The Paperboy

“If anyone’s gonna pee on him, it’s gonna be me!”

THE PAPERBOY is the new one from Academy Award nominee for Best Director Lee Daniels. That’s the guy that did PRECIOUS, BASED ON THE NOVEL PUSH BY SAPPHIRE as well as SHADOWBOXER, BASED ON THE IDEA THAT HELEN MIRREN AND CUBA GOODING JR. ARE ASSASSINS AND SHE RAISED HIM BUT ALSO THEY’RE FUCKING AND SHE HAS CANCER. I feel like the critical community embraced PRECIOUS without really picking up on how nutty it was, or doing a background check on Mr. Daniels’s previous work. So they did cartoony “wh-wh-whUHHH?” double-takes when THE PAPERBOY played at Cannes and had a part where Nicole Kidman territorially pisses on Zac Efron from HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL. Because it’s a Lee Daniels movie.

Daniels co-wrote this one with the novelist Peter Dexter, based on Dexter’s novel. Apparently the novel is in the point of view of the Efron character Jack, but the movie is in the point of view of the family maid Anita (Macy Gray), paid to give an interview about what happened that inspired the novel. She starts with the disemboweling of a hated sheriff. The murder was blamed on a humble gator disemboweler named Hillary Van Wetter (John Cusack), but years later Jack’s older brother Ward (Matthew McConaughey) and his partner Yardley (David Oyelowo) are working on a newspaper exposee to prove Hillary’s innocence. Their only witness seems to be Hillary’s idiot fiancee-by-mail Charlotte (Nicole Kidman). Jack is hired as their driver and “falls in love” with Charlotte.

I enjoyed McConaughey and Cusack’s battle to see whose hair can look the greasiest and most in need of a brush, but it would be better if they had more of a story. Although a reporter instead of a lawyer, Ward seems to be sort of a parody of the TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD style white southern civil rights crusader, so it’s funny that they hired the same guy from A TIME TO KILL. But it’s never clear why he thinks this guy is innocent and he doesn’t do that much to prove that he is. From what I’ve read it sounds like the book is making a satirical point because they’re faking innocence to make a good story, but the movie version just seems to be too interested in this story about Jack wanting to fuck Charlotte to bother with filling in the details on all that. If it felt like a complete story it would be a funny idea that they’re crusading for this racist misogynist asshole who spends more time complaining about Charlotte wearing pants than talking about his case.

It’s easy to connect parts of Daniels’ background to his artistic obsessions. He’s black, he’s gay, he says he saw his mom got beat up alot. But the thing I read that came closest to explaining him is that when he was a teenager he saw PINK FLAMINGOS and it was such a profound experience for him that he went to see it again and made his mom and his aunt come with him. Usually the parts in his movies that are funny don’t seem like they’re supposed to be funny, so it’s weird to think that’s his influence, but I don’t know. Somehow it makes sense.

What’s fun about THE PAPERBOY, to the extent that it is fun, is that the actors seem to be really into it, with Cusack and McConaughey especially enjoying being sweaty and obnoxious. Gray channels her weird, mumbly self into an odd but sort of likable character, and is good with some very naturalistic dialogue full of incomplete thoughts. Kidman is either brave or foolish to play this trashy character who is attracted to a disgusting maniac, then gets totally humiliated by him, then goes to live with him anyway. I’m gonna go with brave. Or maybe she just doesn’t give a shit what people think of her at this point. And I don’t know much about Efron other than that he was some kind of teen heart throb, but now he has muscles but a boyish head like Speed Racer or somebody. He’s pretty good in this, I imagine he’ll go on to better movies.

Most importantly these actors always seem to be looking for stupid little things to do in their scenes to make their characters odd. McConaughey does a dialogue scene while doing exaggerated after-a-long-car-trip stretches, Gray mumbles sadly about the Smothers Brothers being cancelled, Efron does 3 or 4 scenes in his tighty whiteys, one in boxers. When he’s in the swamp he suddenly has a shirt wrapped around his head with a feather sticking out like an Indian headdress. Or my favorite is when McConaughey does a whole scene perched up on top of a counter:

I guess to show how comfortable he is in this house, ’cause he grew up here.

