The Film I Always Go Back To: You've Got Mail

Today I'm running a blogathon called "The Film I Always Go Back To", - where bloggers write about the film they always find themselves re-visiting after stressful weeks, or messy break-ups, or maybe just because they love it so much. I will be sharing other blogs on this theme over the weekend through the Facebook Fan Page.

I love "You've Got Mail", I've seen it countless times. I've never really blogged about it, apart from the time I compared it to 'Sleepless In Seattle', but as I started to think about this blogathon I set up on the theme of 'The Film I Always Come Back To', it seemed to be the only choice that fit.

I think Nora Ephon is a wonderful director. There's no-one better at creating a warm and welcoming environment for two hours. I don't think any other director could make me enjoy a film about women cooking for two hours, but that's exactly what she did with 'Julie & Julia'.

'You've Got Mail' is about love in the modern age. It was made before Facebook and Twitter, but it's still in the same world. A world where we tweet and update statuses incessantly, and we like to believe it means something, or someone's listening. 'You've Got Mail' is the fantasy; that words over a computer can mean something. They can make people fall in love.

'You've Got Mail' paints a beautiful New York City; autumn leaves and beautiful cafes on the Upper West Side. It's a New York I believe in. It'd be 'cooler' for me to see NYC the way Scorcese does, or even Woody Allen; but the New York I love is the Nora Ephron version.

And I never thought about it until writing this article; but YGM is essentially about a corporate company fighting with an independent local store, which is basically what I blog about every day, maintaining a bit of 'The Shop Around The Corner' in a world dominated by the 'FOX Books' equivalent.

I like that films can be fun and have a sense of joy and romance. This film nails it. Too often films get self-conscious about being romantic, or they make the joy too big, like some daft Will Ferrell flick. 'You've Got Mail' just tells a good story, with engaging characters and memorable dialogue. The conflict between Kathleen Kelly and Joe Fox is played perfectly by Hanks and Meg Ryan; two actors who have done their best since this film to steer clear of their natural talent for romantic comedies. Tom Hanks is masterful in this. He gets the recognition (deservedly) for films like 'Forrest Gump' and 'Saving Private Ryan', but here he has an ease and playfulness that is a pure delight to watch. Nobody can do this the way Hanks does. I just hope he does more of it-- because the smug-I'm-a-good-actor version of Hanks we've got since Da Vinci has been extremely disappointing.

I like rom-coms. And it's great when they're done right. Truth is, the indie films generally do it better (Before Sunrise, In Search Of A Midnight Kiss) but I think when it comes to big budget fare, Nora Ephron is the best there is. There's a lightness and sweetness to her work which we rarely see in film, or the world. And lightness ain't always so bad.

'You've Got Mail' is a delightful, humorous breeze; one of my favourite movies-- every time I watch it I sink into its version of New York. I love it.

If you write a blog and like the idea of this blogathon, please get involved! Write your version of "The Film I Always Go Back To" this weekend! Meanwhile, I also recommend watching "The Shop Around The Corner", the fantastic Ernst Lubitsch film that "You've Got Mail" was based on.

Care to share?

Tweet

Nora Ephron - What Are You Doing To Me?

I am currently reading the Nora Ephron book 'Heartburn.' It's a book about a woman who is seven months pregnant who finds out her husband is cheating on her. And it's about cooking. And women stuff. And the cover looks like this --

Now, this is a problem because I am a guy.

And if I read a book like that on the train, people will give me weird looks.

'Why Are You Reading Nora Ephron books?' you might ask. And all I can say is that, Nora Ephron has been pulling this kind of shit on me all my life. Do I want to be watching Meg Ryan prancing around all the time? No. But do I? Yes. 'Sleepless In Seattle,' 'You've Got Mail', 'Hanging Up' - I loved them all.

You see - I secretly think Nora Ephron is one of the best writers alive. There are not many others who could make me relate to a story about a bunch of quarrelling sisters ('Hanging Up') - and whilst I do love a good ole' rom-com, I would rarely call them my favorite films - but I think 'You've Got Mail' is genius. If it was made in the 1950's and had Billy Wilder's name as Director, it probably would have won some oscars.

The book I am reading, 'Heartburn,' was turned into a movie, which I've not yet seen. But the book is great - hilarious, compelling, and true - in a way few books are. I actually really struggle with reading, I find it hard to find voices that resonate with me. I can name about four -- Woody Allen (short stories), Joseph Heller, Roald Dahl, John O'Farrell, some of Nick Hornby, and half of Jack Kerouac's 'On The Road' - that is a bit more than four but that number was only a guess prior to this sentence. Oh, and Anne Frank. There's more truth in her book than anything else I've ever read.

So I have to face the facts - I need to stand up proudly and say. I LOVE NORA EPHRON.

But right now I'm going to go and watch the 'Die Hard' trilogy and some war films....

PS: Today is the last day you can vote for me in the 2010 Weblog Awards, or the Bloggies, as they're also known. I am one of the five nominees in the 'Best Entertainment Blog' category. I would really appreciate it if you voted for me. You can do that here.

