The Safety of Objects

Although not as powerful as the (actually unrelated) short stories in the book, Rose Troche has adapted A.M Homes admirably to the big screen... which I was positive couldn't be done. The excellent performances of the entire cast are what hold some of the more thin connections together and although I was personally disappointed by some of the changes Troche made, I understand the necessity to a cohesive narrative. Had I not read the book, I think I would have enjoyed the movie more so I highly recommend viewers and readers who crave great stories about dysfunctional suburbia to check out any and all of my favorite female authors work... beginning with The Safety Of Objects and The End Of Alice.

Rose Troche certainly can't be accused to sticking to the same sort of film. This one is a complete contrast to `Bedrooms and Hallways', which was a pleasant gay romantic comedy and `Go Fish', which had a gay theme but was truly weird. The multiple storylines and cross-cutting are rather Altman-esq but the stories are tied together as in `What's Cooking'. In fact, it's a drama on the same template. We have four households (and one other guy) all tied together by the hands of fate.

Although there are some good lines, it's rather a dour film with a jaundiced view of American suburban society (though filmed mostly in Toronto). People are obsessed with their work or their children and seem to receive little happiness from either. In the case of Glenn Close's character Esther Gold she has an uphill battle since her once lively teenage musician son is now in a coma. She cares for him meticulously, constantly talking to him, convinced he will return to consciousness. The children are also dissatisfied with life, or have escaped into their own fantasies (one pre-pubescent lad is conducting an affair with a barbie doll), despite the affluence and parental attention. There is a resonance here with `American Beauty', but not the same lyrical camerawork.

Glenn Close, as the coma boy's mother who enters an endurance contest to appease her aggrieved daughter, is as good as she has ever been, with a kind of understated desperation that expresses perfectly her character's feelings. Patricia Clarkson is also a stand-out as Annette, a recently divorced woman, traded in by her air-head husband for a newer model, who battles on to look after her children, while trying to find some comfort for herself in the bar scene. Jessica Campbell as the daughter gives us a good picture of an angry teenage brat. The men, on the other hand, don't stand out, except perhaps Randy the pool guy (Timothy Olyphant), whose good looks take on a sinister aspect when he becomes involved with Sam, Annette's tomboyish daughter. Dermot Mulroney as Jim Train, a work–obsessed lawyer is curiously flat, though Moira Kelly curls her lips nicely as his aggrieved wife.

This could have been a gothic tale, but Troche keeps the story to a fairly mundane level, as befits the suburban landscape. I think American suburbia will hate it – far too drab, commonplace and close to the bone. `American Beauty' got away with it because it was so pretty, and Lester and his family really were a bit odd. There's nothing odd about these people – they are just as colourless and inadequate as the rest of us. I notice Roger Ebert thought them unlikeable. No, they're just ordinary.

Rose Troche wrote the screenplay and directed "The Safety of Objects (2001)". I've got to hand it to her. She certainly did a fine job of linking social alienation and the commodification of human relations.

Rose poses these questions : Can one feel emotionally alone amongst people living in the heart of "upper middle class" suburbia? With real, sensuous subjects largely gone missing (i.e. human beings with genuine feelings of solidarity and love for each other) does one seek solace in the company of objects? The answer I give is, "Yes". My impression is that Ms. Troche thinks so too, but she has another take on the possibility of transcending this misery.

Granted, some of the objects, which/who are NOT subjects (well, only in our 'Barbie-est' of imaginations) are purchased. And some, (in a brief flash of subjectivity) have sold themselves into particularly alienating forms of wage-slavery. I say "particularly alienating" because these forms of wage-slavery appear to leave the human being in a state of having parts of their humanity hacked off. Granted, wage-slavery is a numbing experience for all of us. Such a cost we pay for selling ourselves in to it.

What's the choice though? Nothing or organizing to rid ourselves of the wages system. 99% of us choose the former and thereby suffer and continue to chafe under this system. But! What a playground it makes for artists like Troche. She romps around our collective misery and tell us what phonies we are and still, she gets paid for it! Wow! You go, Rose!

Enough with the hyperbole. The film is well acted, though the acting isn't perfect. So much the better in some ways. At least, one doesn't recognize say a, Bruce Willis or a Nicole Kidman AGAIN! More power to Bruce and Nicole, but for my money, I prefer an unknown who can do the part. And why not? There is good to fine acting in this film.

Do we ALL have to grovel and to worship the STARS? Hell no.

"The Safety of Objects" is NOT about how everyone discovers that they should have paid more attention to things which matter. No. What you've got here is a depiction of situations in our everyday lives which actually MIGHT occur. Okay, so you haven't heard of EXACTLY these situations developing. Hah! Dig this: the son of Gold goes from being a subject to an object. Talk about symbolism! Remember that. It'll be essential for understanding the story weave. Another thing to remember is Naturalism. Naturalism is the philosophical drive behind explaining how God is (I can't resist) essentially capricious with HIS power.

See this movie. Beware, there are pieces which you will see earlier on, which will only become apparent to you later, as the film rolls or digitizes through your viewing mechanism. No worries. With "Safety of Objects" you'll see something about your post-modern, industrialized, computer age selves. In other words, the film conveys a bit of, "the condition, your own condition is in."

Plastic people? Well, maybe so. If the shoe fits...

I saw The Safety Of Objects at a cinema club in San Francisco in 2002. It was then released for one week at theaters, but I was not able to see it again. I am anxiously awaiting its DVD release in October.

I absolutely loved this film. I liked the tone, the pacing, and of course, the actors. The film had just the right mix of comedy and drama, and I enjoyed every minute of it.

There has been much talk of how the film represents (or apparently misrepresents) the American psyche but you don't have to be an American to empathise, or indeed sympathise, with these characters. Like it or not, all families are dysfunctional; we are all damaged in some way and that is the beauty of this film. I may not be a manic depressive, masturbate comatosed boys or have had a questionable relationship with my Barbies but life can be 'distasteful', 'brooding', 'pervy', 'joyless' and 'selfish' just as much as it can be wonderful, uplifting and compassionate. No, not every American suburban family are as impaired as these, nor as a Brit do I see a mirror of myself watching Eastenders or Coronation Street. It's just one point of view and I think Rose Troche has handled such social nuances sensitively and with care. I'm not saying the film is perfect. However, complaining because it makes disturbing or uncomfortable viewing smacks of it hitting a nerve.... If you're seeking a no-brainer, go and see the latest Seann William Scott flick. But if you want an alternative slice of American pie - and a more realistic and universal one at that - feast on this.