The notorious scene is the one with the peeing, but that at least is done with some humor (he wakes up smelling like piss and Anita tells him casually “that blond lady peed on your face.” Other Danielsy sleaze scenes include Kidman nearly cumming just from being in a car outside of the prison where her pen pal lives and McConaughey wanting to be chained up naked and have his face bashed in by black guys so he can wear an eye patch to his dad’s wedding. The funniest one is the one from the thumbnail above. They all come to the prison for this important meeting to prove Hillary’s innocence, but instead Hillary and Charlotte masturbate while Yardley and Jack sit there looking uncomfortable and Ward tries to use a notebook to hide his boner, junior high style.

There’s a weird animal motif. Jack gets stung by a mob of jellyfish. He gets scared by a snake. He gets nauseated by a guy cutting open an alligator. He scares away a dragonfly when he pees. While Charlotte and Hillary are having violent sex against a washing machine it keeps cutting to an alligator, pigs, a bleeding possum.

All this weird shit is why I don’t regret seeing the movie, and find it kind of interesting as part of the great mystery that is the works of Lee Daniels, but this is his worst movie so far. Both PRECIOUS and SHADOWBOXER pin all their excesses onto the structure of a fairly compelling story. With THE PAPERBOY it seems like the story is about this crazy asshole convicted killer who some journalists think didn’t do it and are trying to free. But instead of focusing on that it makes the main character the little brother who’s just sitting there during this, lusting after the killer’s fiancee.

I guess Daniels has a thing for younger man/older woman sexual relationships, but I don’t agree that this is the interesting part of this story. Young people being dumb and thinking they’re in love is relatable, but Charlotte (in part due to a game performance by Kidman) is so dumb and gross that it’s not like it’s a sweet love story or anything. I’m not sure why Daniels thinks it’s so fascinating or what he thinks the story is about.

There is a little bit going on here with the racial and class relations. They have this new step mother who’s a real bitch and a few times you see her treating their black servants like shit, for example in a funny moment at the wedding where she makes them pretend to smile. More importantly there’s the relationship between Jack and Anita. Jack really likes Anita, maybe almost like a mother figure, but there’s always that white-boy/black-maid dynamic hanging over them, she should be able to tell him what to do and not the other way around. And then when he does something blatantly racist in front of her he has to deal with the shame and she has to deal with the hurt and they try to get past that. It’s pretty interesting.

But then, back to Jack in his underwear in a sprinkler trying not to get a boner from Charlotte.

But I’m not sure Daniels thinks it’s important to know what a movie is about, or for it to stay consistent. When it starts Macy Gray is the narrator because she’s being interviewed about this novel. Later on she seems to know she’s narrating a movie, because she interrupts a sex scene by saying, “Anyhoo, I think y’all seen enough.”

At the end of the movie it not only doesn’t return to her being interviewed, but has her telling us that Jack “went on to become a writer of some renown.” Why would she say this to the guy interviewing her about the novel Jack wrote? And why wouldn’t Daniels notice that his beginning and ending don’t match? But also do I even want to know the answers? Would I even want to watch Lee Daniels movies if I understood where they were coming from and they seemed to be made by a reasonable person?

Well the answer to that last one is ‘no,’ so I guess ultimately I’m coming out semi-positive on THE PAPERBOY. I’d pee on its face any time.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 4th, 2012 at 3:01 am and is filed under Crime, Drama, Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

15 Responses to “The Paperboy”

  1. It definitely sounds crazy and was curious if you’d review it after I read “Hey Academy! Time To Take Nicole Kidman’s ‘Paperboy’ Role Seriously!”


    I’ll be dodging the pee in the meantime…

  2. The damn pee was so front and center in every article I read concerning this movie that I didn’t even know Cusack was in this until I finally got around to watching the trailer. I hope this goes to Netflix Instant, because I’m curious about this, but not curious enough to actually rent the thing.

  3. As the philosopher George Santayana once observed: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. One can only surmise that Lee Daniels slept through philosophy class(es) in college. When a bad, non-porn movie contains a sexual fetish or non-standard sexual act, sometimes it sticks out by a mile and becomes the only thing memorable about the movie. Examples of this are the blowjob scene in The Brown Bunny and the piefucking scene in American Pie.

    (Actually, one could interpret the central message of American Pie as paying tribute to Matthew 7:15— “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves”… this Biblical quote pertaining to the Sherminator’s lie about getting his first pussy at Stifler’s party, and the four geeks take this as their signal to begin the quest for their own cherry poppage).

