Счастье (1998) Online

I wasn't going to write a comment for this one, but after reading all the nasty things said about it, and considering that _Happiness_ was the basis for one of my final undergraduate philosophy papers, I feel a duty to defend it.

First of all, what you've heard is true: this movie is very graphic and almost impossible to sit through without covering your eyes at least once. However, it is worth noting that the most uncomfortable scenes are uncomfortable precisely because of an empathy that the audience establishes with the characters; it is that precisely that empathy which often pulls the audience in a direction opposite from social mores that makes us squirm. I don't know how many of the other critics here are schooled in film theory, but that kind of powerful emotional effect is typically considered a GOOD THING in films. So, really, what most people object to about this film is the content, regardless of what they want other to believe.

That said, this really is a wonderful film precisely because of the level of human understanding, empathy, and reality it encompasses. It portrays human nature from the inside out, where it is least dignified and most pathetic. What we see are a number of people desperately scrabbling around for fulfillment, because they have all to some degree achieved the fulfillment of their desires and found it hollow. Since they don't realize this fact themselves (most people don't), they look for that fulfillment they feel entitled to by using other people. It is this fundamental destructiveness of human desire (written about masterfully by Zizek) which causes the "evils" in this film.

I put "evils" in quotes because, as Solondz's film masterfully demonstrates, there is no evil to be found in this film; there is only humanity and suffering. This absence of moral judgment, though disquieting, is what allows the spectacular sense of empathy and full moral complexity of this film.

Thus, the moral of the film is that the surest way of destroying happiness is to seek it. And that, I feel, is a message that not only makes this a great film but also an artwork of tremendous social value.

Gradually, as I watched this movie, I became aware that I was witnessing some of the most powerful and honest acting, writing, and directing I had ever experienced. And I'm glad, because if this material had been attempted by anyone without extreme skill and sensitivity, it would have been a monstrous disaster. As it is, I don't think I would add it to my DVD collection. I don't know if I could watch it again, and I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable people seeing it on my shelf unless they knew me well. There are moments of great hope in this movie, when you think misery may finally give way to happiness. There are moments of great honesty, when a character says just what you'd expect them to say, and you realize how "safe" every other movie character has been in comparison. The humor that other reviews talk about is not the kind of humor that makes me laugh, personally. It's the dark, visceral humor of human weakness, meanness and even pathology. I still appreciate it for what it is, and it is used in a profound and delicate way. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is willing to accept that life, and especially sexual life, is really much more complex and difficult than we usually admit. I recommend watching it alone, or with a friend or partner with whom you can discuss the most emotionally difficult topics. This movie will test you if you stick with it, but you'll know you saw something profound.

This is one of the best movies I've ever seen, but I would hesitate to recommend it to people whom I don't know pretty well. It explores aspects of life and living (and suffering) that most films avoid or actively deny. And it does so brilliantly. The characters are vividly real, and there is such a strong sense of situations unfolding in real time that it's truly mesmerising. I felt like a fly on the wall, eavesdropping on conversations I could never hear otherwise. I think many people would absolutely hate this movie, partly because it doesn't pass judgement on behaviours that are repulsive to the bulk of humanity, and partly because it exposes us to them at all.

There are only a handful of films that have a distinct polarizing affect on the audience--A Clockwork Orange, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover, and I would even lump in American Beauty--these are movies you either get, or you don't. And if you don't get it, you will hate it. Open minded viewers need only apply, and that's certainly the case with "Happiness." I remember leaving the theater absolutely shocked, and not just because of the events on screen. I was shocked that I found the movie so intelligent and oddly entertaining. The actors surely must have felt that, after reading the screenplay. And there are some big actors in this--veterans like Ben Gazzara, Louise Lasser, Elizabeth Ashley, mixing with new talent like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Camryn Manheim, Dylan Baker, Lara Flynn Boyle, etc.

The subject matter is truly unsettling--a parental figure, respected in his community, does some horrible things, and this is the main reason why so many people have a hard time with this movie. Did this material really need to be examined in modern cinema? Well, yes--in the same way that David Lynch had to explore it in Blue Velvet. Happiness is a masterpiece of irony (even in the title), and finds humor in the most unusual and downright bizarre circumstances. You will not see another movie like it. Guaranteed. And fair warning--you could very well despise it. And it's probably a fair estimate that its writer/director, Todd Solondz, doesn't give a damn.

Centred around a New Jersey based family of three sisters, their parents and their partners and acquaintances, this film looks at their lives. Involving a lonely sister, a sister with a good family life, a paedophile, a telephone sex pest and an elderly couple breaking up, the film follows their short stories through whatever it takes them.

