The sagacious Jeffrey Wells has informed me that word “around the campfire” (yeah, I know) is that I’ve “had it out” for The End of the Tour since before its shooting even wrapped, and that my opinion of it now that it’s a real live film is not to be trusted. It’s true; I didn’t think that making David Lipsky’s useful book Although Of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself into a movie was a particularly commendable idea, but once the film was a reality I tried to go into it with an open mind. And, to be honest, I ended up hating it even more than I could have reasonably anticipated. So much that I sat through it twice, just to be sure. Just like with Where The Wild Things Are.
The results of my consideration of the film are published today at The Guardian. Getting this piece out has been a long and painful process, but, contrary to what David Poland has implicitly speculated, it’s not because I feel left out of the lovefest that’s now being celebrated—inexplicably, to my mind—on the film’s behalf. As if I’m really that weak with respect to my own opinions. No, it’s painful because David Foster Wallace is someone I still miss. And because the portrayal of him in the movie is not a “tribute.” And I hope that the phrase “ghoulish self-aggrandizement” sticks like shit to the bottom of Jason Segel’s shoe throughout his shitty Oscar campaign. (In case you were wondering why this post has no illustration from the movie.)
GQ, as part of the aforementioned lovefest, put up a piece called “5 David Foster Wallace Pieces You Should Read Before Seeing The End Of The Tour.” For the very first time, I was actively pleased to see a Wallace recommendation list that did not include “David Lynch Keeps His Head” and “Big Red Son.” I’ve written about Wallace before, on this blog, and was interviewed about him by Jeremiah Kipp; the Guardian piece is my first professional effort on the subject.
Far, far, far more polite than I’d have expected, Glenn. But it’s a good piece, and I’m glad you wrote it.
Of course, pretty much ALL indie-Oscar™-bait biopics take horrendous liberties with their subjects, but that doesn’t mean calling them out serves no purpose. And as you, say, there’s a bit of an additional “too soon” factor here.
I’ve read too many Hollywood bios, as you know. And one running theme, common to nearly all, is the bewilderment and frequent anger felt by people who knew the person well, as they watch an image supplant what the subject was actually like. You captured that exceptionally well. (And I agree with Petey, you were a model of scathing-yet-polite.)
I just worry the politeness will damage Glenn’s BRAND…
Just curious–is there a DFW film concept that wouldn’t anger you? Would a doc be preferable? Would it have to be authorized by his estate? I’m not dismissing your objections to this film, but piggy-backing on Farran’s comments above. It seems likely that almost any such film would distort DFW in some way, intentionally or not.
Funny, no one seems to think it’s “too soon” for a Steve Jobs movie.
Jason, I think the Steve Jobs thing is too soon myself. But I also think it looks like garbage.
I’m seeing ‘End of the Tour’ next week and fear my feelings will be same-ish. Though no ties to the man himself whatsoever, I do get a vibe from the film of deity worship rather than man.
Glenn, curious your thoughts on Vulture’s piece a month back.
http://www.vulture.com/2015/06/rewriting-of-david-foster-wallace.html
@Brian: I actually mention my general concurrence with Lorentzen’s conclusion in the Guardian piece.
As for the Jobs movie, there are some not insignificant differences in the story. Jobs didn’t kill himself. He was negotiating his posterity even as he was dying, authorizing Isaacson’s biography, and so on. Also, I only met Jobs once, so I really couldn’t get all that attached to him.
To be honest, I don’t know what kind of Wallace-themed movie wouldn’t irritate me. I didn’t even see Krasinski’s “Brief Interviews,” not because of any animus, but simply because I was not interested in seeing a film interpretation of that material. Wallace was resigned to the fact that his work would be pursued for film adaptations and in some cases had a curious not-disapproving interest—when there were rumblings of a possible “Jest” mini series with Gus Van Sant running the show, he wasn’t objecting—but…I don’t know. I mean, this isn’t a contest, is it?
“Just curious–is there a DFW film concept that wouldn’t anger you?”
