I know this article is going to stir up a hornets’ nest of controversy and I’m glad that it will, so let’s just dive in. Sideways is not just a badly written, badly directed and badly acted film that should never have been made, much less amazingly nominated for an Oscar®, but it is another in a long string of dangerously misogynistic films that is helping to negatively and, perhaps even dangerously, shape our view of women.
Consider the basic outline of Sideways: two middle-aged, physically and personally unattractive men, their lives in shambles, drive north to the wine country where they meet two physically and personally beautiful women who are years younger than they are. The men lie to the women, act like buffoons with them, and not only get to bed them, but somehow make them fall slavishly in love with them overnight for no apparent reason (other than the screenwriter decided that it be so).
Then the women seem to realize how badly they’ve been treated. The one jerk ends up wedding a third woman, the most beautiful woman you can imagine and also years younger and miles smarter than he. The other whiny, pathetic, overweight, physically and personally unattractive man ends up with one of the two original beautiful women—a smart, ambitious, gentle, loving woman who can’t help but beg this overweight, overaged and underattractive loser to have her, as if she is some kind of rummage sale castoff who should be grateful that anyone is even interested in her.
None of my description of the film is an exaggeration. This is the actual storyline of Sideways. It is not coincidental that the film was directed by the same guy who directed About Schmidt, a film in which an old, physically and personally unattractive man treats his loving and kindhearted wife like crap. Then, when his wife finally dies, this jerk (played by Jack Nicholson) attends his daughter’s wedding intent on treating her like crap, too. Not content with just that amount of woman-bashing, however, he then treats Kathy Bates’ incredibly generous offer of sex as if she had tried to infect him with Syphilis. Oh, and along the way, he comes on to a married woman half his age whose only crime was to show him some friendship. He spends the rest of his time actually whining about his life to a third-world orphan who probably has one or two problems of his own. Yet, in the end, this mean-spirited, self-centered loser is vindicated and experiences a catharsis that does not include the realization, apparently, that he is a waste of good foreskin.
This kind of misogyny is an astonishing and troubling phenomenon, and one that has gotten much worse over the past few years. Why are these films so critically acclaimed? Because the men acclaiming them—the middle-aged, frustrated, self-centered, arrogant critics and producers—see themselves in these jerk heroes and wish they had it half as good. These women-hating losers want to be able to treat women like crap and yet still end up with supermodels. This not only demeans women, and objectifies them, it makes for crappy screenplays and crappy movies. It should be objectionable to all of us that women are treated this way onscreen. It should be objectionable to us that a stunningly beautiful and talented woman like Halle Berry has to give herself sexually to a physically and personally repugnant man like Billy Bob Thornton’s character in Monster’s Ball, in order to win an Oscar.
It should also be objectionable to us that there are such obvious implausibilities in these films.
Look at it this way: If the lead character of a film was a three-foot tall, physically uncoordinated and lazy man who makes it to the NBA, would we applaud the screenwriter? Or would we object to the implausibility that takes us out of the story? Yet that is exactly what Sideways does. So why the hell is THAT okay?
What does it say about us that we believe women, no matter how smart, how pretty, how educated and how classy, will go for any man who shows even the slightest interest?
Women MUST be offended by this and men SHOULD be offended by this. Most of all filmgoers have a RESPONSIBILITY to be offended by this type of empty-headed and empty-HEARTED film. If not, we’ll descend only deeper into the current misogynistic morass of female objectification.
And as for Giamatti’s acting? Rent any movie that Paul Giamatti has been in and try to discern the difference between any of the characters he plays.
Sideways should have been called Upside Down, because it turns the world of decency and sexual equality and motion picture quality upside down. Gimme’ a break ... a break from these misogynistic pieces of crap.
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Rob Tobin is an award-winning screenwriter, screenwriting teacher, author of How to Write High Structure, High Concept Movies, former development exec and frequent guest lecturer at film festivals and conferences around the country.
Jackskeleton
03-18-05, 05:59 AM
Rob Tobin is full of shit and should just get the sex change already.
but it is another in a long string of dangerously misogynistic films that is helping to negatively and, perhaps even dangerously, shape our view of women.