I remember hearing this film reviewed as being pretty good, but it was pointed out by the critic that it was far from a movie to take a first date to! Seeing it now for the first time he was very right, in fact I would say it is the type of film that could make a partner worry about you if you suggest you watch it together. What type of audience this was made for is questionable but it is not without merit even if it is very, very bleak. The actual `plot' is no more than a collection of stories that roughly overlap due to the character's relationships to one another. Most of these work well enough and are interesting, but the odd one falls slightly flat – Allen's overweight flatmate goes a little too far and the Russian thief subplot is not really engaging.

However for most of the film the stories are very engrossing despite being very sad. The plot assumes unhappiness of one form or another to be a given as part of life, and I think that that is a pretty fair assumption. Some of the characters bring it on themselves, some of them are simply alone however all the scope of human misery is here even if it takes the form of events that not everyone will be able to relate to. No matter whether or not you like the characters you will feel for them – they are very well written and the dialogue feels natural. While the paedophile character will turn many stomachs, I did respect the film for not monsterising him.

Baker plays him very well, and mixes it with all the hallmarks of a `normal' guy. His chats with his son form a strand that runs through the film well and is ultimately quite moving and hard to watch. Hoffman and Boyle don't really have a great deal to do and their characters were harder for me to buy into, as their relationship was not clear. All the cast do a good job regardless mainly because the characters are very well written and fit together in a great ensemble presentation. Special mention should go to Lovitz for a great little cameo that opens the film – in 4 minutes he gives a better performance than I have seen him give anywhere else.

Overall this film is not an easy, fun film to watch but it is very well written even if some of the threads do not engage as much as the others. The conclusion of the film offers no respite and only sees a collection of characters hurt by themselves or others who have little hope for the future other than to just keep plodding on. Like it or not the message of the film is powerful even if the presentation doesn't do anything to make it accessible. When REM close the credits singing `happiness where are you? I've searched so long for you' it is difficult not to feel something.

HAPPINESS / (1998) **** (out of four)

Todd Solondz, writer and director of "Happiness," describes his perplexing film as "a series of intertwining love stories, stories of connections missed and made between people, how people always struggle to make a connection, and to what degree they succeed or don't." It's about relationships, obsessions, and stunning discoveries both private and social. It contains some very graphic material-enough that the filmmakers released it without an MPAA rating. Even as the film exploits extreme adult themes and graphic content, it does not glamorize or stylize its subjects. Rather, it uses them to paint a disturbing picture of the dark side of human nature.

The film connects with the audience because these characters feel real-they are ordinary people with serious problems. It takes place in a homely suburbia environment in which Solondz draws us in, and eventually pushes us far away with enough provocative content to stand next to "A Clockwork Orange." The movie does, however, know what to show on screen and what not to. It's smart, and indecisive, not dirty and gratuitous. The film defines the character's relationships very well. "Happiness" doesn't explore random, unrelated characters. Their separate lives do, however, connect, and the movie does a great job revealing those connections.

"Happiness" follows a complicated story woven through the lives of many characters. Joy Jordan (Jane Adams), a middle-aged telephone sales person living by herself in New Jersey, longs for a decent relationship after recently breaking up with her boyfriend (Jon Lovitz). Her parents, Mona (Louise Lasser), and Lenny (Ben Gazzara), are pending a divorce through their catalyst neighbor (Elizabeth Ashley). Joy has two sisters: Trish (Cynthia Stevenson), and Helen (Lara Flynn Boyle). Helen brags about how many men lust for her, while Trish is a chripy homemaker married to a therapist named Bill (Dylan Baker). Bill appears to be a typical husband and father, but he is really a homosexual pedofile who masturbates over teen idol magazines and molests the friends of his preteen son, Billy (Rufus Reed). Bill, however, has done a good job at hiding his disturbing feelings from his friends and family.

Billy confronts his father about his developing sexuality, while Bill is also riddled with sex discussions as one of his patients, Allen (Philip Seymour Hoffman) obsessively raves about having sex with Helen. They meet one day when Allen makes one of his usual obscene phone calls, and Helen enjoys his heavy breathing and wants to make love with Allen. A large woman (Camryn Manheim) who lives in the same apartment complex as Allen often knocks at his door. She likes Allen, but he is too busy shuffling through porno magazines and making explicit phone calls to random women to notice those feelings.

In the production notes, producer Ted Hope describes Todd Solondz's vision as "comedic tragedy. Todd knows how to maintain that fine balance between heartbreak and humor. You're often unsure whether to laugh or cry." The dialogue, always riveting and thought-provoking, sometimes shocking with its irony and explicitness, often perplexes us; we are not quite sure how to respond to such phrases.

Take a scene where Bill exchanges a conversation with the coach of his son's baseball team –we're not sure whether to laugh or weep-we feel a little humor and sadness mixed. The coach is concerned of his own son's sexual status-he is afraid his kid is homosexual. Here's what their conversation involves:

Coach: What do you think would happen if I got him a professional... you know... Bill: A professional? Coach: Hooker. You know, the kind that can teach things... first-timers, you know... break him in. Bill: But Joe, he's 11. Coach: You're right, you're right. It's too late.

