Art of Getting By (2011)

 

 

Create your own review

"We all die alone, so why am I supposed to spend my life working, sweating, struggling...I have better things to do with my time." George (Highmore) is a high schooler who has pretty much given up. Bitter with the world and his mother he refuses to do anything and hasn't done a real day's work in his entire senior year. He meets Sally (Roberts) who sees the same thing in herself. This is a very good movie made better by the acting. Highmore, in a departure from his usual disgustingly good boy roles is excellent in this. Roberts, who is fast becoming a better actress then her aunt is, is also fantastic in this movie. The role of George is written to be a total jerk to most people he meets, but Highmore has enough "baggage" with him that even though he is not nice to almost everyone in the movie you still wind up rooting for him and wanting him to succeed by the end. That is a rare thing for an actor that young. While this is a very good movie that forces you to keep watching it does tend to drag in a few places, but not enough to be boring. If that makes sense. Overall, a very good movie with great acting that is a definite watch. The type of movie that all high schoolers should watch. I give it a B+.

*Also try - Happythankyoumoreplease & It's Kind Of A Funny Story

I saw this movie in theaters and i really connected to it. The characters are smartly written and in every moment you've been that person, especially in high school. made me nostalgic for times past. The two leads are so on point you cant help but notice they stand out. Hopefully we'll be seeing more of highmore and roberts in the future.

I really liked this movie and went to see it twice during the brief two weeks that it showed at my local cinema. When I went online to see what kind of box office the film had done, I was totally shocked to find that so many professional critics had given the film poor reviews. (By contrast, more than 40% of audience members voting on IMDB gave this film the top rating of 10 out of 10; although the average score for young persons and for males 30-45 was significantly lower...)

Anyway, I will tell you what I really liked about this film, but will liberally add comments/compaints about those darned critics and why their negative reviews are so off-base! (Most of them should have known this already, but there don't seem to be any credentials whatsoever required to be a professional critic, and many of them reveal this, time and time again... Far better for people interested in a movie to simply see the movie and make up their own minds, rather than relying upon "critics" who are forced by their jobs to see everything, including a lot of stuff that they obviously had no interest in seeing, and that was not targeted toward them as random persons, but instead targeted toward specific audiences who would "get it." All art has to take risks and aim itself, at the risk of leaving some persons unmoved because they for whatever reason couldn't relate to the setting, characters, and themes.)

1. This film seems to be a heartfelt, personal project by an indie filmmaker, and thus is *supposed to* feel different from the mainstream, big-budget studio projects. In what ways? Well, first of all, by addressing the concerns of ordinary life in a generally realistic way. People don't need to die; things don't need to explode. (The same critics who complain about cliches and seek novelty at all costs seem to forget that anything experienced repeatedly by many persons could be called a cliche; and yet these same subjects are also the proper subject for art to address!!) Secondly, this film is aimed toward a specific type of viewer... one who is able to sympathize with the main character and his yearnings. I will describe this character under point #2, below, and if it doesn't sound interesting to you, then you will probably have little interest in this film. Thirdly, a targeted work of art does things in a way that is not quite so mainstream... things that are a bit more subtle and crafty, even though a substantial chunk of the audience may not "get it." This film does all three, and although it is readily accessible in terms of the easy understandability of its story and setting; the part that many viewers may not understand is the emotional character of the film and the kind of realism that it endeavors to present. (Those who think this film too "ordinary" in its events, in my opinion, are not understanding the film, and should instead go and watch The Silence of the Lambs or whatever sensational "novelty" they think that cinema is supposed to provide.)

2. This film is not meant to resonate with every viewer. Why? Because the main character is not the standard kind of character found in today's mainstream films. Instead of (the usual Hollywood cliches of) a rock-jawed twenty-something, body builder kind of star, this film instead presents a (gasp) realistic high-schooler of correct age and slender build, and one who is not presented in terms of (the usual Hollywood high school cliches of) cliques and overt conflict with (cliched) bullies and footballers and such... This film is not overtly about any of that (although elements of it can be inferred). Instead, this is one of the rare American films of today (although this used to be the norm, in Hollywoods golden age) to present a genuinely nice person as its main character. He isn't about showing up other people; nor getting revenge; nor fistfighting or partying his way out of life's frustrations. Instead, he is genuinely interested in trying to better make sense out of life. He's intelligent, but also depressed. (Roger Ebert's review of the film betrays an utter ignorance in this regard. HOW THE HECK COULD EBERT CLAIM THAT THE CHARACTER HERE IS NOT DEPRESSED, except for an ignorance of the forms that depression can actually take? See point #3 below.)

