Comments

  1. secretagentman says

    I read the script 3 years ago. It was quite good. The film was finished little more than two years ago and I don’t know why it has taken so long to open, but it’s rarely a good thing.

  2. says

    I live in Pittsburgh and so far I know there havent been any advanced screenings here even though almost the entire film was shot here. I also didnt know this movie had a gay theme to it. But I did know that Pittsburgh is not a fan of Sienna Miller after she dissed our city.

  3. kev says

    I remember reading The Mysteries of Pittsburgh at 17, right after I came out. Great line in there about moving away from Pittsburgh to New York or Tokyo or someplace that was frivilous.

    From that point on I was up and out of The Motor City.

  4. Brian says

    i have to say, that’s not how i remember the book. maybe i was magnifying the gay angle because it’s what i wanted to see, but i remember the story as being more bi than hetero.

  5. Jersey says

    I’ll have to re-read the book again. I moved out of pittsburgh in ’88 and my roommate at the time worked with Chabon at Jay’s Bookstall in Oakland. I thought the book was great when it came out, I was the age of the protagonists and lived a pretty similiar life, hitting the same clubs and partying at homes in the same neighborhoods, going to college at Pitt. Should bring back happy memories. I miss Travelers nightclub in ‘Sliberty. I think I’d be afraid to see them butcher the book in the movie version.

  6. soulbrotha says

    This trailer looks about as interesting as watching paint dry. It has a very WB Network feel to it. And hasn’t the whole “bisexual love triangle” thing been done, like, a gazillion times before?

  7. Dave says

    Saw a screening in Pittsburgh a few months ago. It’s a sad adaptation of a wonderful book. Since they combined two male characters, it all ends up muddy and unsatisfying. All the gay/bi coming-of-age that takes several chapters in the book turns into a sexual power play on the part of Cleveland/the Sarsgaard character. It’s a shame that this movie adaptation turned out so bad when Wonder Boys was all right. Read the book first.

  8. rudy says

    I think that I shall re-read the book and skip the movie. The presence of Sarsgaard almost makes up for the boundless dearth of acting talent that is S. Miller but the elimination (virtual) of the gay character commits an unforgivable literary lobotomy on this work of art.

  9. Critifur says

    I remember having read the book, and I also lived in Pittsburgh (Greentree) in ’88, but I cannot remember anything about the book. I think I might see the movie before I attempt to re-read the book. If I re-read the book first, I will surely not enjoy the movie. I have never really gotten into Chabon, but I keep trying. I last read Summerland, which was good, but I would probably never want to re-read it.

  10. Sarina says

    Wow, you’d never guess this is a bisexual love triangle, judging by the trailer. I have to wonder for whom the producers are selling this film. Straight guys will not see this, the bisexual angle is absent (as if gay viewers didn’t count) and I doubt a lot of straight girls, like me, are interested in seeing Sienna Miller strut up, in skimpy outfits. Limited release ? Straight to video, is where it should have been gone. After “Martian Child”, do we need another de-gayed film adaptation ?

  11. Jon B says

    Jersey: While I don’t really love the idea of combining characters for the sake of easy storytelling, Arthur sort of served as a surrogate for Art’s affections for Cleveland in the book, so it is not really that off to combine them into one character that alternatively returns and staves off Art’s affections for him.

  12. says

    I saw this film at last year’s Seattle International Film Festival and I found it to be rather dry in its execution. Gone are the subtleties, nuances and beauty that made the book such a joy to read. Even Sarsgaard, as brilliant as I think he is, can’t make the script come alive. Most of the film feels like content we’ve all seen before. There is nothing so revolutionary about this movie, and I don’t think I would even put it in a gay category. Unfortunately, this adaptation is fairly forgettable.

  13. Gitai says

    I saw it when it was at SIFF last fall. I was tremendously disappointed, particularly considering how much I love the book. I know you can’t keep all the complexity of the novel in the book, but it was really poorly done.

  14. Jersey says

    I don’t like the sound of combining the Arthur and Cleveland characters they were so different on every level in the book. Although if I remember it was implied that Cleveland was bisexual. The book did do a great job of describing the areas and atmosphere of the city surrounding the Pitt/CMU campuses at the time.

  15. scar2 says

    Sounds like another ‘At Home at The End of The World’ – loved the book, hated the movie. Also, two gay characters where combined in that one too. Love Peter Sarsgaard though – I believe he just missed getting Oscar nods for Shattered Glass & Kinsey.

  16. Tim says

    Just a slight correction. It premiered at Sundance in 2008 not 2009. I still have my ticket stub. I need to read the book because the movie wasn’t so good. However, Peter Sarsgaard was my main reason for seeing it.

  17. my2cents says

    loved the book–sad to read the above. is this a result of holy-wood (hem) holly-wood?

    as much as i’d like to see andre aciman’s “call me by your name” in a well adapted film, i fear that it would suffer a terrible “rendition” at the hands of the right. if you haven’t read aciman, its highly recommended.

  18. says

    As the moderator of the Official MOP Film Boycott, I’ve been warning folks against wasting their time and $$ on seeing this so-called film adaptation since reading the screenplay in October 2006.

    Actually, it’s not a bad script, but other than the title and a few of the same character names, this film does NOT tell the story of Art Bechstein as penned by Michael Chabon.

    With regards to making Cleveland bisexual, writer/director Rawson Marshall Thurber has defended his choice by stating that, in the book, Art is attracted to Cleveland. Yes, he IS, but NOT in a sexual way.

    If you read p. 204 of the paperback, Chabon writes (of the Art/Cleveland relationship) “There was no shadow of sex to mar or deepen it
 We were friends.”

    Is it just me or has Thurber completley missed the mark? He claims he’s a longtime fan of the novel, but would any fan erase Arthur Lecomte from the story and reduce the role of Phlox?

    The bigger question is: why did Michael Chabon allow him to do ANY of this?

  19. Ted says

    I also saw this at Sundance 2008 and I really enjoyed it. I had read the book years ago and had forgotten much of the plot, so I was not bothered by any of the changes or omissions. Jon Foster (Ben’s younger brother) was excellent in the lead and Mena Suvari was hysterical in her small role. And of course, Peter Saarsgard was great as always. There were many beautiful shots of Pittsburgh as well. The trailer does not do the movie justice.

Leave A Reply