Ironic how I screened Neil Lebute's sexually provocative "Your Friends & Neighbors," just days after this astonishing production. Both movies honestly examine deep human despair in disturbing, frank detail. I remember the dialogue in both films. A specific scene in "Happiness" where Billy asks his father some very difficult questions about molestation. His father answers his son honestly, no matter how difficult the questions got.

I compare that scene to the scene in "Your Friend's & Neighbors" where three men relax in a steam room, and the character played by Jason Patrick verbally remembers his best sexual experience. These sequences require numerous viewing. They stare into the deep, dark crevices of the heart, and we can only watch in bafflement at the thought-provoking power these movies have and how they challenge our perspectives. "Happiness" is one of the better films of the year.

I don't want to waste time analyzing the plot since others have covered it so well... Basically here we have a Robert Altman-esqe pastiche of characters stemming from a seemingly normal family, plus others who come into their lives. Solondz sets them up and examines their lives, their dreams, their interactions and their facades. What's important is that he doesn't JUDGE these people. And even more importantly, he doesn't condescend to his audience. Like it or not, the people in this movie do exist and I think viewers instantly realize that.

This movie stirs up such strange emotions. It's tough to admit that we may have something in common with a Suburban pedophile, a pathetic dreamer, a pretentious literary snob or a obscene telephone sex stalker and one of the most frightening ideas ever put on film is here: Solondz makes plausible the people we view as being "sick" or generally look down upon aren't that much different than us. They still want the same things we do. And he also questions the ideals America seems to hold most dear, like monogamy and morality. And yeah, happiness. How exactly DO you find happiness? Is ANYONE really happy?

I cannot recommend HAPPINESS enough (neither can I with the director's equally impressive and incisive WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE). It's just an extraordinary movie; surprisingly funny, intelligent, brutally honest, powerful, original and relevant. The cast is thoroughly excellent and Solondz follows his own compass at all times in both the scripting and directing department. He's a brave filmmaker and I really have a lot of admiration for directors and writers who stray away from the tired Hollywood blockbuster formula. Good for some popcorn, sure, but aren't you glad there's other stuff out there to choose from?

Reading some of the other reviews posted here I was surprised at the amount of negative comments. I guess this isn't for everyone out there. If you want a fun night of fantasy escapism or a brainless comedy, don't bother. But if you want a blisteringly funny dose of reality, then don't miss this! Definitely a top contender for My 10 Favorite Movies of the 1990s list.

When a film opens with a scene between two people, one breaking up with the other, culminating in the dumped calling the dumper "Shit", you know you're in for something dark with this film. When the scene is followed by the simple opening title "Happiness" written in pretty cursive writing, you know it's going to be ironic as well. "Happiness" was written and directed by Todd Solondz, the mind behind the film "Welcome to the Dollhouse", a film that was fantastic but really hard to watch if the viewer has any kind of heart. "Happiness" follows in the same vein, though this time, instead of centering around one character, Solondz puts a New Jersey family at the center of the film and develops new characters through their relationship with the family.

Overseeing the family is Mona Jordan (Lasser), the matriarch of the family who has just been told by her husband that he no longer loves her. Lenny Jordan (Gazzara) is simply sick of being tied to someone continuously, while insisting that there is "no one else". Joy Jordan (Adams) is a serially employed thirty-something single female who is constantly belittled by her family and ignored by society. She is most close to her sister Trish Maplewood (Stevenson), a stay at home mother with three kids who likes to say she "has it all". Her husband Bill (Baker) is a psychiatrist who outwardly appears to be a stoic family man, but is actually a pedophile who, within five minutes of the introduction of his character, goes to a convenience store to pick up a teen heartthrob magazine so he can masturbate in the back seat of his car to the pictures of the young boys on the cover. The third sister in the family is Helen Jordan (Boyle), an author recently made semi-famous for an angst-ridden published diary (filled with lies) who has a very high opinion of herself and a way of making others feel badly about themselves while never raising her smooth-as-glass voice or making her jabs obvious. Her neighbor Allen (Hoffman) is in love with her, only he is so inept at socialization and unable to approach her that he attempts to satisfy his desires by first making random obscene phone calls to various women, and then making Helen a target herself. Another neighbor, Kristina (Manheim) is an insecure, quiet woman who is constantly trying to befriend Allen, possibly as a love interest.

There is quite a cast of characters to this ensemble picture, and the story lines become intricate and increasingly more complicated as the film progresses. "Happiness" is filled with excellent character actors (at the top of the list would certainly be Hoffman) but the most compelling character and character portrayal would be Baker's character of Bill Maplewood. Obviously, a film that deals unflinchingly with pedophilia and child rape, particularly under the guise of a "dark comedy" is going to be held under closer observation, but even under this scrutiny, Baker's portrayal is absolutely flawless. While his character is a monster, Baker is able to provide a human side to it, where I was left thinking he was a terrible man, but also had sympathy for him because he had a sickness. There are not many actors I can think of that could pull off this role as stupendously as Baker did. Baker was the clear star of the film in my opinion, but the performances of every person in the cast were fantastic as well, particularly the young boy who played Baker's oldest son.

