"Private" pick-up

email this story
read comments (13)
post a comment

Indiewire is reporting that Warner Independent has picked up Alan Ball's controversial Nothing is Private, which I favorably reviewed yesterday. That said, I've spoken to journo and industry folk who really hate it. When I told one of the haters (a woman) last night that I respected and admired it, she went "are you crazy?" She said she was greatly bothered by the young-girl sexual stuff. I replied that she's probably more bothered by it than a typical 13 year-old girl would be.

"I'm Not There"<< previous | next >>"Yuma" interpretation

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 11, 2007 at 4:13 PM

comment #1

D.Z. says ...

It'll probably go unnoticed like Hard Candy, Thirteen, and Larry Clark's oeuvre before it.

Posted by D.Z. at September 11, 2007 4:52 PM

comment #2

T. Holly says ...

What the hell's that "reply" supposed to mean? I'm waiting for more reviews. Please post them ASAP.

Posted by T. Holly at September 11, 2007 5:14 PM

comment #3

Z.D. says ...

"It'll probably go unnoticed like Hard Candy, Thirteen, and Larry Clark's oeuvre before it."

God, I hope so. The first two films were overrated borderline sexploitation flicks, and Larry Clark's "oeuvre" consists primarily of softcore kiddie porn.

Posted by Z.D. at September 11, 2007 5:38 PM

comment #4

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Z.D.: "Nothing is Private" is NOT a piece of borderline sexploitation. It's a serious, layered and very well-acted neighborhood drama that's about a young girl's sexual explorations, yes, but also about racism, American xenophobia, parenting, etc.

Posted by gruver1 at September 11, 2007 5:47 PM

comment #5

actionman says ...

havent seen Nothing is Private so can't comment on that yet but Hard Candy is a great little movie.

Posted by actionman at September 11, 2007 6:08 PM

comment #6

TheJeff says ...

I obviously haven't seen NOTHING IS PRIVATE, but a film's quality is completely independent of its subject matter. Your journo-friend is an idiot.

Posted by TheJeff at September 11, 2007 6:10 PM

comment #7

JohnCope says ...

"I replied that she's probably more bothered by it than a typical 13 year-old girl would be."

Well, so what? Is that supposed to make the issue irrelevant? Or, better yet, are we supposed to be accomodating some hypothetical 13 year old girl's moral compass? Give me a break.

There's a difference between the film/director acknowledging that there is an indeifference with which this kind of material is met by the younger generation (as, I believe, Clark does do) and using that acknowledgment as a justification for a lazy form of engagement. That kind of thing gets close to a tacit endorsement of things as they are, since "who are we to judge how they might otherwise be".

Posted by JohnCope at September 11, 2007 6:26 PM

comment #8

T. Holly says ...

I can't wait to read about what's getting everyone so hung up. Good to get Roger Friedman out of the way right off the bat.

Posted by T. Holly at September 11, 2007 6:38 PM

comment #9

JD says ...

I don't know why Jeff needs to make this movie about sex and nothing else. It's not exploitative and I don't think all the detractors are against it for sex-related reasons. Personally, I felt the performances were awful and that's what destroyed the film. Every character is one-note and lacking in any kind of internal life. The boyfriend character is particularly bizarre as played by the almost comically squeaky clean guy they cast in the role (the irony of this -- ie. the father forbids his daughter from seeing this utterly harmless dude -- isn't even addressed). And Aaron Eckhart's George W. Bush impersonation would have been stale two years ago. But what's most baffling is how one-note the father character comes across onscreen, as he was genuinely complex on the page. I just think Alan Ball can't help but surrender to his sitcom instincts/background and go for cheap laughs.

Posted by JD at September 11, 2007 8:52 PM

comment #10