5/5
An Honest Depiction of A "Family Unit"
by Reviewer
For a long time, the depiction of the family unit in movies and on television was for the most part a sanitized, idealized representation, from movies like the Mickey Rooney "Andy Hardy" series and William Powell's "Life With Father," to the totally stereotypical versions presented on TV in such shows as "Ozzie and Harriet" and "Father Knows Best," which were entertaining, perhaps, but set standards that in reality were simply unattainable; a reflection of real life these movies/shows were not. There was the occasional film like "Rebel Without A Cause" or "The Young Savages," which certainly explored conflicted individuals, but the focus was not on the "family unit" per se. Then gradually, all of that began to change; filmmakers evolved and the screen did begin to more accurately reflect the family dynamic in very real terms, for better or worse, and in 1998, "Slums of Beverly Hills," written and directed by Tamara Jenkins hit the screen, with a depiction of the family unit that's about as honest as it gets.
Murray Abromowitz (Alan Arkin) is 65 years old, divorced and raising three kids on his own. A car salesman, Murray is currently in a "slump." In point of fact, however, his whole life has been one long slump. But he's determined that his children, Ben (David Krumholtz), Vivian (Natasha Lyonne) and Rickey (Eli Marienthal), are going to get a good education, and that means keeping them in the best schools. And that means living in Beverly Hills. It's one of the most "upscale" communities in the world, but he doesn't have to be rich to take advantage of the educational opportunities; as long as they live within the city limits, the kids stay enrolled. It's all a matter of having the right zip code. But there's the rub; it's just not as easy as it sounds, because even living on the periphery of Beverly Hills cannot be successfully effected without "means," and "assets" of any kind are decidedly not a part of Murray's personal resume.
Which means there has to be a plan. And Murray's plan is very simple: You stay one step ahead of the landlord and the monthly rent and you're home free. Which means moving. A lot. As in slipping out in the middle of the night with only as much as you can carry and moving on to the next "dingbat" apartment. And so is goes with the Abromowitz family, living a nomadic existence as part of a very real sub-culture in one of the richest areas on the planet. It's hard, but the kids are getting the education. Murray, however, suddenly has something else to deal with: Vivian, who is about to enter her freshman year at high school. And she is not a "little" girl anymore.
To tell her semi-autobiographical story, writer/director Jenkins has crafted and delivered a thoroughly engrossing film steeped in nuance and gritty realism. It's an incisive portrait of how a dysfunctional family can survive by establishing parameters which allow them to get from point A to point B on a daily basis, and what it takes to maintain the kind of internal support system that enables them to function and stay together, though individually their goals and aspirations may be pulling them in opposite directions. it goes far in disproving the idea that a family in perpetual crisis must necessarily disintegrate.
The story is told through the eyes of Vivian, which gives the film a decidedly personal resonance, as it is obvious that this is where Jenkins' heart resides. And it presents a mature perspective that effectively dispels the stereotypical characterization of the self-absorbed teen mired in the throes of paralyzing angst, which adds considerable credibility to this character driven comedy/drama. Jenkins also successfully captures an entirely genuine "sense" of the whole Abromowitz's environment; the look, texture and "feel" of the film is a reflection of reality, so much so that you can almost actually detect the scent of the apartments, the steaks cooking at Sizzler or that familiar clean/warm smell of the laundry room. An exceptionally insightful film, it sheds some light on the invisible threads that hold us together and keep the myriad facets of our society connected.
What really brings this one to life, though, is the performances Jenkins exacts from her exceptional cast of actors, beginning with Lyonne, who so perfectly embodies the character of Vivian. This is the pivotal part of the film, and with her "natural" presence Lyonne delivers a convincing portrayal through which she precisely conveys exactly what she's thinking and feeling with a combination of facial expressions, body language and simply the inflection of her voice.