As I stated earlier, "Happiness" is rife with irony because on the surface, everyone is miserable. However, it soon becomes relatively clear that this is just how these people are, and each of them to some extent ARE living in happiness, as misguided as it may appear to be. Everyone ends up being hurt or disappointed on some level, but they are still together and seem to be satisfied to be in the destructively emotional rut they are in. Solondz, who really has his finger on the pulse of misery, (Just like when, upon hearing that Stephen King gets inspiration for his books from his dreams I was glad that he at least makes millions from being terrified at night, I would hate to get a front row seat in Solondz's psyche) really gives the audience something to chew with "Happiness". I loved the chances he took with the subject matter, I loved the performances, and I loved the film as a whole because it was just so damn well done. It's not an easy film to watch, and it's not an entirely pleasant one to watch at times, but it is truly a piece of genius with the way it is intricately put together; envision trying to glue tiny shards of crystal into place with a tweezers – the characters in "Happiness" are as fragile and ready to shatter at any moment, whether they can see it for themselves or not. 8/10 --Shelly

I recently saw my first Todd Solondz film, Welcome To The Dollhouse. What a dark ride!

This week it took a couple of evenings for me to get through Happiness. There was a lot to get. Goodness gracious! (As my dear Grandmother might say, who, incidentally, is not a candidate for viewing THIS one!)

I'd read the reviews for Happiness in 1998; I'd had a typically positive Psychic Movie Reviewer moment. This indie sounded unique. I waited for Happiness - sniffle - to appear upon my friendly video store shelves, but saw nada. I imagine that the store probably had like two copies maybe, displayed briefly upon a bottom shelf someplace. I forgot about the existence of this film, until recently. And I recently heard that a certain video chain had allegedly pulled Happiness from its shelves due to customer complaints.

Disturbing yet intriguing, this film pulled me along, the matrix of character interaction becoming increasingly more intricate and strange. Definitely not for all tastes!

The subject of child sexual abuse is handled matter of factly, yet chillingly and effectively. As with the domestic/sexual abuse of women, the problem of child sexual abuse is obviously one that crosses lines of class, social status, and profession. Happiness acknowledges this fact, in the character of family man/psychiatrist Bill Maplewood.

Loneliness, rage, sexual repression/obsession, disintegrating marriages, sadly sophisticated children, relationships built upon artifice, this film has it all. It's Prozac Cinema at its best: try to be on an even keel when pressing 'play'.

Spouses, parents and children seem to be communicating across a void.

After viewing Happiness for the second time, I realized that the entire soundtrack intentionally consisted of melodramatic, and/or ultra perky canned music: a perfectly ironical compliment and contrast in style with the strong, harsh, quirky film scenes.

Presentation: director Solondz sets up the viewer for traditional father/son talk scenes, via mood and pseudo canned music: giving the subject matter and dialogue all the more impact. WHAT did he just say? Ward and Beaver Cleaver never behaved this way.

Got 134 minutes and a desire to see something darkly different? Rent Happiness. Or buy it.

Happiness - which centres around the lives of three sisters - Joy who's permanently unlucky in love, Helen a successful poet whose next door neighbour is obsessed with her and phones to explain this in graphic detail and finally there's Trish who has it all, a big house, a couple of kids and a successful psychiatrist husband who himself harbours uncontrollable urges.

The sisters are all somewhat fractured of mind - for example Lara Flyn Boyle's character plays an author suffering writers block bemoaning the fact that she wasn't abused as a child that could lend her work some authenticity - so she's delighted when she gets an obscene phone from a one of the many fat ugly sex obsessed dysfunctioning American neurotics that seem to be this seasons slim sexy movie star successes. Happiness manages to be truly provocative and also madly comical at one and the same time... for instance I never thought I could feel sympathy for a paedophile or a bloke making obscene phone calls but with tact and courage Happiness confronts these modern folk devils.

Happiness is anything but; as the characters lives intertwine in the search for happiness they find only loneliness, obsession and some serious psychological problems. In particular the psychiatrists story is remarkable with performances second to none as he tries to explain to his son about his paedophile tendencies.

Happiness explodes some of the fear related misconceptions showing that repression is the oppression of our generation... as if an open mind is just that. Open and willing for some perverted notion to crawl right in...

Directed by Todd Solondz Happiness is a slice of American life that isn't normally dealt with this honesty, making it a compelling watch, which will both amuse and seriously disturb for its two hours and fifteen minutes running time. Happiness is a must see.