How about this. Look at any commercial on tv today and you will see that it appeals towards women. You have the stupid husband who can't do much of anything. Hell, if you believe the ads on tv you will think that men will starve if it wasn't for fast food places like Carl's Jr. Men are always played as the morons on tv because guess who watches those shows. Women. Men have been slowly declining in deciding ratings for a while now. Men don't seem to watch or care for the same level of television as women do. So those ads are tailor made for them.
It's marketing. This film is suppose to appeal to those men who are in their middle age/mid-life crisis stage and I see no reason why they shouldn't play it up.
This writer makes it sound like it was pretty flat of a story. The women fell in love with them because regardless of their unattractive looks, they lied about their success. One acts as if he is coming out with a book and the other acts as if he is an established actor. That is success. Unlike women. Men attract others through being successful and by presenting that money and power aspect. They could be ugly as all hell, but that is the good thing about men. It's not about how they look when they are that age, but what level of success they are in.
As for the females. Yes, these are the pick of the prime.. -rolleyes- a single mother and a waitress. Were they attractive? to some degree yes, but it was a pretty decent job at looking like the regular plain folk. Only difference is they all had the thing in common which was wine.
Decency and sexual equality upsidedown? This moron really likes to use the word Misogyny. I don't see how this was a hatred of women picture. The guy who played the female got the shit beaten out of him and had a broken nose. The other one's ex-wife seemed perfectly happy. The current girlfriend was graduating and till the end, it looked like our hero was up shit creek drinking some aged wine with burger and fries.
I really don't see how it's women hating or how this is exclusive to women in movies. Lets look at HITCH. A film all about making the women happy and having the man be the lap dog. This film is target towards men of that demographic. I see no reason why not to appeal to that target audiance. Much like Hitch appeals to the target audiance who is mainly women going for a date film.
This guy sounds like a real *****.
Groucho
03-18-05, 08:46 AM
Consider the basic outline of Sideways: two middle-aged, physically and personally unattractive men, their lives in shambles, drive north to the wine country where they meet two physically and personally beautiful women who are years younger than they are.In 2004, when this film came out:
Paul Giamatti was 37.
Thomas Haden Church was 43.
Viginia Madsen was 41 (4 years older than Giamatti).
Sandra Oh was 34.ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Rob Tobin is an award-winning screenwriter, screenwriting teacher, author of How to Write High Structure, High Concept Movies, former development exec and frequent guest lecturer at film festivals and conferences around the country.Rob Tobin has no screenwriting credits listed on the IMDB.
wendersfan
03-18-05, 08:49 AM
Tobin's main problem is that, in spite of what he says, he's clearly exaggerating. He makes it seem like Louie DePalma from Taxi somehow got Heidi Klum to fall in love with him. That's not what happened in this movie. I'll grant you that the two female characters were physically more attractive than the males, but, as Jack points out, the males misrepresented their levels of success, and also, regardless of how much of a loser Giamatti's character may have been with his life, he could speak eloquently and passionately about wine, which would make him attractive to Madsen's character. There's a kernel of truth to what Tobin wrote, but he obscures it by gross exaggeration and misrepresentation.
Shannon Nutt
03-18-05, 08:52 AM
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Rob Tobin is clueless.
auto
03-18-05, 09:41 AM
None of my description of the film is an exaggeration.
:lol:
As an ugly guy with a hot girlfriend, I find this article highly offensive.
wendersfan
03-18-05, 09:58 AM
:lol:
As an ugly guy with a hot girlfriend, I find this article highly offensive.Sell out. Ugly people should only date their own kind. -ohbfrank-
Actually, you have my fullest congratulations, sir. :up:
docF94
03-18-05, 10:46 AM
While I think Tobin exaggerates, I can see something to many of his charges. Particularly this one: And as for Giamatti’s acting? Rent any movie that Paul Giamatti has been in and try to discern the difference between any of the characters he plays.
I believe all romantic comedies are essentially farces, about confused identities, absurd misunderstandings, and well-meaning deceptions. Sideways was basically just another romantic comedy, with a different sense of humor. I agree with Tobin that it wasn't Academy Award material. I agree with Tobin that ment treating women badly without consequence has become a staple of modern entertainment. I agree that the women in the film were vastly superior in looks, moral character, and coolness, but that they were portrayed in the film as being socioeconomically lower, and more dependent, and with more dependents. For instance, Virginia Madsen in her job is working under a man, the bartender. It isn't stated that he is her superior, but it seemed implied. Sandra Oh seemed to be more independent in her employment, but was also under the yoke of a man - a miniature one at home.