As Murray, Arkin gives an extremely affecting and introspective performance, creating a character with whom many in the audience are going to be able to relate and identify on one level or another, as he taps into that sense of not quite being able to figure out how it all works, even after doing it day after day for sixty-five years. In Murray we see a very accurate reflection of the on-going process of sorting out "life"-- a process that, in reality, never ends. It's a performance that takes into account the inherent flaws of being human; it makes us realize that none of us are perfect, but that it's okay-- we just have to keep trying.
One of the finest character actors in the business, indy favorite Kevin Corrigan turns in an effective, understated and unassuming performance as Eliot, the guy with whom Vivian has a "building thing" relationship.
Also giving a memorable performance is Marisa Tomei, as Murray's niece, Rita, who is deliciously tacky and adds some real spice to the film. Her portrayal is earthy and utterly believable, and like Arkin's Murray, is an honest reflection of how most people grapple with the uncertainties of life.
"Slums of Beverly Hills" is a viable exploration of the human condition; a film that helps us understand who we are, and why.
5/5
The breast, er, best female coming-of-age story I know
by Mike Stone (Toronto, Ontario, Canada)
In a perfect world, "Slums of Beverly Hills" would have been a zeitgeist-defining hit. People would run around asking each other to "bring me my bong". Everyone would be talking about the dancing vibrator scene. Alan Arkin would have a second career, playing tough-minded, sensible, and loving fathers. Kevin Corrigan would pop up from time to time in mainstream films as the wise but whacked teenager. And Natasha Lyonne would rightfully take her place as the `it' girl. Sadly, and inexplicably, none of these things has happened.
I ask myself why this hasn't happened? The best I can come up with is this: this coming-of-age story focuses on the girl. Simple as that. We are used to seeing teenage boys going through adolescent discovery, but for some reason watching a teenage girl do it is less appealing. Writer/Director Tamara Jenkins has admitted that much of the story is (semi-) autobiographical, which is a scary thought for the audience looking on. She faithfully sets up mid-70's California, from the tacky architecture, to the overdone interior design, to the clothing and the music. Her script is low-key but terribly intelligent, even if her characters aren't supposed to be. There isn't much to push the narrative along, but Jenkins gets a lot of mileage out of her episodic structure.
"Slums" details one girl's summer of self-discover, of both the body that was thrust upon her, and the family that she's come to understand. A weaker person than protagonist Vivian Abromowitz would have crumbled under the weight of the issues she's confronted with (e.g., a rapidly budding bustline, a disruptive menstrual cycle, an embarrassing sex-toy education, an aggressive prospective boyfriend, etc.). But she's too strong and needed too much by her family to give in to her petty adolescent issues. Lyonne imbues Vivian with heaps of frustrations, tonnes of patience, a wild curiosity, and loads of charisma. She is an atypically intelligent actress, which only shows in fits and spurts, the better to detail the intelligence Vivian will have as a woman when she's done being a little girl. It's a truly wonderful, strong performance.
It had better be, for she is confronted in most of her scenes by veteran character actor Arkin (Yossarian!). I've always loved Arkin's unique delivery, with its faux-monotone and odd vocal rhythms (a uniqueness that marks all great character actors). He's usually called on to create caricatures, though, which is a damn shame, because here he's created a fully formed character. And it's perfect! Poppa Murray Abromowitz loves his kids to death, and is willing to sacrifice any semblance of success in order to give them a good education (the film's basic conceit is that Murray repeatedly moves his family in the middle of the night in order to avoid the rent he can't afford in Beverly Hills, which has a desirable school system). He appears perfect on the surface -- he loves his kids and is willing to do anything for them -- but is far from a perfect man. He has a dangerous predilection for the ponies, which is the crux of his financial issues. He's under the thumb of his well-to-do brother (Carl Reiner), and is willing to subjugate himself for some of Mickey's money. And in one uncomfortable scene (which I am loathe to give away, although many here have already criticized it), he proves his fallibility without question. True, the way the scene is set up is terribly manipulative (Vivian fortuitously sees something she shouldn't) but it does shed some light on Murray's humanity, for better or worse.