It's so obvious to me, having seen this movie when it first came out, and then having read the script for American Beauty, (although I haven't seen it yet) that American Beauty is a TOTAL, homogenized, dumbed down, Hollywood PC, RIP-OFF of Happiness, which is a BRILLIANT, MORE TRUTHFUL, and far superior film.

I've read both scripts, and Happiness is by far the greater script. American Beauty is a Hollywood mainstream cop out of what Happiness had the real guts to say about life.

Anyone who doesn't like this movie is living with their head in the sand and has forgotten all the little "sordid" details from their own lives. I wonder how many people dissing this film have actually masturbated, been sexually abused, or had lustful thoughts about their neighbors themselves. It's so hard for them to view because it throws their own lives right up at them on the screen.

I think this movie is incredible, and one of the best films ever made. Todd Solondz should be applauded for his gutsiness to tell it like it is, and not condemned. American Beauty is a very pale substitute that was obviously contrived for those who don't have the guts to view Happiness.

To call Todd Solondz's "Happiness" a dark comedy is to redefine the words "dark" and "comedy". It hates the world and everyone in it, and takes great pleasure in mocking people stupid enough to try to be happy. In Solondz's world, life is pointless, hope is for suckers, and everybody is basically bad at heart. It says something that the movie's most human, sympathetic character is a child molester.

And, yes, it's a comedy - often a very, very funny one. Funny in a morbid, gallows humor, dead baby joke sort of way, but funny nonetheless.

The chief characters in "Happiness" are all stunted, narcissistic and hopelessly inadequate. Joy (Jane Adams) is a born loser who drifts through a series of menial jobs and drives her boyfriend to suicide; her sister Helen (Lara Flynn Boyle) is so self-absorbed that she thinks her biggest problem is that everyone loves her too much; her neighbor Allen (Philip Seymour Hoffman) can only connect to people by making obscene phone calls; and Bill (Dylan Baker), his therapist and Joy and Helen's brother-in-law, is a pedophile who rapes two of his 11-year-old son's friends.

Somehow, Solondz makes these horrible people really, really funny. Like John Waters and the Farrelly Brothers, Solondz finds humor in ugliness and revels in bad taste. He makes sexual dysfunction and personal failure brutally funny; Allen's obscene phone calls, for example, are almost endearing in their ineptitude and anatomical incorrectness ("I'm gonna f*** you in the... ear"), while Helen's narcissism makes her gloriously clueless ("If only I had been raped as a child - then I would know authenticity!"). Solondz shows his characters in a clear, satiric light, and it despises them.

While Solondz may not like his characters, he does not take the easy way out by making them caricatures. Every one of these awful human beings is a three-dimensional character with reasons for being awful.

For example, most directors would have made Bill a one-note villain, but Solondz makes him a pitiful monster who is tortured by ghastly sexual urges that he knows are wrong. There's a tough scene near the end where Bill has a frank talk with his son Billy about his pedophilia, admitting: that he enjoyed raping his victims; that he would do it again; and, while he would not rape his own son, he would "jerk off instead". Both father and son are crying - Billy with horror as he realizes just what Bill is, and Bill with shame and despair as he realizes the same thing. It's hard to watch, but it's an acting master class and absolutely fearless film-making.

This is a real actor's movie; the cast gives career-best performances. Baker is both horrifying and heartbreaking as Bill; he squirms in his own skin, as if he is being eaten alive by his own sickness. We pity him, whether we want to or not. Hoffman is hilariously pathetic as Allen, sweating and mumbling with lonely self-hatred. Adams is sad and sweet as the luckless Helen, the closest thing the movie has to a moral center, while Boyle is priceless as the contemptible Helen, swanning around as if waiting for the world to thank her for being born.

"Happiness" is the epitome of "acquired taste" - its humor is bitter, acidic and often cruel, and it takes real joy in offending the audience. Go elsewhere for a feel-good comedy with a happy ending. If nothing else, though, it's a true original, and deserves credit for carving out its own niche in the "dark comedy" genre.

The sexual foibles, perversities and hang-ups of a trio of sisters, their parents, neighbors and friends--told in a low, slightly monotone, key. It's a rich carousel of scared, scary lives with an inter-connecting pattern: the disillusionment of coupling--and how one keeps trying to succeed in this department despite the humiliations. Pretty funny once you get the idea--and only if you're attuned to this kind of sick black humor. Not for the faint of heart, but extremely clever concoction from talented writer-director Todd Solondz (whose first film, "Welcome To The Dollhouse", struck me as a stunt). This one is frank, funny, and very warped--almost over-the-top in places, especially the ending--yet kept on track by the terrific performances. Some might compare this to the later "Magnolia" (they're both tapestry films), but "Happiness" is superior, and certainly less pretentious. *** from ****

Happiness is a gruesome and uncomfortable drama about sexual dysfunction, focusing mainly on three characters: a 30-something woman who lives with her parents and attracts romantic disaster; a schlubby office drone who can't speak to his sexy neighbor so he masturbates while making obscene phone calls; and a seemingly normal therapist who lusts after his son's pre-pubescent friends. Forget the "dark comedy" label - I found almost nothing even remotely funny in the movie and in fact the overall effect was completely depressing. Happiness is an interesting movie but it wasn't funny or entertaining in the traditional sense of the word and it's nothing I'd ever want to see again.