    Remember Ben Stiller cleaning the pipes before his big date in There’s Something About Mary? How about Thomas Jay Ryan’s fortuitous Stanley Steamer in Henry Fool? Yeah, if you’ve seen those movies, you probably recall those scenes… but in an incidental way, because they’re both good movies. If (hypothetically) there had been a Dirty Sanchez in The Empire Strikes Back or a Blumpky in The Usual Suspects… those fetishes would not be the reasons the movies achieved merit and held up over time.

    So, the lesson for today is: If you’re gonna make a (non-porn) movie with a sexual fetish scene in it, be sure that part ends up being an ornament on the tree, rather than the tree itself.

  4. caruso_stalker217

    December 4th, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    Woah now. I realize there are a few definitions of “Stanley Steemer” but the one in HENRY FOOL was not of the sexual kind!

  5. @caruso_stalker217: I believe what you’re thinking of is a Cleveland Steamer (I won’t go into the details of it). A Stanley Steamer is when someone takes a dump in a bathroom in which a hot shower is running. The steam from the shower combines with the odor from the dookie, creating an olfactory assault that ranges from pungent to full-on chemical warfarelike.

    I hope that is proper clarification.

  6. Man, I can’t wait to see what kind of spambots we’re gonna get on this thread.

  7. This is sounds like the worst videogame adaptation since the last Uwe Boll movie.

  8. Anyone remember Polanski’s BITTER MOON? It had a pee pee fetish scene as well. It’s all I recall about that movie. What does that say about me?

  9. caruso_stalker217

    December 4th, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    @Amazing Larry. You’re absolutely right. I definitely would have remembered if HENRY FOOL featured a Cleveland Steamer scene. Thank you for the clarification.

  10. You know, I could have gone through life quite happily not knowing the definition of a Stanley Steamer, but at least I now know how to describe Vito Jr.’s most memorable scene in the THE SOPRANOS. So thanks, I guess.

    Oh, there is also a scene in ILSA: SHE-WOLF OF THE SS where she is forced to pee on the face of a Nazi general.

  11. I read an interview in which Lee Daniels explained he gained interest in adapting this book and Push at the same time, and he decided to do Push first because he was actually intrigued by the story itself. But with The Paperboy he only cared about the characters and wasn’t interested in the story at all. So this review pretty much falls in line with that admission.

  12. Had no interest in this film until I realized that Pete Dexter was involved. His book DEADWOOD is absolutely amazing, and the HBO series (as good as it is) ripped it off big time. There’s a long monologue where Charlie Utter philosophizes about his spilled semen that probably wouldn’t be too out of place in a Lee Daniels film.

  13. I thought the movie was a comedy, so I was surprised when it turned out to be Southern Gothic sweaty weirdness. I was entertained, but I wonder if Lee Daniels wanted Cage because that it sure seemed like he must have asked Cusack to do his best Nick Cage impression.

  14. I liked THE PAPERBOY BASED ON THE NOVEL THE PAPERBOY BY PETER DEXTER because it was the same crazy as PRECIOUS but not an uplifting story like PRECIOUS. Interesting to see if people could still take the style applied to an unsympathetic end. The answer is: no, they can’t.

  15. Well, it’s on Netflix Instant now, and it’s….something. Maybe I wasn’t paying hard enough attention but I actually got lost several times, and confused by how one scene would begin and something would already be happening and you had no idea what the hell was going on or how they got there or what they’re talking about. Like all of a sudden Efron is weaing a ridiculous turtleneck and then through dialogue they explain he got ditched somewhere by the character we just saw him with two seconds ago and then showered and is wearing another character’s clothes and it’s like “huh???” And yes, I like how the narrator cuts away from the big sex scene like “y’all don’t need to see this” when the camera literally ZOOMED INTO Kidman’s crotch during the infamous pee scene earlier. And not to get too nitpicky but how exactly is the narrator narrating this story anyway? She’s not around for 90% of the proceedings.

    And SPOILERS – I kinda loved how it turned into this weird slasher movie for the last 5 minutes, and then had this ridiculously anticlimactic wet noodle of an ending. I don’t mean that sarcastically, I actually really loved it and had a big grin on my face. To say this is the spiritual successor to “My Soul to Take” sounds kind of harsh, but it’s not really that bad an analogy. I’ll be rewatching this awesome/terrible movie again very soon.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>