igby did come with higher expectations. But this just is not the self-aware and unique feel that most indie movies have. In fact, it's a very good prediction of what Hollywood would have made if given the copyrights to "Catcher in the Rye."

reply

zach_man11, I believe you missed the point of this film. I appreciate the fact that you actually SUPPORTED your opinion, but I believe you made a few misinterpretations. You mentioned that Igby "rapes and destroys any of the emotion and humanity [the spirit of James Dean and J.D. Salinger] had." Have you actually read The Catcher in the Rye? Because even though it's my all-time favorite book, it derives its emotion from the fact that Holden attempts to display none. Igby showed -- or at least tried to show -- no emotion in the film, but it was amazingly evident during the flashbacks and the sequence in which he tries to convince Sookie to leave with him. Burr Steers makes an accurate representation of the emotional insecurity of adolescents and their apparent cold-heartedness, and out of these very elements he draws their underlying feelings without stating them straightforwardly. Although the film may seem cold to some, it is in actuality a deeply empathic view of teenagers and their desperate attempts at appearing cynical. I don't want to sound like I'm forcing you to like the film; you have every right to hate it now just as much as you did before. The reason I posted this message is to explain some things about Igby Goes Down that you might have not caught. Whether or not this changes your opinion is irrelevant, I only hope that it will help you understand it better.

reply

Yeah Yeah. Call it a trite film, than call every movie a trite film. All movies do now is take a previous movie, or idea and twist it around with their own creativity. This movie was a less comedic Royal Tannenbaums. Don't think i'm saying it's better or anything, i love Wes and Owen and i've been a fan since 96. But this movie had good writing, good acting, strange in it's way, and had some flashes of creativity, it is comparable in a lot of ways.

reply

Neither the fact that a film is set amidst the foreign (to most of us) otherworld of the privileged set nor the fact that it is populated largely by supercilious malcontents makes it a rehash of "The Royal Tenebaums," "The Great Gatsby," or any other film. It is a setting, a vehicle. There is nothing wrong with exploring it in multiple works -- particularly when each film employs this setting for its own, wholly unique purposes. "Igby" is no exception.

A rich tapestry of emotions and relationships (hued distinctly in angst and dysfunction), "Igby" provides us with a protaganist who instantly inspires thoughts of Holden Caulfield, but whose reasons for shirking the yoke of conformity (or employment or adulthood or whatever you think "it" is) are much, much different. And so are the problems he faces, which (he fears) threaten to pile upon him until he collapses under their weight -- just as he watched his father collapse, which we learn during a post-coital flashback that provides us with a belated clue as to why Igby carries such palpable fears about being steered into a "9 to 5" life.

If you boil this film for awhile, you'll find that it simmers down Igby's relationship with his father, Jason Sr. (Igby's real name is "Jason Jr.," a fact that we learn to be a rather cruel irony near the end of the film). It is the only real relationship Igby has: It is plain to all that the two love one another very much. From the good-natured way his father pronouces his affectionate nickname for Igby ("Old Man") to the subtle, understanding looks the two share from time to time (usually during one of Mimi's self-indulgent rants), we can see that Jason Sr. is the only person in the world whom Igby trusts and whom he does not suspect of hypocrisy, duplicity, or narcicism. What happens to their relationship is what makes Igby who he is at age 17.

Igby's father is mentally ill. He deteriorates slowly into depression at first, lamenting that he's "just no good on winter days" (a young Igby asks the prescient question: "What will happen next winter?"). Ultimately, his grip slackens, and he becomes erratic at best and -- at worst -- a danger to himself.

But Jason Sr. doesn't end up in a Maryland sanitarium without more than a bit of help from his shrewish wife, Mimi. When we juxapose the emotive, broken shell that Bill Pullman (playing Jason) presents against the cold, abusive harpie (Susan Sarandon) he married, we cannot help but suspect that the latter contributed heartily to the "pressures" that crushed the former. What's more important is that Igby suspects it too.