At times, the film felt like a hollow exercise in wallowing in the misery of the characters; I imagined the main protagonists as ants and the writer/director sitting there with a magnifying glass, making them burn. Their humiliations are sometimes played for laughs in ways that didn't always work. Jon Lubitz's bitter opening monologue after he's dumped - hilariously awkward. Faux happy music playing when another character is on his way to raping a pre-teen? Err, no. The material is too serious to treat in such a cavalier way. Really, Happiness reminded me of The Ice Storm, except that movie addressed similar themes in an intelligent way with real characters and asked us to take the situation seriously. The Ice Storm also offered a glimmer of redemption, which struck me as far truer to life than the empty nihilism on display here.

Happiness wants to rub our nose in the sordid details - was there any reason to show two separate scenes of dripping cum? - but doesn't really have much to say. The film is very well-acted and it's certainly interesting so it's worth watching. I just think a movie this deliberately offputting needs to have a stronger message than "We're all an F'ing mess."

Y'know... I think I've seen quite a lot of what this world has to offer. Not everything, certainly, but I've seen and accepted my fair share of ugliness, and I think I can say that it takes quite a lot to rattle me. But after seeing "Happiness," if nothing else I know where my limits are. I NEVER want to be this jaded. I never want to be able to watch this much degradation and humiliation and be able to shrug it off as "hip" or "genius." I think it's fair to say that, for someone numb enough to detach themselves from this film, you could appreciate it for the acting, and for the quality of the filmmaking in general. And I am, on some level, glad that it was made; there is a place for films like this one. But even with my own really quite liberal attitudes towards artistic expression, I sincerely do hope that "Happiness" marks the lowest point to which our culture ever descends. I fear for our collective integrity if we are able to leave a film like this one without being disgusted and upset.

This is the best movie I never, ever want to see again. It's dark, disgusting, powerful, painful and honest. The focal point of cinema has been used here as an assault on every day life. Everyone has had these moments at one point or another in their lives and now here's the hot-faced shame and moral nausea experienced vicariously through a parade of terrible, terrible people, not parsed out by blessed months or years between horrifying events as one would hopefully find in real life, but non-stop for however many minutes this film lasts. I can't deny that it was a good film, but it's also a film that hurts to watch. Good job in an era when the only thing I can remotely equate this experience to is being in the front row at "Cloverfield" and being surrounded by people vomiting.

I've always stated that I don't like nihilistic films. I don't enjoy films that show the world as something ugly, depressing or mean- spirited. Usually this applies to thrillers where everyone is coloured an ugly shade of grey, where every victory is Pyrrhic in nature or everyone is a villain to some degree. But this film showed me that there's something I hate even more in a film. This film shows the world as something heinous, something perverted, something rotten. It's not depressing per se, except in that it will remove your will to live. Rather it's disgusting.

Happiness tells about a group of sisters and the people they interact with in their day to day life. Their families, their relatives, their acquaintances, their neighbours. The film talks about the struggle of upper middle-class, or at least what it perceives to be the struggle of upper middle-class. It positions that these people are without a place, their lives hollow and empty, their purpose non-existent. It positions that to fill this gaping void in their souls, these people turn to perversion. Pretty much every single character in the film is a deviant of some sort. There's masturbation, paedophilia, rape, mutilation of sexual organs and of course dirty phone calls. Everything under the sun.

And yet the film is amazingly grey in tone. It sounds like a trashy B-movie, but it's not. The whole film is like an awkward date with a complete stranger where neither says anything beyond the most placid of banalities and you're both happy to leave after the main course.

The worst thing is that I cannot deny this film the right to exist. Art, any kind of art, is meant to help us understand the world. You can condemn the phenomena discussed themselves, but you cannot condemn the discussion that must take place about the phenomenon. Even disgusting films like this one are a viewpoint into life.

But that doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with its message. This is a horrid film. Is it worth seeing? In a sick way, yes. But proceed with caution.

Dysfunctionality is an over-rated dramatic tool. And Solondz seems to rely on it exclusively. Too much of his material is deliberately, solely, and obsessively mean.

Be that as it may, Happiness scores high with me because two, out of six, of its main characters transcend the ooey-gooier-than-thou schtick and emerge as really powerful, and simultaneously amusing, studies. I've never seen a more scientifically balanced scene than the one in which a father is quizzed by his wounded son about his perversions; it manages to be scary and sad and laugh-out-loud funny all at once.

