Movie Review

Shopgirl

When we think of Steve Martin, we always first associate him with the wild and crazy guy from "Saturday Night Live,? but he is also one of the most understated dramatists in movies today. Films like "Parenthood,? "Grand Canyon," and "The Spanish Prisoner" all show that he has a range outside of the goofiness he portrays in things like "The Jerk.? "Shopgirl" is another one of those serious films and it also happens to be based on a novella that Martin wrote, but here it seems like he doesn?t have the dramatic confidence to pull it off. Martin?s story is confusing and needs a hand to guide us through it, but instead, the film version of the book is shallow and manipulative.

Claire Danes plays the title role of Mirabelle, a plain-looking young woman from Vermont. She is a struggling artist trying to pay her way in Beverly Hills by working behind the glove counter at Saks Fifth Avenue. She has student loans that she still needs to pay off; she lives in a dingy apartment, and she?s lonely. Things are not going well. Then two men enter her life. One is Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman), a bachelor who lives in a filthy apartment and is so poor that all he can do is take her to the movies?to look at that theater. The other is Ray Porter (Steve Martin), the exact opposite of Jeremy. He is rich and much older. Ray sweeps Mirabelle off her feet, buying her expensive gifts and having sex with her while at the same time making sure things don?t get too serious. While this is happening, Jeremy, who has been dumped for Ray, is touring with a band as part of his job.

In adapting this short story, Martin has forgotten to flesh out his characters. In the main romance between Mirabelle and Ray, we see nothing that would attract them to one another except for the most skin-deep qualities. Mirabelle is young and vulnerable, easily taken advantage of by an older man who just wants sex with a young and vulnerable woman. And Ray is rich, which makes him the perfect sugar daddy for Mirabelle. Who wants to watch a romance in which the primary theme running through it is objectification?
And even if people did want to watch, I would think they would want one that says something on the subject. All this movie does is confusingly flip flop between scenes in which the two share time together and scenes in which the two believe what their doing is wrong but don?t exactly know what to do about it, but then do something about it, which they regret and so on. It?s confusing and empty, which is unlike Martin?s usually quick-witted and incisive work. He finally gives this movie a point at the end of the film, but even then his sentiments seem false.

The audience sees no validity in the relationship at all because any real feeling that exists between the two is wrongly narrated in voiceover by Martin instead of being conveyed by the two actors on screen. Director Anand Tucker?s contribution to the film is mainly to supply loud violins to tweak our sympathies while the characters reflect. So whom does she end up with? Who cares? Ray is a selfish jerk and Jeremy is a pathetic little weasel. She would be better off moving back to Vermont and marrying a ski instructor.

The performances are serviceable, with the one exception of Jason Schwartzman. From ?Rushmore? up until now, he has given us one quirky and original character after another in films that have otherwise been not very good. In "Slackers" he created an insanely creepy stalker. In "Spun" he approached playing a crystal meth addict with hyperactive glee. This guy takes roles that not many actors would take and makes them funny as well as pitiable at times. He easily manages to get laughs here, but the script only uses him as comic relief instead of another player in the romance, if you even want to call it that. The rest of this is a confusing mess that leaves romance at the door.

Craig's Grade: D+

A	10.9%
B	41.8%
C	31.8%
D	15.3%
F	0.3%