I certainly can’t speak for Glenn, but my assumption is that he’d be far less contentious on the topic if the portrayal were somewhat of a reasonable semblance of the actual Dallas–Fort Worth, beyond wardrobe.
I think your point re:Steve Jobs is an interesting one. Some people try to manage their own legacies, while others would rather put their work front and center and stay out of it. Your criticisms remind me somewhat of the concerns raised by that Salinger documentary a while back. Where is the balance between public curiosity and personal privacy?
All of this aside, I’d rather read about Wallace from people who actually knew the man, rather than a reporter covering him. What I like about your writing on Wallace is that it doesn’t try to retro-fit the past with significance for the future. Your pieces represent moments, not a trajectory. It seems like a fitting way to approach a guy who, while not reclusive, was not chasing the spotlight.
What jumped out at me most about your critique of the film and the performance is that it seems like a terrible, terrible approach to any character, based on a real person or purely fictional, to make their depression the defining element of personality. It’s also completely uninformed, unimaginative, and uninsightful. People who struggle with life-long clinical depression/suicidal ideation and are mostly functional (ie can work, don’t need to be institutionalized) do not PRESENT as “sad” or depressed to the outside world. They don’t walk around with the facial expressive equivalent of a bumper sticker. They just seem normal to casual acquaintances. Only very close family & friends will occasionally be able to tell when things go from tolerably awful to stepping over the brink. It’s actually a bit offensive in general to portray complicated people as completely defined by their disorder.
Kate writes:
“What jumped out at me most about your critique of the film and the performance is that it seems like a terrible, terrible approach to any character, based on a real person or purely fictional, to make their depression the defining element of personality.”
Glenn writes:
“To be honest, I don’t know what kind of Wallace-themed movie wouldn’t irritate me.”
And therein lies the question to me.
I haven’t seen the movie, but I’ve read stuff prior to Glenn’s, and even the laudatory takes on the film turn me off. It seems like an utterly generic “doomed celeb” movie. And that’s NOT the correct movie to be made here.
I wonder if Glenn would be more sympathetic to a decent biopic of the guy. There IS a story there. It would require an unusually good filmmaking effort to do, but there is a story about the guy, the guy’s world of work, and his demons. It’s not the first marketable pitch that would come into the mind of the first person determined to make a biopic, but again, there IS a story there.
And maybe Glenn genuinely is close enough folks’ wishes to judge it too complex and too soon, but I do wonder if he wouldn’t be receptive to a proper effort and execution…
Pro-tip for filmmakers:
If you want to get rapturous reviews, make a movie about a socially awkward Rolling Stone writer doing a profile of an artist.
“If you want to get rapturous reviews, make a movie about a socially awkward Rolling Stone writer doing a profile of an artist.”
It worked for Cameron Crowe with ALMOST FAMOUS. Looks like it’s working for Jason Segel, too.
Jeffrey Wells and David Poland??? You actually care what those nitwits think?
Well, Glenn, I’d been 100% with you on your take on the film. But then, I ran across my SO’s several week old copy of New York Magazine and read David Edelstein’s review.
It’s titled: “The End of the Tour Is Like Spending Two Hours With David Foster Wallace”, and includes the line, “the film has a present-tense quality that makes you feel lucky to be in the same room as David Foster Wallace.”
So I guess this means your take has now been utterly disproven.
So, Glenn, what did exactly Franzen say about your article and you? Curious minds are curious.
And fergawdsakes, I really don’t want to have to root around the Terry Gross archives and listen to a podcast for 30 seconds of interest…
This may be it, Petey. Franzen tells Terry Gross he has no interest in seeing the movie.
http://www.npr.org/2015/09/01/436442184/jonathan-franzen-on-writing-its-an-escape-from-everything
“This may be it, Petey. Franzen tells Terry Gross he has no interest in seeing the movie.”
I think there is more. Rumor has it that he mentioned Glenn in some context. Guess I’ll have to listen to the damn thing, if I want my curiosity fully sated.