I stumbled upon this gem during one of my numerous internet research extravaganzas and boy was I pleased.

Happiness is a dark comedy, and for most it's brutal to sit through, but if you enjoy crude humor this movie is perfect.

The plot is pretty basic, three sisters and their encounters in New Jersey.

When I look at a movie critically, I usually weed out all the propaganda and controversy. I seek for acting talent and creativity. This movie was full of both.

Yes, it is technically a disturbing movie, but I urge you to view it with an open mind. The performances in this film are forever engraved in my mind as spectacular, and it's just down right hilarious (in a very crude way).

Phillip Seymour Hoffman has always been a brilliant actor in my mind, and his role in this film was probably his best. Dylan Baker should have gotten an Oscar nomination, but the Academy Awards are more focused on politics versus talent, in my humble opinion. So screw them.

The magic of this movie is the character interaction and of course it's shocking, but entertaining content.

Disturbing, funny, shocking. It's hard to analyze the entire movie without ruining everything (I'm not a fan of spoilers). Go rent it or whatever and I caution you to not watch it with any person who is easily disturbed or offended.

Enjoy my crappy review :)

Another psychologically visceral film that pinches the nerve of human society. I am still not quite sure which one is darker: the human unconscious, the dark basements of our fears, or hypocrisy, the attics of our warmest intents.

Todd Solonz' masterpiece slaps you in the face and laughs about it. The film transcends the meaning of the word "dark" or "bizarre" into "daily" or "humane". Dysfunctional families have been a common topic since Oedipus and Hamlet to 400 Blows, Ordinary People, and many others; however, times change and human needs do also (socially, economically, and emotionally). Behaviors, laws, and what I understand as "common sense" act hand in hand with interpretation of our unconscious needs. And historical transition periods are relevant to understand these human recycling needs, which are very present here as chaotic and real as possible.

Happiness is a mind-bending experience that reveals, surprises, and causes great reflection. Hopefully for some, this "therapeutic" film might result in some real life happy moments for it hits the right note with the right prescription.

*SPOILERS*

Obviously, 'Happiness' is meant to be provocative, just as all this director's films are, desperately hoping that shock value will carry a film, or at least generate a buzz. Unfortunately, there's really nothing shocking about 'Happiness'. The most taboo of subjects it covers, pedophilia, has already been dealt with in other films much more artistically and thoughtfully (Consider 'Lolita'). Just because something's disturbing, doesn't mean it's art, and certainly doesn't mean it's intellectual.

Even the most enthusiastic proponents of this film recognize that without some sort of interpretation, the film is a catalog of perversion and deliberately disturbing images/innuendo. But the enthusiasts of 'Happiness' argue that there's something more to the movie, that there is something funny, ironic, 'human' or artful about the movie. These enthusiasts of Happiness are quick to dismiss criticisms of the film as 'close-mindedness' or simply 'not-getting-it'. But, upon a closer examination, it's easy enough to see that the praises heaped upon this movie are done so out of intellectual weakness.

'Funny' is always subjective, and one can't really argue something isn't funny to someone else. Making fun of mentally retarded kids is funny to some people, but it's also cruel and shows a lack of compassion for others. In order for 'Happiness' to be see as funny, it's pretty much necessary to disregard any sympathy for the humanity of the characters in the film. Which, in turn, suggests that if you find the movie funny, then you didn't actually 'get' that the characters were people desperate for some sort of Happiness, rather than ridicule or disdain. Conversely, if you find the characters very human and are sympathetic towards them, then you'd be inclined to feel just as much sympathy towards their victims. The main characters in Happiness act without regard for the consequences their actions might have on others. This makes them sociopaths. They seek their own sexual gratifications at the expense of other's well being. In fact, once the object of obsession for one character makes herself available for whatever horrible thing he wants to do to her, he no longer wishes to do so--- because she's consenting. The point here is, by claiming this movie is funny or 'human', you're either laughing with sociopaths or disregarding some people's humanity in favor of the desires of portrayed sociopaths. Either way, it's finding amusement in the rape of a child, and trying to justify it behind 'art'.

Some people have claimed Happiness is about irony. This just shows that, quite ironically, they don't understand irony. Whether you use a prescriptivist or descriptivist definition of it, Happiness isn't 'ironic'. The more applicable term would be 'incongruous', often confused with 'ironic'. For example, an optometrist with bad vision is not ironic, it's incongruous. It WOULD be ironic if he went blind from accidentally jabbing out his eyeballs with his eyeglasses. But there's only incongruity in Happiness, at least from what I remember of it, not irony.