3. Among other things (not the only theme of the film) this film gives one of the most realistic and honest portrayals of depression that I can think of. NOT, mind you, the kind of cliched Hollywood depression that has someone with a gun or standing on a window ledge in order to tell dense audience members (and dense critics) that "This character is depressed." Nor the type of depression that is incurably severe and thus dominates everything the character does. No. Rather, the depression here is of the type that so many persons have to accept as the norm, in which one's moods and behavior are altered, but in a way that others would ask them to simply shrug off (because it isn't an extreme case). And that many persons, like our main character here, are sensitive, genuinely nice, well-intentioned persons, who feel a yearning or dissatisfaction and react to it. Rather than dismissing this scenario as "trivial," people who have other (less sensitive) personality types might try to actually learn something from watching this film. News flash for critics: the macho, bodybuilding he-man who shouts and fights his way physically through all obstacles IS THE CLICHE - THIS FILM ISN'T. Realism and an authentically round character is not a cliche. I admit that it may take 10 or 15 minutes for the difference between cliche and the mere presentation of ordinary settings to become apparent to discerning viewers. The expression of existential angst that starts the film will certainly sound familiar to many, and yet the film is not about that - it's about the transcendance of it (as well as other issues). The theme of the film is about the struggle of this kind of idealistic, sensitive, well-meaning personality to accept the faults of the world and find meaning and fulfillment in it. The film is not aimed toward viewers who have never had any sense of this as an issue in their own lives. (Judging from IMDB audience feedback, the majority of viewers can relate, but a substantial minority simply cannot.)

4. The Romance theme. Could have been cliched, sounds like it would be cliched. Yet it isn't. If it were, then the ending wouldn't have had such an ambiguous tone to it. Nay, this again is where the film provides an earnest, insightful handling of the challenge of finding a meaningful personal relationship in a culture where sexuality and sexual scripts often provide more heartbreak and distraction than they do fulfillment. The movie cliche would have been to simply jump into bed on the basis of personal attraction, or because "that's just what a guy and gal naturally do," without much need for personal meaning and consideration of the long-term aspects of such an action. Instead, this film focuses upon the need to have meaning around such a relationship, and since this is handled in a realistic fashion here, the meaning and fulfillment is not totally clear and perfect; we are allowed to see the elements of dissatisfaction and compromise that in reality are so frustrating (yet tantalizing) to people. Again, I fail to see why "critics" would reject this film except that they are looking for actual cliches of the sort they find in so many other Hollywood fare - boy meets girl and then there's a happily ever after. If this film had been presented in Russian with English subtitles, the critics would have thought it was awesome (because the ordinary life of another culture seems different and exotic, yet these critics apparently can't recognize and relate to an ordinary American setting, unless its loaded with deviant content that they can claim to be "daring and fresh and controversial!")

5. Art. This is part of the film's themes. The main character is an artist. A supporting character (played by Michael Angarano, who has always been an incredibly good actor!) is also an artist. A third character in the film is an art teacher. They all have different personalities, different styles, yet recognize the kernel of artistry within each other, striving to find a means of expression that is personal yet fresh and new and able to be conveyed to others. All these characters have coped with the challenges of idealism and sensitivity (described above) in different ways, and all have developed different means of expressing their art. This film is, itself, a work of art that addresses, in part, the difficulties of developing one's authenticity as an artist. Viewers and critics should never doubt just how carefully crafted this film really is. On my second viewing, for instance, I noted a subtle motif in which there are birds that are seen in connection with the female character (well-played by Emma Roberts). They didn't "just happen" to be in the scene - it must have been a deliberate element added into the film by the filmmaker. (Did any of the professional critics notice this? Not that I saw, because to them this was just one film out of the new dozen that they had to churn out a review for under their weekly deadlines. Art bears re-watching and analysis, which is part of why today's critics fail to identify art for what it is, given the one-screening, deadline-oriented circumstances under which they view new movies.) This script is extremely carefully written, the performances and editing very carefully thought-through. This doesn't mean that the film will automatically thrill everyone who sees it, but there can be no legitimate claim that the film was sloppily done. Its low budget doesn't mean that it was poorly constructed - it's extremely well-done. Its personal message doesn't mean that it was poorly written if it fails to connect with *everyone* - nay, this is a well-written and extremely... Read more ›

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 7 customer reviews...

 

 

4.0 out of 5 stars A Significant Step Forward for Freddie Highmore and Cast
THE ART OF GETTING BY didn't get much attention in the theaters, but once the word is out by those who have elected to use View On Demand on television it just make a resurgence... Read more

Published 19 hours ago by Grady Harp

2.0 out of 5 stars Just Getting By
George is an intelligent yet intentional underachiever at a New York prep school. Believing life to be a meaningless charade, he does barely enough school work to pass despite... Read more

Published 16 days ago by Robert Hamilton

4.0 out of 5 stars Excellent acting, intelligent script. Entertaining.
Entertaining, high quality film making here.

A little slow in the middle but ultimately satisfying story about smart kids working hard to make sense of their world... Read more

Published 22 days ago by Lee

5.0 out of 5 stars Oscar-Worthy Performance by Freddie Highmore
This is one of those rare movies that the critics panned and that I really liked. Yes, the story was a tad on the bland side but the excellent acting by Freddie Highmore made up... Read more

Published 29 days ago by L. Mon

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 7 customer reviews...