I'm slowly but surely finding my way back to free time and films, including my beloved weekly red envelope. The next four as-scheduled queue entries are indies and the first two are both films directed by Jill Sprecher. Thirteen Conversations About One Thing is the second of the two, but as I was not familiar with this particular director, I didn't give much thought to how I was queuing up my films. My interest in this one was more topical - I mean, it's a heady subject: happiness, as seen through the eyes of a few otherwise innocuous and everyday people. This film had the potential to be truly powerful. Then again, it could also have fizzled spectacularly under the weight of its good intentions. Happily, it had some charm and sincerity even if it failed to present any earth-shattering revelation or take its ambitious subject to the heights toward which it reached.
The film depicts the verbal dissections of what constitutes happiness from the vantage point of five main characters. Gene (Alan Arkin) is a grumpy, aged insurance salesman who is eternally cynical, pessimistic, and tends to be a deliberate bummer to his co-workers and friends. Walker (John Turturro) is a physics professor who cannot see the excitement of life and, therefore, jeopardizes his own happiness by fabricating excitement through an extramarital affair, cheating on his suspecting and otherwise undeserving wife Patricia (Amy Irving). Troy (Matthew McConaughey) is a rising star of an attorney whose career falters after a hit-and-run accident, and Beatrice (Clea Duvall) is a maid hoping for something bigger than she is to appear in her life.
The movie is segmented into 13 vignettes preceded by titles derived from quotes of the movie's dialogue. What the viewer quickly realizes is that these five lives intersect in unanticipated ways, which would be really cool if it actually seemed to serve a purpose to the overall story. The question posited by the film is "what is happiness?" The answer, while rightfully vague, doesn't seem to be bolstered by the twisty connections between the characters or the vignette divisions that serve more as misdirection and an obvious attempt at cleverness than as a creative weaving of the tale.
That's not to say that the film wasn't an admirable effort in its own right. The screenplay was original and sweet and full of heartfelt examinations of feelings and thoughts that any everyday person might have. The film was shot in a beautiful way, playing with perspectives by bringing foreground and background interchangeably into focus, and the acting by all five of the primary performers in this film was good, particularly by Alan Arkin, who offers the most nuanced and heart-wrenching exploration of a curmudgeon considering the (however unlikely) silver linings of his dark clouds.
Yet, as I indicated, the vignette format felt contrived, which actually undermined the resonance of the topic. Put another way, I loved the well-written and well-acted observations of these characters in crisis, but I got bored very quickly by the vignette format, with its slightly pretentious nods to its own dialogue and out-of-order sequencing designed to reveal the clever connections between the characters. The film, therefore, could have been pure silver if it had not been slightly tarnished by its own conventions and occasional pretentions.
The score was also lovely, but since I watched this movie two weeks ago, I can't really remember what I liked about it. I just remember thinking that it was dream-like and surreal, much as the ordinary lives portrayed in this film become.
Thirteen Conversations About One Thing is a pretty picture in some ways but in other ways, it leaves something to be desired. It gets bogged down by its overall philosophy and construction while still remaining elevated by its ambition and intention. The film is, therefore, complex and even complicated, though possibly frustratingly so. For me, I knew almost instantly that I would rate the film a 7.5, between shaky/entertaining and very good/minor flaws. I think the construction of the film force-feeds the viewer too much; if the film had been more free-flowing and, perhaps, stream of consciousness, the contrasts between the mundane of each character would have been richer and more interesting, and the connections and interconnections would have felt more meaningful. Granted, I'm not a filmmaker, but I experienced that reaction quickly and intensely. As to the test, I don't think this film passes. I enjoyed it on some basic levels but not enough to buy it. I applaud the effort, though, and I'm at least a bit curious about this particular director and screenwriter and the other topics she might have conversations about in the future.