I think there are strong feminist critiques to make about Sideways and many other films. However, Tobin makes even his good points very badly. Particularly when saying something like: Women MUST be offended by this and men SHOULD be offended by this. Most of all filmgoers have a RESPONSIBILITY to be offended by this type of empty-headed and empty-HEARTED film. If not, we’ll descend only deeper into the current misogynistic morass of female objectification.
This is plainly ridiculous and damages the legitimacy of his entire argument. "This is what i think, and anyone who doesn't think so is a frickin IDIOT IN ALL CAPS!"
I hate to see a good critical perspective ruined by a poor critic, but if his goal was, as he stated, to "stir up a hornets’ nest of controversy" then he should feel proud of his accomplishment. Nice job, Rob.
If he wanted to address the strange dichotomy of self-esteem in women characters in this and other films, he could have and should have done so more elegantly. I admit to being dismayed by the ending of the film - in that no character seemed to learn much of anything from what ought to have been a fairly profound and humbling experience. I expected more to happen than the "awww...." in the fast food joint. I agree the praise heaped on the film comes largely from a sympathy with the characters rather than any accomplishment of the script. And I believe Sideways is ultimately a story about accepting one's flaws rather than doing the difficult work of changing. Misogyny is not a flaw of the film, but the conception of women characters as more pure and less powerful, more intelligent and less accomplished, more inspiring and less productive, is both troubling and revealing. And I am glad Tobin addressed it, even as badly as he did.
Te'yoos.
BassDude
03-18-05, 11:59 AM
If his goal was to stir up controversy then let's just "not look."
Sounds like a ploy for some attention. meh.
Cygnet74
03-18-05, 12:19 PM
wow, plug in "rob tobin" at imdb.com. quite an impressive list of award winning screenwriting credits. -rolleyes-
riley_dude
03-18-05, 12:28 PM
Certainly there are far worse that the guy can pick on. How about Vin Diesel's The Pacifier?
rkndkn
03-18-05, 01:43 PM
I wouldn't call the film "misogynistic". However, I'm really annoyed at the stereotype that women are more likely to look beyond a man's physicality to things like personality, wealth, status, etc.
Cygnet74
03-18-05, 01:55 PM
I wouldn't call the film "misogynistic". However, I'm really annoyed at the stereotype that women are more likely to look beyond a man's physicality to things like personality, wealth, status, etc.i think the cliché comes from intermingling a romantic quality to the event of truly seeing someone's essential truths as if for the first time.
for the film that I made, we did a lot of improvisation sessions before hand. and the women, when asked to enter into a dialogue describing a romantic encounter, almost universally made references to the idea of "seeing the boy inside the man".
we used this in the film but in order to avoid cliché, we had a man "seeing" a woman as if for the first time with whom there was no romantic connection.
brizz
03-18-05, 02:27 PM
I wouldn't call the film "misogynistic". However, I'm really annoyed at the stereotype that women are more likely to look beyond a man's physicality to things like personality, wealth, status, etc.
well...because it's true. women are more likely to overlook physicality in favor of personality, wealth, status, etc. It's just a simple fact.
Tobin is a moron, and completely misses the entire point of the film from his soapbox perspective. You aren't supposed to like them....but it is possible to laugh at them, and Payne has an amazing ability to capture the faults in people that we all know so well. The throwaway comment about Halle and Billy Bob in Monster's Ball is also one of the dumbest comments i've ever heard. Tobin obviously has mysogyny tinted glasses, because its all he sees. And that's sad.