Care to share?

Tweet

Sleepless In Seattle/You've Got Mail

JOE: Hey…he could be the zipper man.
KATHLEEN: Who's that?
JOE: The zipper man! The, uh…
KATHLEEN: Who is that?
JOE: …he’s the guy out, he… repairs zippers on Amsterdam Avenue.
KATHLEEN: Will you cut it out!
JOE: You'd never have to buy new luggage.

I was out with a friend the other night, and she asked me "which do you prefer, Sleepless In Seattle or You've Got Mail?"

Of course, my answer should have been "Um? whaaa? I prefer DIE HARD! As if I watch chick-flicks!" But that's the problem, I've always had a lot of time for a good rom-com. Don't get me wrong, I don't sit around watching 'The Women' and 'Mamma Mia' - what I mean is, if there's a film about New Yorkers falling in and out of love with each other with some amusing dialogue thrown in, I'm more than happy to watch it. This is my only defence for owning 'One Fine Day.'

But the main question is, of course - Sleepless In Seattle or You've Got Mail? I decided the only way to know for sure would be to watch them back-to-back and then write my opinions. So I did that, and now let me say that for my money, 'You've Got Mail' is by far the superior film; both film-wise, romantically-wise and other-wise, Ephron-wise.

Watching 'Sleepless In Seattle' again I couldn't help but hate Meg Ryan. There really isn't a lot to her character; just that she is pretty desperate to meet Sam Baldwin. As she desperately runs around trying to hunt down the guy she heard on the radio, it just seems desperate and NOT romantic.

Now, Sam Baldwin's (Hanks) story I can really get behind. Tom Hanks is absolutely amazing in this film-- playing a character who truly loves his deceased wife; a man who's trying to keep it together for his son, himself and his sanity. There are many moments where his performance reaches a level of real emotion, real truth. You can believe what he's going through and you feel a lot of empathy for him, you can palpably feel his suffering. But Annie Reed (Ryan) is just an annoying woman taking up screen-time, running around trying to recreate 'An Affair To Remember.'

For me, 'You've Got Mail' takes the elements of 'Sleepless In Seattle' and makes a much stronger film. For one, it's all set in New York; and it's one of the most New Yorkian rom-coms you could hope for. It becomes a character, much like in Woody Allen's 'Manhattan' or in 'Serendipity' -- which I'll talk about a bit later.

'You've Got Mail' manages to be light, funny and entertaining-- yet also, it has real moments of conflict and emotion. The battle in the business lives of Joe Fox and Kathleen Kelly really make for great rom-com storytelling; and Kathleen feeling the loss of her Mother and then going through it again as her shop closes gives Meg the kind of interesting backstory that was majorly missing in 'Sleepless...'

I think many people prefer 'Sleepless...' because it's more about fate. It's more about going to all the lengths needed to find your soulmate. I get that, I appreciate that-- but I think it makes for a boring film. It works in 'Serendipity,' I think, because John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale's characters know each other, and have got that link, y'know, the buzz. In 'Sleepless...' they don't have that. Even at the end when Hanks jumps on a plane to New York.. he doesn't do that to meet the girl, he does it to hunt down his son.

In 'You've Got Mail' though, two people do fall in love with each other. Through their words in their emails, and through the relationship that grows in the latter part of the movie over coffees, walks, and banter. I guess I just prefer that, I prefer that it's about the two characters rather than this airy feeling of fate. And as mentioned before; I think that is handled better in 'Serendipity' -- where their fate is driven by their need to find and be with each other. In 'Sleepless' it's just a desperate loon looking for a guy who's more interested in getting over his wife and looking after his son.

You've Got Mail will go down in film history as a completely average film; but it's one of my favourites. I think Nora Ephron completely nails what a rom-com should be; with two actors in their prime with some playful scenes and great dialogue to help them on their way. Ephron creates a version of New York full of meaning, romance and hope. I also think it's one of Tom Hanks' best performances to date. His natural subtlety and ease is masterful; with echoes of Jimmy Stewart (who was, of course, in 'The Shop Around The Corner,' which YGM was based on) -- he's at his most enjoyable. And unfortunately, we haven't really seen Hanks do fun since -- unless you count the dire 'The Terminal.'

Meg Ryan is far more enjoyable in 'You've Got Mail' -- in fact, she seems to get better as the years go by. I think her performances in 'Hanging Up' and 'In The Land Of The Women' are heartbreakingly truthful-- and I'd recommend you all to check them out (not if you're looking for a rom-com)

"and I knew it. I knew it the very first time I touched her. It was like coming home... only to no home I'd ever known... I was just taking her hand to help her out of a car and I knew. It was like... magic."
-Sam Baldwin, Sleepless In Seattle.
In summary; they're both classics in their own way. On a personal level; I'll go for 'You've Got Mail' every time. I've heard criticism of both films that they're 'not very realistic' -- my feeling of that is that, actually, people are too realistic. We create the world we want. If you want to be more romantic, be so-- the world will deliver.

