Big Fan
Big Fan (2009)
Director: Robert D. Siegel
Big Fan is a tiny, blink and you'll miss it film that was a festival darling written and directed by the author of the Oscar-nominated film, The Wrestler. The premise is simple enough - Paul, a mid-30's Staten Island man who lives in his little world, symbolized by the parking box he sits in collecting tickets for travelers exiting the lot as well as his chaotic childhood room that he still lives in, with his mom in her room just one paper-thin wall away, lives for Sundays and the New York Giants. He broadcasts his fandom and smack talk on sports radio, battling, in particular, with a rabid Philadelphia Eagles fan. His favorite player is a quarterback crushing linebacker named Quantrell Bishop. Paul and his best friend, Sal (also obsessed with the Giants), see Bishop and his entourage out on the town one night and decide to follow. They end up at a strip club, Paul and Sal approach, things go awry and Bishop beats Paul within an inch of his life.
The question then becomes what Paul is going to do about it. His brother, an ambulance-chasing lawyer, files a lawsuit on his behalf. His mother screams at him to get a life, wife, etc.. A detective badgers him for details so they can press charges. But through it all, Paul remains a big fan.
I have a particular interest in this story as I am a rather obsessive fan of the Denver Broncos. Football plays a big part in my life, dating back to when I was a seven year old and fell in love with the Broncos while visiting a family who was watching their beloved Broncos as they were all decked out in orange. It was the most phenomenal celebration I'd ever seen and I wanted to be part of it -- so I have been for the last 37 years. One of the great things about being a fan is the low threshold - you want in? You're in. You put on the uniform and you have instant friends and clear, hated enemies. Life within the world of the world of the fan is relatively simple and, at the same time, infinitely complex. To that end, the movie left me a bit flat. While I enjoyed Patton's performance for the most part, the first thirty minutes (before the beatdown by Bishop) seemed as if they could have moved a long a lot quicker. I got his characterization as a sports fan loser and I desperately wanted Paul to get active.
The movie is also very low budget, which doesn't bother me except in places where the camera or set design simply look lazy. It's not a global criticism of this film as the ending of it is shot spectacularly. And as for the ending...
SPOILER ALERT (only scroll down if you want to read what happens)
When Paul travels to Philadelphia to take on his nemesis, Philadelphia Phil, in person it is insanely tense and beautifully shot. The mania that Paul is suffering at this moment is palpable, horrific and wonderfully captured. And then Siegel chickens out and has Paul shoot Phil with paint pellets instead of a real gun. He might as well have had a gun that said "Bang". It was a "wah wah" moment if ever there was one. Paul's escape on foot suddenly became comical, rather than truly dark and the denuemont in jail where Sal visits Paul to look at next year's schedule makes the journey feel...weak. If he had actually shot Phil or even tried to shoot him and miserably failed (like he does everywhere else) it would have played so much stronger.
The behind the scenes extra with Oswalt and Siegel at a Q&A following a screening in Chicago was quite good. In particular, Oswalt's comments about Roger Ebert and the light that shone in Oswalt's head after reading Ebert discussing film passionately (moving Oswalt from the "everything sucks" being cool artist phase to "it's okay to really love something" artist phase) were excellent.
Director: Robert D. Siegel
Big Fan is a tiny, blink and you'll miss it film that was a festival darling written and directed by the author of the Oscar-nominated film, The Wrestler. The premise is simple enough - Paul, a mid-30's Staten Island man who lives in his little world, symbolized by the parking box he sits in collecting tickets for travelers exiting the lot as well as his chaotic childhood room that he still lives in, with his mom in her room just one paper-thin wall away, lives for Sundays and the New York Giants. He broadcasts his fandom and smack talk on sports radio, battling, in particular, with a rabid Philadelphia Eagles fan. His favorite player is a quarterback crushing linebacker named Quantrell Bishop. Paul and his best friend, Sal (also obsessed with the Giants), see Bishop and his entourage out on the town one night and decide to follow. They end up at a strip club, Paul and Sal approach, things go awry and Bishop beats Paul within an inch of his life.
The question then becomes what Paul is going to do about it. His brother, an ambulance-chasing lawyer, files a lawsuit on his behalf. His mother screams at him to get a life, wife, etc.. A detective badgers him for details so they can press charges. But through it all, Paul remains a big fan.
I have a particular interest in this story as I am a rather obsessive fan of the Denver Broncos. Football plays a big part in my life, dating back to when I was a seven year old and fell in love with the Broncos while visiting a family who was watching their beloved Broncos as they were all decked out in orange. It was the most phenomenal celebration I'd ever seen and I wanted to be part of it -- so I have been for the last 37 years. One of the great things about being a fan is the low threshold - you want in? You're in. You put on the uniform and you have instant friends and clear, hated enemies. Life within the world of the world of the fan is relatively simple and, at the same time, infinitely complex. To that end, the movie left me a bit flat. While I enjoyed Patton's performance for the most part, the first thirty minutes (before the beatdown by Bishop) seemed as if they could have moved a long a lot quicker. I got his characterization as a sports fan loser and I desperately wanted Paul to get active.
The movie is also very low budget, which doesn't bother me except in places where the camera or set design simply look lazy. It's not a global criticism of this film as the ending of it is shot spectacularly. And as for the ending...
SPOILER ALERT (only scroll down if you want to read what happens)
When Paul travels to Philadelphia to take on his nemesis, Philadelphia Phil, in person it is insanely tense and beautifully shot. The mania that Paul is suffering at this moment is palpable, horrific and wonderfully captured. And then Siegel chickens out and has Paul shoot Phil with paint pellets instead of a real gun. He might as well have had a gun that said "Bang". It was a "wah wah" moment if ever there was one. Paul's escape on foot suddenly became comical, rather than truly dark and the denuemont in jail where Sal visits Paul to look at next year's schedule makes the journey feel...weak. If he had actually shot Phil or even tried to shoot him and miserably failed (like he does everywhere else) it would have played so much stronger.
The behind the scenes extra with Oswalt and Siegel at a Q&A following a screening in Chicago was quite good. In particular, Oswalt's comments about Roger Ebert and the light that shone in Oswalt's head after reading Ebert discussing film passionately (moving Oswalt from the "everything sucks" being cool artist phase to "it's okay to really love something" artist phase) were excellent.
Comments
Post a Comment