Igby's mother is his chief tormentor. She has been so his entire life. But their relationship not that simple. She's also, perhaps, his greatest disappointment. Had she been other than she was, life might have turned out very differently for Igby. We see that Igby's feelings about his mother run much deeper than the icy contempt he usually displays, when he confronts her belatedly at the end of the film. His frustration is not rooted entirely in anger. There's sadness, too, and also love. An unrequited love that Igby had long since buried.

The rest of the film springs from the well of Igby's terror that he will suffer his father's fate and his defiance of Mimi, who Igby is convinced wants only to hasten that eventuality. We meet Igby's older brother Oliver, the conservative, straight-A prototype his mother meticulously created. Oliver displays an intermittent filial dutifulness toward Igby, but willfully inflicts pain on his younger brother when met with the opportunity. There is, as Oliver observes in a closing scene, really nothing between them. We are not surprised that their ultimate parting is as dispassionate as it is.

Of course, Igby's interactions are not confined to his immediate family. Jeff Golblum plays a prominent role as D.H. Banes, Igby's supercapitalist "godfather" and benefactor. We know that Banes has made something of a "project" of Igby (as Mimi puts it). We don't know exactly why, though we may suspect it. Indeed, Mimi's deathbed statement on the matter offers a critical closing turn for the film (but more on that in a moment). Through Banes, Igby meets an artist named Rachel (Banes' mistress, of sorts, whom he parades in front of his wife and party guests at his Hamptons getaway) and, indirectly, Sookie Sapperstein, the daughter of a Jewish theologian and a "poetess," who shares Igby's ironic take on the world and who seems the closest thing Igby has to a friend throughout the film.

Igby's relationships with Rachel and Sookie are tenuous, but they are also complicated. They are complicated partly because they are sexual, but chiefly because of the smug duplicity of Banes and the casual treachery of Oliver, respectively. Igby's suspicions that people are generally dishonest and dishonorable are ratified repeatedly by those around him.

As Igby's despair heightens -- fueled by the inconstancy of his family and supposed friends -- he faces a defining moment. An unexpected request by his mother leads to a maccabre opportunity for Igby to attain that which he craves: the freedom to approach the world on his own terms. We are reminded, though, that this is nothing more than a consolation prize. Igby's final visit to his father drives home the magnitude of what Igby has lost, and it cautions us that Igby is not merely a malcontent but an emotionally damaged human being who is both capable and wanting of love. It is a profoundly sad moment. Jason Sr. is completely imprisoned within himself, incapable any more of being the man who had once earned Igby's devotion. The sheer tragedy of this truth is overwhelming.

But this is also a turning point for Igby. He has just learned that Jason Sr. is not actually his biological father. Thus, when Igby looks at Jason he still sees the tattered pieces of the man he loves, but he no longer sees what he has long thought to be his genetically preordained fate. Liberated from his mother and dispossessed of the lynchpin of his fatalism, Igby assumes control of his own destiny.

We hope Igby will use his freedom to seek out others like his father who will bring out the best in him and help him to be happy. There is little hope of enlightenment for the films' other characters. It is by no means an upbeat conclusion, but this is not a film about flawed characters improving themselves. It is a film about a very lonely young man who struggles to stave off a cruel fate he honestly believes awaits him, but who, despite his efforts, cannot find a foothold of trust or sincerity. It is a rich film, superbly acted and beautifully shot. Much like Darren Aronofsky's "Requiem for a Dream" (though not nearly so morbid), it the the sort of film that haunts you long after the credits have closed . . . until you succomb and watch it again.

reply

Since the plot of this film seems to have been beaten to the ground already, my only addition to this argument is that I thought the Royal Tenenbaums is to Salinger's Glass family as this film is to Holden Caulfield. 'Igby Goes Down' takes the upper class New York society family and takes mostly Igby's story and runs with it, while 'the Royal Tenenbaums' takes that same upper class family, but stays focused on the dichotomy of the family and the interesting personalities in it. I enjoyed both of the films, and all of the Salinger books, immensely, but it's just a matter of personal opinion.

reply