"Citizen Ruth" is a rare example of a movie that refuses to give you a protagonist you can root for or empathize with. Sure, there are plenty of filmic "anti-heroes", charming rogues and cads and villains you either want to see win or want to see lose. The titular Ruth, played by Laura Dern, is one of few I can think of I didn't want to see at all.
Ruth Stoops is a moronic, drug addled loser. Her only goal in life is money. Her drug of choice - inhalants - seems to have been chosen deliberately: we're familiar with the highly romanticized tales of lives wasted on heroin and cocaine. Spray paint doesn't have the same dubious glamour.
Whereas the filmmakers made the right choice there, it was with the movie's other major motif - abortion - that I think they should have thought longer and harder. It doesn't surprise me that Alexander Payne said the movie isn't really about pro-life or pro-choice, but about fanaticism. However the choice of this topic just cuts too close to the bone for us to take a step back. In order for us to recognize fanaticism, we have to separate ourselves from the issue and see those involved for what they are. Whereas both sides of the debate in this movie are clearly fanatics, few will be able to watch it without agreeing with one side or the other. I think the filmmakers should have chosen a topic that is less controversial.
I return now to the movie's protagonist. I guess the filmmakers should be congratulated for refusing to make her likable or even interesting. In doing so, however, they have demonstrated why so few movies take that route: her company starts to wear a little thin. You keep looking for a shade of humanity in her cruddy exterior, but no, there's none to be found.
This movie was basically a warm-up for Payne's first triumph, 1999's "Election", which also really had no likable characters, but enough wit and directorial flair to keep it going.
Ruth Stoops is a moronic, drug addled loser. Her only goal in life is money. Her drug of choice - inhalants - seems to have been chosen deliberately: we're familiar with the highly romanticized tales of lives wasted on heroin and cocaine. Spray paint doesn't have the same dubious glamour.
Whereas the filmmakers made the right choice there, it was with the movie's other major motif - abortion - that I think they should have thought longer and harder. It doesn't surprise me that Alexander Payne said the movie isn't really about pro-life or pro-choice, but about fanaticism. However the choice of this topic just cuts too close to the bone for us to take a step back. In order for us to recognize fanaticism, we have to separate ourselves from the issue and see those involved for what they are. Whereas both sides of the debate in this movie are clearly fanatics, few will be able to watch it without agreeing with one side or the other. I think the filmmakers should have chosen a topic that is less controversial.
I return now to the movie's protagonist. I guess the filmmakers should be congratulated for refusing to make her likable or even interesting. In doing so, however, they have demonstrated why so few movies take that route: her company starts to wear a little thin. You keep looking for a shade of humanity in her cruddy exterior, but no, there's none to be found.
This movie was basically a warm-up for Payne's first triumph, 1999's "Election", which also really had no likable characters, but enough wit and directorial flair to keep it going.