FinkPish
03-18-05, 02:31 PM
http://img16.paintedover.com/uploads/16/tobin.jpg
I want attention (and I need to get laid)!
brizz
03-18-05, 02:38 PM
Quite the resume!!! :lol:
Rob Tobin
IMDbPro Professional Details
Editor - filmography
1. As Long as We Both Shall Laugh (2004) (TV)
2. Lolli-Pops Concerts: The Orchestra - A Happy Family (2002) (V)
3. Broadway on Broadway (2000) (TV)
brizz
03-18-05, 02:41 PM
Wow...he's read a lot of scripts!!! I've probably read 5,000 books in my lifetime...does that qualify me as an award-winning author?
http://www.inktip.com/c-tobin.php
Rob Tobin is a screenwriter, script doctor, writing coach, lecturer, acknowledged expert on screenplay structure, former book editor and author of "How to Write High Structure, High Concept Movies." As a script analyst, development exec, script consultant and writing coach, Rob has read more than 5,000 scripts and worked for many of the biggest production companies in Los Angeles.
As a screenwriter, Rob has written both features and sitcoms, individually and with his favorite writing partner and wife Leslie Coogan (Jackie Coogan's daughter). He sold the feature script "Better than Human" to Living Earth productions and his agent is negotiating the sale of his latest script, "On the DL."
As a script consultant and writing coach, Rob rewrote "Across the Red Line", a sports drama for the Cannell Studios; wrote the treatment for the feature script "Guard of Honor," adapted from the best-selling novel of the same title for Midnight Soldiers; wrote the treatment for "The A-Team" for Cannell; rewrote the western farce "Zen Cowboy" for Triad Films; the sitcom pilot "Time for Joy" for Riviera Entertainment and; the sitcom pilot "I Love Ludo" for Bu West Productions, which led to a development deal with Fox.
Rob is a former VP of Writers Boot Camp, one of the country's largest private screenwriting schools, and he has lectured, given workshops and coached writers from across the country. He has given workshops, done book signings and participated on panels at many of the most prestigious film festivals and writing conferences including The WGA Words to Pictures, Slamdance, Moondance, Screenwriting Expo and New York Independent Film Festival.
As a story analyst, Rob read for Goldwyn, Spelling, Interscope, TriStar, TriMark and HBO, among others. He also helped establish a feature film department for television mogul Stephen J. Cannell ("The A-Team," "Hunter," "The Commish").
Rob's education includes a B.A. in creative writing from the University of Victoria, British Columbia (Rob is Canadian) and graduate work in the Professional Writing Program at USC in Los Angeles.
"Rob Tobin provided invaluable advice, support and encouragement in the writing of a screenplay which led directly to a staff writing position in television. I could not have done it without him."
Jonathan R. Hiatt, Writer-producer, "City of Angels" and "Philly" (Steven Bochco Productions) and "MEDS."
"I consulted with Rob on an original screenplay entitled 'Ballistic,' and on my novel, 'Mortal Sin.' Rob is blessed with a unique combination of skills in matters both literary and cinematic. His creative instincts are first-rate."
Paul Levine, Best-selling novelist
"Rob is as fine a script analyst as any I have worked with, and has helped me enormously with script analysis, story notes and script editing."
Wayne S. Williams, Producer, "Toy Soldiers."
"If you want to read a fantastic book about screenwriting, check out, "How to Write High Structure, High Concept Movies."
Howard Meibach, Hollywoodlitsales
"(How to Write High Structure, High Concept Movies) is the clearest, most compelling book on screenwriting that I have ever come across."
Nick Dunning, British Screenwriting Institute
Rob is available for screenwriting, script doctoring and development work as well as lecturing, workshops and individual coaching and consulting. He can be reached at 714-717-4289 or scripts@earthlink.net.
FEE SCHEDULE
Story Notes: $750
This includes 10-15 pages of detailed notes on every aspect of your script, including suggestions for improvements and notes made on the script during the read. Story notes for novels, add $500 per $25,000 words.
Story Notes and Personal Consultation: $1000
This includes story notes and an hour meeting either by phone or in person.
Ongoing Consultation: $150 per hour.
This option allows the writer or producer to consult with us on an ongoing basis, including multiple reads, meetings with writers, etc.
Polishes: $10,000
Includes two drafts. Additional drafts $5,000 per.
Rewrites: $20,000
Includes two drafts. Additional drafts $5,000.
Rob Tobin
P.O. Box 286
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
714-717-4289
scripts@earthlink.net
Trigger
03-18-05, 03:22 PM
Trigger's Top 3 responses to this article...
#3. I agree with some of what he said, but I also agree that he's a big stupid douche.
#2. He totally lost me when he praised Halle Berry.