The rest of the cast, for the most part, is remarkable. David Krumholtz, as Vivian's pot-head and theatre obsessed older brother, is a very interesting actor to watch. He has no inhibitions whatsoever (in one sequence he's dressed in nothing but saggy briefs, his love handles bulging out, belting out a rousing rendition of "Luck be a Lady"). Corrigan does fine, low-key work as the pot-selling, Charles Manson obsessed, new next door neighbour who's more than willing to lead Abromowitz down the path into womanhood. And Rita Moreno is great as Mickey's domineering wife. Marisa Tomei for the most part does okay, but overall is less than successful. She's fine in her scenes with Lyonne, as she tries desperately to be the mother figure the younger girl doesn't have (the aforementioned vibrator scene is a good example of this). But she also has to play a diet pill-popping flake. In this respect, she goes a little overboard, playing Rita as a broad character sketch, rather than a character.
That being said, Tomei does fit in well with the rest of the cast. Which is the real reason to watch the movie. It's nothing more than a finely drawn series of character studies. Watching these people interact, and learn from each other, and laugh with each other is entertainment enough for me, and the reason why I'll always recommend the criminally underappreciated "Slums of Beverly Hills".
4/5
a honest review
by Shadow Moon (Fort Worth, Tx United States)
o.k- a little honest. I admit I'm bound to be bias because I love this film. Since people either love it or hate it, I'm going to try and describe the type of people who will like (or love) this movie.
(1) fans of dark comedy (2) people from dysfunctional families (3) girls who know the pain of developing breasts early (if you're in this catagory, you'll BOND with this film!) and finally, last but never least...indie fans!
Indie fans will love it for its randomness and realness....fans of dark comedy will love...well, the comedy.....people from dysfunctional families will either see similarities and/or point out why there family is better/worse...girls who developed early will finally have proof that they weren't the only one!
So, if you fit into any of these catagories, run, don't walk to the video store. As for the people who don't fit, try this film at your own risk! Its a great movie, its a funny movie, but you have to have a strange sense of humor to like it.
5/5
Now *this* is a comedy.
by D. Mok (Los Angeles, CA)
As endlessly hilarious as (though more wirily subtle than) Clerks, Slums of Beverly Hills succeeds in spades where so many other screwball comedies fail -- characterization. Tamara Jenkins' wacked-out sensibility and wit were already evident in her student shorts, but they always lacked something more substantial than spunk and wit. In Slums and its feature-film length Jenkins finds the space necessary for her to flesh out her gags with emotional content and real circumstances.
Granted, she was also lucky to have found Natasha Lyonne, the perfect voice for Jenkins' dialogue and situations. Spunk, sensitivity, wit and fighting spirit are all part of what makes Lyonne's character Vivian so memorable. From the hilarious and weirdly expressive title sequence on (the staging of which is reminiscent of the end credit sequence of Doris Doerrie's Men), Lyonne captures the restless energies of her character as well as the feelings. Alan Arkin plays with Lyonne marvelously to create a feisty yet charming family dynamic.
And then, of course, there are the gags. Tampon discussions under a table, dildo dances, sexual experimentation, a Manson-head, beautifully rendered comic voice-over (as good as the last great voice-over performance I can remember, Ray Liotta in GoodFellas) by Lyonne, forks in legs, bras, gibberish...a laugh-fest that feels like it ended too soon, when most comedies just make you wish they'd ended sooner. Don't let this gem pass you by.
5/5
QUIRKY, LOW-BROW HUMOR, YET HIGHLY ENTERTAINING...
by
This is the type of film that clearly isn't for everyone. The problems of a teen girl growing up in the seventies told with such a keen eye might offend some. Yet the strength of this movie lies in it's originality and the performances of the players. Alan Arkin is at his very best. Natasha Lyonne as Vivian is a joy. Marisa Tomei is equally effective as the visiting cousin. One of my favorite scenes has Arkin and Carl Reiner fighting over who will pay for breakfast.
Bottom line on this one... You can either be closed-minded and call this silly trash- or enjoy a fun story that takes you back in time with a quirky family just trying to make it in a changing world.
Checkout Now
RSS Feeds