Care to share?

Tweet

Tom Hanks.

I love Tom Hanks. Not in a gay way. But I love him in the same way I love Jack Lemmon and Jimmy Stewart. Hanks was probably the first person I actively begun to follow when I realized I was going to be a film lover rather than an ordinary functioning human. I loved the Ephron Rom-Coms, I loved the Oscar-winning stuff - and I loved all the old stuff like Punchline and The Burbs. Back then, Hanks was really Hanks. In fact, he was probably at his most Jack Lemmon back then.
My concern is that he just doesn't take risks anymore. He just seems to take the pay-cheque. I would love to see him in a low-budget comedy, something that tries to be a bit different; but it's just not something that Hanks ever does. The strange thing is that the Tom Hanks everyman character doesn't seem to excite so much anymore. A part of me would be more drawn to see a Will Smith blockbuster than the latest Hanks flick.

I see his career in three stages. The first was the 'earlier, funnier ones'. From Splash in 1984 through to A League Of Their Own in 1992. This was a great period for Tom Hanks; whether the films were brilliant fun like Turner And Hooch or pathetic like The Man With One Red Shoe, one thing stayed constant -- Hanks was just so compelling on screen. Whether he was spying on weird neighbours, going on stake-outs with a dog or dating a mermaid; you just went along with it. He was just so appealing to watch, so funny, and so interesting.

The second stage is where he went from being a great comedy actor to being an all-time great, a legend in his own right. From Sleepless In Seattle through to Road To Perdition. Career-wise, he did very little wrong. It could be down to his 'crack team of showbiz experts' as he often jokes. Or it could just be down to the fact that he was a dedicated, passionate, and risk-taking actor. It's hard to see now but to play a homosexual with aids, immediately followed by playing a simple, somewhat retarded Alabamian was a risk. Two risks that rewarded us with breathtaking and ground-breaking performances, and rewarded him with two back-to-back Oscars and a license to pretty much have any role he wanted for the rest of his career. And this is a license that, for many years, he used very well.

In Sleepless In Seattle and You've Got Mail he was perfect. You can write them off as fluffy rom-coms, but I really like the films. Hanks manages a state of complete naturalness. When you watch him talk, think and move; he is not an actor, he is not performing, he just is. In You've Got Mail you can see he's having the time of his life; bringing himself into the role in a way that parallels Jimmy Stewart in The Shop Around The Corner, from which You've Got Mail was adapted.

Apollo 13, Saving Private Ryan, The Green Mile and Cast Away are, for me, completely perfect films. In these films Tom had perfected the art of acting. The art of becoming a role. Of course, in these films he got to work with masters of modern cinema - Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg, Frank Darabont and Robert Zemeckis -- so he was in good hands. With great writing and directing backing him he excelled. I could happily watch these four films on repeat for the rest of my life. His journey as a character in these films are like the journeys of the everyman getting through life. These are roles that define who Tom Hanks is and what he means to us. They are roles that proved beyond doubt that he is the greatest actor of our generation and quite possibly any generation.

And then came stage three. From Catch Me If You Can through to Angels and Demons. You begin to see the pattern of him falling into the same films again and again. Rather than playing a complex and flawed character like Capt. Miller in Saving Private Ryan he played rather uninspired, predictable characters in his two next Spielberg films Catch Me If You Can and The Terminal. Both were watchable, in fact Catch is possibly quite good; but they're safe. By the numbers box-office fare that will happily yield a pay-cheque and a new offer after release. The same complaint could be made about Spielberg as it could Hanks but I'll save that for another time.

The Da Vinci Code is the icing on the cake. Rather than playing a heartbreaking Andrew Beckett or the conflicted Paul Edgecombe, he took on a role in the biggest franchise at the time. The Da Vinci book was hyped beyond control and the movie was guaranteed to rake in the dollars. Where Ron Howard's Apollo 13 was inspired and moving, Da Vinci is just dull, long and - well, you've all seen it, just bland. Of course, it's highly likely that Tom thought the film would be much better than it was; but then here he is again in the sequel Angels & Demons. For the first time in my life; I have absolutely no interest in seeing a Tom Hanks film.

When you rack up his credits in the last seven years compared to those in the decade prior to that, it's sad to see how poor it is. It's not that he misfires; it's just that he is content playing with the big-timers in films that rarely have anything to say and the comedies like The Ladykillers and The Terminal lack the freshness of pretty much every comedy he did prior to the turn of the millennium.

I worry. Not for Tom the working actor, but for Tom the artist. Tom the man who meant so much to us. The man who is now churning out the average on a consistent basis. Whether this is bad choices and safety or just pure bad luck, I don't know. I mean, I'd have thought having him acting out the words of Aaron Sorkin in Charlie Wilson's War would produce one of the greatest films of our time but it wasn't to be the case.

Whatever happens, I feel that we are now approaching chapter four. His next few decisions will determine the rest of his career. I just hope he takes some risks.

Care to share?

Tweet