#1. He just didn't 'get it'.
scott shelton
03-18-05, 04:44 PM
He's just writing inflammatory things to get attention.
Hiro11
03-18-05, 04:57 PM
I'd just like to interject that Sandra Oh looks like a disfigured horse to me.
DRG
03-18-05, 05:28 PM
Stepping aside from Sideways, I was particularly puzzled by his About Schmidt comments.
It is not coincidental that the film was directed by the same guy who directed About Schmidt, a film in which an old, physically and personally unattractive man treats his loving and kindhearted wife like crap. Then, when his wife finally dies, this jerk (played by Jack Nicholson) attends his daughter’s wedding intent on treating her like crap, too. Not content with just that amount of woman-bashing, however, he then treats Kathy Bates’ incredibly generous offer of sex as if she had tried to infect him with Syphilis. Oh, and along the way, he comes on to a married woman half his age whose only crime was to show him some friendship. He spends the rest of his time actually whining about his life to a third-world orphan who probably has one or two problems of his own. Yet, in the end, this mean-spirited, self-centered loser is vindicated and experiences a catharsis that does not include the realization, apparently, that he is a waste of good foreskin.
This kind of misogyny is an astonishing and troubling phenomenon, and one that has gotten much worse over the past few years. Why are these films so critically acclaimed? Because the men acclaiming them—the middle-aged, frustrated, self-centered, arrogant critics and producers—see themselves in these jerk heroes and wish they had it half as good.
They wish they half as good??? Would anyone seriously want to be in Schmidt's goodsteps??? As for the other remarks, Schmidt is an asshole!!! He does asshole things! If the movie was truly misogynistic, it would have glorified Schmidt's actions. Instead, the tone was more of pity. Even as it was played for laughs, those laughs were more at Schmidt's expense. We were laughing AT him, not with him.
And the writer's comments about the ending and Schmidt's 'vindication'... did he even see the same movie? "Yet, in the end, this mean-spirited, self-centered loser ... experiences a catharsis that does not include the realization ... that he is a waste of good foreskin". The way I saw it, he realizes his life was pretty much meaningless... isn't that the same thing? I'm sure Rob Tobin would have preferred Schmidt be hit by a bus, or better yet, let Kathy Bates reprise her Misery role and teach him a lesson for rebutting her "generous offer of sex".
DRG
03-18-05, 05:28 PM
I'd just like to interject that Sandra Oh looks like a disfigured horse to me.
I'd have to agree with that.
Cygnet74
03-18-05, 05:45 PM
Tobin seems to be blaming the film for male audience members that laugh when a woman is treated badly on-screen. this 'scapegoating' is certainly alarming, but not a fault of the film for revealing it.
movielib
03-18-05, 07:44 PM
I'd hate to hear what Tobin has to say about In the Company of Men.
slop101
03-19-05, 11:36 AM
... where they meet two physically and personally beautiful women who are years younger than they are.
First of all, like Groucho pointed out, Virginia Madsen is about 5 years older than Giamatti. Second of all, this guy knows nothing about subtle film-making, as he's basing all his preceptions on outward apperances. There are many things going on below the surface, and no, I'm not talking about how "he's just like the Pinot grape" - though his articulation, and self-awareness helps. These "losers" actually need these women to save them, and that is hardly misogynistic.
#1. He just didn't 'get it'.
:lol:
Tyler_Durden
03-19-05, 01:24 PM
Someone should explain Ebert's First Rule to Rob Tobin...
rkndkn
03-20-05, 01:01 AM
well...because it's true. women are more likely to overlook physicality in favor of personality, wealth, status, etc. It's just a simple fact.
And one I can't relate to because I'm not that way, I guess. I want to be self-sufficient on my own, not find some rich guy.
PopcornTreeCt
03-20-05, 02:51 PM
I want to agree with the original article. Because I didn't like Sideways for a few of the same reasons. Kinda surprised all DVD Talkers think the same way. To address what Jack said about appealing to men, well that's fine for commercials, magazine ads and the such but movies shouldn't be that way. But it is one of the reasons why the movie is so popular. I didn't care for it because I'm not old and overweight and don't ever see myself being that way. Of course, talking bad about Sideways is like talking bad about Lord of the Rings. So, I'll end it there.
Buy: