The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Drama from 1999.  This was on Starz last night.  I had never seen it, decided 'hey - why not.'

Starring:
Kevin Spacey ...  Lester Burnham

Annette Bening ...  Carolyn Burnham

Thora Birch ...  Jane Burnham

Wes Bentley ...  Ricky Fitts

Mena Suvari ...  Angela Hayes

I swear to God - Kevin Spacey could do a movie about being a news paper delivery man and make it entertaining.  What a great actor.  The general premise of this movie is a guy that has lost his life through obtaining "The American Dream."  Has the nice house, the attractive wife, a couple nice cars, good job, weird daughter.  In the process of buying the house, getting the jobs, etc he's lost himself.  His wife has a massive case of 'keeping up with the Jones'' syndrome and being 'better' has ruled her life.

Spacey's character has a crush on his teenage daughter's friend, played by Mena Suvari.  Using the motivation from those feelings, Spacey makes a whole lot of mid-life crisis changes.

The movie is funny, yes, but there is a serious sad feeling underneath it the whole way.   Annette Bening plays Spacey's wife and a real estate agent.  She cheats on him with another realtor ('The King' of real estate).  They are in a motel and he's pounding away at her and she's screaming "give me the royal treatment."  While funny there is a sense of sadness watching this happen, it's the slippery slope of a family that is going to fall apart.  Later in the movie, after Spacey knows his wife is cheating on him, he's talking to his neighbor and says "my wife is fucking another man."  The neighbor says "you are okay with that?"  Spacey smiles and says that he is, and he means it.  But there is a heartbreak in his eyes that you can't hide.

One of the final scenes of the movie is Annette Bening's character hugging Spacey's clothing in her closet and falling to the floor sobbing.  Very telling.

In case I am not the only person in the world that never watched this movie I don't want to spoil it.  If you haven't seen it, add it to the cue on your Netflix list. 

Maine's review/grading:
A++


(http://www.seeing-stars.com/Images/ScenesFromMovies/AmericanBeautyMrSmiley(BIG).JPG)

This was a great movie. I think it's pretty much the story of middle income America in suburbia. I could've done without the Wes Bentley dialogues. The rest of the movie seems poignant enough but his little poems seemed forced. Suvari was mad hot in this flick.

Great movie.

I really hate to see families break up.  Just like in this movie ... you can see it coming well before it ever happens.

This is one of my favorite movies.

Great movie. I haven't watched it in a while, I think I should pull the DVD out

I used to love this movie, but as I've aged a little, it's hard for me to swallow. No doubt the movie's beautiful: well shot, nice use of color, well-acted, etc.; at the same time, it's hard for me to not see that the movie is about murder, parental neglect, drug use, pedophilia, and adultery.

I don't know that the movie necessarily highlights any of those actions as good, which I would have a problem with. I just don't know if such subjects are worth an artistic exposition.

Wow.  :o

I have seen this movie a few times and it is highly recommended. Great flick!!!!!

Reality is always worth artistic exposition, imo... though I would note the distinct semantical difference between exposition and glorification.

All of these things are part of not only our society, but every society on this planet.  Every ying needs a yang.  Most people watching this movie don't look at it as an encouragement to partake in the endeavors, but a "what are they thinking" thing.

And think about the scene when Spacey is about to nail Suvari.  She says "this is my first time" and his reality comes crashing back to Earth.  He stops and, on a dime, starts treating her as the young lady (child) that she is and shifts into parent mode.  I would like to think that most free thinking adults in that situation would do the same thing.  I think that there are a lot of positives in the movie.

*sigh*

Common is not news.  You don't hear about the 66%-75% of first time marriages that last "'til death do us part".  People don't make movies about average people living quiet peaceful lives.

I looked on youtube for intelligent, well-mannered Dolphin fans enjoying a Dolphins game.  All I found was this video: (link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM7apFis3dk)).  I guess it must represent all Dolphin fans.  Nevermind all the zoophilia pages that came up in the search.  You guys are sick!   ;)

99% of free thinking adults would have been treating her like a young lady (child) the entire time and would have never got into that situation. 

That is true.  But kudos to a person that realizes he is making a mistake prior to making it.

You're one of us, slick!  Welcome to the sickness!

In what society views as an adult the number is far less.  The problem is a lot of "people of an adult age"  have serious issues when it comes to making adult decisions on a regular basis. Hence there are really less adults walking around than there would appear to be.  

I'm not saying that the film is obscene, shouldn't be shown, or whatnot. I am saying that not everything deserves some sort of artistic treatment.

That said, I do disagree that all reality deserves exposition. There are simply things too heinous to be shown in an artistic light. Let me try to use an example...

If someone put together a film of a 8 1/2 month old fetus being aborted via the D&X procedure; set it to emotional, endearing music; made sure to focus on the eyes of the subjects (not the fetus-victim though, of course); added slow motion effects, falling rose petals, etc etc... should that be shown on screen? I would think not. I'm sure some of you would disagree. But, that there is a disagreement shows that some communities would find such material offensive, and it would trample upon their right to privacy to force the stuff down their throats.

Again, snuff films. What if someone slapped a classical music sound-track to that? Should that be shown? In this case, the subject matter is illegal, but, let's say it was filmed overseas in some poor deranged country where the production of such material was not illegal. Should that be produced and distributed for consumption?

Both of these surely fall within "reality."

At root, this conversation is one of free speech. Should something, if placed under the category of art, always get a free pass? I don't think so. (Neither has the Supreme Court ever taken that view.) I do not think you can stretch the word art that far. Some things just ain't art and never will be, and therefore, should not be either produced, distributed, consumed, or exposited. Even if it hurts poor bingebag's feelings.

You mean like the movie 8mm? Or any one of the other thousand "actioners" that are really just glorified snuff films?

How about a movie depicting extreme cruelty like a guy being nailed to a piece of wood and hoisted above the masses for ridicule? Is that too heinous for artistic exposition?

IMO...bottom line... Anything that man, in his infinite duality, is capable of doing in the real world is worthy of representation. Taking subject matter away from artists because that subject matter might be too heinous for some (even for most) of the population, is the very foundation stone of censorship. If movies that explore a man's weakness for pleasures of the flesh and the internal conflicts inspired by that weakness are too heinous for you...I suggest you consider changing the channel on your TV before considering changing which parts of the real world I'm allowed to see on mine.

I certainly didn't say that there was an objective line that one could boil down to a verbal formula. And yes, I do realize that censorship is involved, and that I am basically arguing for it. Also, I notice that you don't actually address my arguments, just instead fling some other ones back at me. It's a good trick, but it won't work on me. I would love to hear you argue for mass production, distribution, and consumption of child porn and snuff films, Sunstroke. I really would. But you won't do it. You're not that cracked.

(Besides, your argument about crucifixion is obviously garbage. That involves a totally different analysis: freedom of religion, not of speech.)

That said, I think you're taking too radical a view of privacy here. Sunstroke, you are not the only person in society, and, frankly not everyone has your strengths and weaknesses. What of parents who have to protect their children? They can't always be there to "change the channel." Not in our world. What about the 12 year old boy who doesn't have your good sense, and begins to actually believe that what he sees on film is acceptable or even laudable? This is the problem with taking an absolutist view. It follows from a fantastical view of privacy. The world is not filled with individuals pursuing their own selfish pleasures. It is a community, in which the individuals must cede some of their liberty, privacy, property, and (sometimes) life for the good of all. And the community leaders, the ones which we elect (hopefully with great consideration and consternation) ought to know the individual strengths and weaknesses of the community which they govern, and then adjust the censorship accordingly.

If elected policymakers think that something is too heinous for public consumption, then I have no problem going along with them, as long as the first amendment isn't violated.

Not true, bro.  Stroke nailed (no pun intended) this one on the head.  You're allowing your religious beliefs to interfere with one simple truth:  his point in this regard is spot on.

I did address your point...because your point appeared to be the censorship of subject matter to be used by the artists of the world. The reason you would censor is irrelevant to me in this case, so I saw no other points to address. I'm not talking about commiting crimes, and I am NOT condoning live snuff films or kiddie porn, but avoiding those topics in an artistic exposition does nothing but brush the material under the carpet, when it should probably be out in the open so it can be dealt with.

And as far as the crucifixion goes...sure, it was a low shot, but I can argue that it WAS relevant, because it goes toward showing the subjectivity of heinous material.

Depending on your beliefs, that is either a depiction of a historical event or a very famous book converted to film.

Movies about the Holocaust, Invasion of Normandy, etc.  All heinous, but depictions of important historical events.

There's not much historical or literary relevance to some perv almost porking his daughter's best friend.

No, man -- not obviously garbage.  Stroke is right on.

The movie the Passion of the Christ is protected by the first amendment.  ...not the freedom of religion.  It's an artistic re-telling of a story.

No, but American Beauty isn't the first (or the last) to go down this road.  Fast Times at Ridgemont High had a scene were a 14 or 15 year old screwed a 26 year old.  It's not the same, but you get the idea.

I almost pullled a Tommy and spit on my monitor. This made me laugh.

Speaking of -- I could have sworn that there was a law not only against having a child under 17 nude in film but depicting someone as under 17 nude in a film?

How many times have I seen a movie where a "high school girl" gets butt naked and has sex?  The actress, in real life, is probably mid-20's.  But I could have sworn that you weren't allowed to even depict a child having sex - even if the person 'having sex' was over age in real life.

Confused I am.

Is that true?  I've always thought that you could show whatever as long as there were no rights being violated.  So, child porn is a no-no even if it was filmed overseas.

I'd never heard that you couldn't pretend they were under 18...never really thought about it.


Which actually brings me around to an interesting question I foresee showing up pretty soon.  With CG getting more and more realistic, how long until we have porno with CG characters that look real, and are depicted as children.  No children are actually being harmed.  Will this be against the law?

"Oh yeah baby, you like gettin' fucked by the King?!"

No it won't. Same reason Hentai is legal...it allows the fantasy to be satisfied without harm to children. The main reason child pornography is illegal in this country is to protect children, not because of some moral issue lawmakers had with it. No exploited children = plenty of CG kiddie porn.

Brooke Shields was a nude prostitute when she was 11 in some movie. She was nude again  but you couldn't see anything other than a silhouette in Blue Lagoon.  Someone else has also done nude scenes at a younger age in the name of art but I don't have time to google it.

They tried passing a law to stop animated kiddie porn and older people portraying younger as nudes but it didn't pass.

As for the crucifixion, I am sorry to say that you are all very much incorrect. If we take your point and extrapolate it, then there would be no religion, and only speech. There is a dividing line there, somewhere, else the first amendment wouldn't have protected both: it would've only protected speech. It may be convenient, for your subjective purposes, to call it speech so that you can try to argue against me for saying that some censorship should exist. But you are flatly incorrect. To call the depiction of the crucifixion (the way 'Stroke described it) in todays world as mere speech, and not religion, is only to show your own ignorance of the purpose of the speech.

(Does this mean all depictions of a crucifixion are religion? Certainly not. A roman road w/ numerous crucifixions on either side, as was done by the romans, would probably have little to no religious purpose or meaning. But a crucifixion in the way 'Stroke described it is obviously religious, and not merely speech.)


I'm not really sure of what you're trying to say in the first paragraph. But your point on subjectivity is well-taken. I realize that "what is reasonable" in this situation is going to be subjective. That can't be helped. There's no amendment or constitutional provision which says, "government shall pass no subjective law." The police powers, the power to protect the health, peace, and morals of the community, are reserved to the states. Therefore, we get the censorship we elect.

The baseline of this problem is as follows: there are some things which no one is willing to come out and say ought to be shown to the mass general public. There will always be censorship of a kind. The question is: "what kind?" Well, that's for our elected officials to decide. It makes very little sense to say, "well, we can't come to an objective consensus, so therefore let's do away with the law whole and entire in this subject area." Imagine that point expanded to other laws. What would that do, say, to abortion? The first amendment has never been construed as protecting all speech. Never. And it never should. Again, there are some things that are too heinous to be shown. No one disagrees on this point. It's just "WHAT" is too heinous.


What on earth are you talking about? The first amendment protects speech and religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As AWFUL as animated kid porno is coupled with the thought of the disgusting men that enjoy it, who the hell am I to judge?  As long as no one is a victim or exploited then that person should have every right to indulge themselves.  

I guess its an extension of my views on "art".  Any form of expression no matter how low brow or "heinous" is just that.  A form of expression.  In a "free" country no one should have the power to supress another's views.

SC, your example of an aborted fetus movie reminds me of the Bodies Exhibit here at the Tropicana.  There are others that travel or are permanent in other cities and I'm sure some of you have seen it.  Anyways its just human corpses that have been preserved and posed in many different ways to give a scientific view with an artistic feel into the human body.  There is a seperate room along the path of the exhibit where it warns people that the room contains bodies of babies as well as aborted fetuses.  So they can choose to skip it or enter.  The choice is yours to make.  Its not like you get a free fetus in a petri dish with a purchase of every ticket.  In other words, it isn't something that you just get shoved down your throat, its a decision the viewer makes to partake in.

There was. It was the Child Online Protection Act. I think.

There was another case that was leveled against the insidious Paul Little, AKA Max Hardcore. He had over-eighteen actresses say they were twelve or thirteen on camera before he violently sodomized them. They tried to get him for obscenity. No such luck.

Ah yes... in Tropicana.

What about in Mobile, AL? Charleston, SC? Blue Hills, KY? Thrombosis, GA? It changes city to city, town to town, hamlet to hamlet. And thus, what the government says can't be seen, can't be seen, as long as it doesn't violate the first amendment.

SC, your posts are well thought out and make sense, given your profession. But to think this film shows anything close to your examples is off base. Films should never be limited to the un-realistic picture that every situation is perfect and every thing is rosy view of the world. Part of the beauty of this film is that it shows the character flaws. Not showing flawed characters in film would be the beginning of brainwashing a culture.

Phish, you are totally correct. I'm not saying I'd ban this film. It's just lost its magic for me. There are some films I'd censor though.

And, thank you for your kind words, Phish.

Not showing character flaws would eliminate just about everyone but Jesus from the Bible. That isn't what he was saying at all. 


Other than saying the film has changed for him, he never said it should be banned. He just feels that everything under the sun doesn't deserve the same freedom under the title of art.

I don't know CF. This sure looks like he is saying these character flaws are not worthy of being shown. Maybe he isn't saying all character flaws, but he has certainly pointed out these specifically.

Jesus people it's F*cking movie review....and you guy's find away to turn it into a F*king arguement about relgion and politics...

You guy's could suck the fun out of having sex with a supermodel... :-\

Lil B is the man. THANK YOU DUDE

Anyways, since I only responded to comments before my own, I wanted to say that I think this movie is great.  Great story, great acting, great direction.  Its been a few years since I've seen it, but now I've got the itch to go watch it again. 

On a side note, Mena Suvari swears she's A-list. 

So it was like 2 years ago and we were eating and drinking at this Mexican joint here in town on Cinco de Mayo.  We had a big table so we were kind of seperated from the rest of the restaurant.  But then this couple comes in looking like a mess from the Real World.  The guy had some ridiculous hair like shoulder legnth dreadlocks, a suit, big ass sunglasses and a trucker hat.  I didn't even notice the female but I was already half drunk and blurted out something like "MTV is here". 

That was the last time they were noticed at my table.  Until of course, the guy kept turning around and looking at us.  Finally, he switched seats with her so his date's back was facing us.  I swear it was like an hour to an hour and a half later that someone noticed it was the "American Pie chick".  Suddenly, there was a huge "OOOOOH YEAH!"  At that point it all made sense; the "look", the seat switch, the paparazzi avoiding glasses.  We started to crack up mostly because of her shitty attitude and her assumption that anyone gave a fuck about her being there.  Not to mention she was damn near dry humping the guy at the table.  And if I'm not mistaken, that same night was the release of one of her movies. 
/end hijack/

Whatever happened to Mena Suvari?  I always thought she was kind of homely and a bad actress.  She was actually so bad in American Pie 1 that they had her do a cameo only in AP2. 

It's pretty sad when you can't act your way into AP2.  Funny movie, yes.  Chock full of Academy Award winning actors?  Not quite.