So, if Happiness isn't ironic, comedic, or something that displays humanity (as in SYMPATHY for people)--- then the only way to defend it against the criticisms of it's detractors is to say 'it's art'. If you want to call anything produced on artistic mediums art, then by all means, Happiness is art. It's certainly a film, with actors, a plot, and even a soundtrack. But just because something is 'art' doesn't mean it's any good. There is bad art. We call things 'good art' when they present something we find aesthetically pleasing, intellectually stimulating, or they capture the essence of a moment with precision. From an aesthetic standpoint, Happiness is mediocre, simple camera panning and centered frames. One can argue that the film captures the essence of the moment, but unless you've been in that moment, then it's not really something you'll ever be sure of, and frankly, I wouldn't want to be in any of the moments in this film. You can argue that art is meant to show us things that we didn't already know, to allow us to feel emotions which we normally don't--- at which point, one is forced to wonder why anyone would desire to experience the awful situations the characters are put into. It's masochism, and a sterile, voyeuristic masochism at that.

The last argument I can imagine to justify watching this film is that it's intellectually stimulating. But how? Yes, perverts and pedophiles are people too. That's never been a matter of debate. It is precisely because they ARE people that we condemn their actions and the hurt they cause others. The only question left is 'Should they be punished?'--- and, well...Yes. Rapists certainly deserve punishment regardless of whether they deserve sympathy.

Finally, there are some who actually claim that this movie is worthwhile because it doesn't present a moral judgment. But if we didn't already have moral judgments, right or wrong, on sexual perversion, then we wouldn't be able to recognize any of the 'conflict' in the film. The whole movie revolves around individuals who are tortured by the RECOGNITION that what they desire is morally wrong. This is why they hide their longings from 'society'. Without the recognition of their perversions being morally wrong, there's no inner conflict, simply a litany of perversions happening. The problem with 'Happiness' is that the characters, realizing their desires are considered amoral by their society, try to satiate their desires and remain part of a society which condemns their actions, rather than fully embracing their desires by finding a different society, or fully embracing society by refraining from their actions. Their flaws are not sexual deviancy, just stupidity and selfishness, for which we are to feel sympathy?

Why would anyone think Happiness was a good movie? I can only conclude that they didn't get it, felt confused and decided it was thus 'deep'. What a self-righteous waste of film.

When I watched this film I knew I was going to love it from the beginning. It simply describes life! Most of us would love that time does not pass but it does. For some it passes quickly, for others slowly, but it passes. Little children grow up and eventually become adults. They have to perform sexual act to continue the species. Some parents take that fact with normal attitude, others do not. Also, time passes for some male adults who develop interest for young(er) people. Hm, hm, may be a little too young. This film describes this film so well.

Acting is excellent. Plot is excellent as well. Everything is excellent about this film. Please make sure you watch it!

Happiness / dir. Todd Solondz / 1998

The best scene in Happiness is the very first, featuring Jon Lovitz in, perhaps, his best performance on screen. Lovitz is only in these first five or so minutes, but delivers a distressing performance, exploding from heartbreak when he is rejected for not being a traditionally attractive man. It is an honest and true performance in a film filled with essentially loathsome characters. The Lovitz character is one of many who are disappointed with their current life situation, but he is the only one who can conjure up any sort of sympathy.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays the nebbish Allen, a lonely man who gets off on thoughts of his sultry neighbor, Helen (Lara Flynn Boyle), and making prank phone calls. Joy (Jane Adams) finds herself 30 and without a career or a husband. Her two sisters are successful, one being Helen, and the other Trish (Cynthia Stevenson), who is happily married to psychiatrist Dr. Bill Mapplewood (Dylan Baker). Allen confides his secrets to Dr. Mapplewood, but Bill has a secret of his own: an insatiable lust for young boys.

Happiness wants to be an ironic comedy about life, but the film is too heavy handed to be found funny. The child molestation subplot is too serious of a situation to be taken lightly. The biggest problem is the angle to which it was approached. The molestations take place off-screen and is as tastefully done as the subject allows, but there is something slightly creepy about watching an eleven year old boy talk to his father about semen and masturbation. Obviously, these scenes are to be shocking to the audience, but they are a little too unsettling and they don't achieve their function for the film. These conversations feed into the child molester's obsession, but it would have been much more interesting had the film actually examined the psyche of the child molester, instead of hinting at aspects and then dropping them to move on to a different subplot. In the end, the scenes are an exercise in pushing the sexual envelope, but they don't amount to much and only make the film harder to sit through.

The audience is meant to relate to the characters in the film, but it is very hard when all of them are so uninteresting and unlikable. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character complains that no one likes him because he is boring and the film does nothing to disprove that. It is hard for the audience to sympathize for a man who makes sexual phone calls and masturbates for 90% of his screen time. The character of Joy lives the saddest life and it is a shame that the screenplay never allows us to actually care about her. She comes off as shrill and annoying and, in those first scenes with Jon Lovitz, a tad bit superficial. Her sister, Helen, is just as uninteresting. An author who is tired of being attractive to men, she's not only superficial, but a complete bore.

It's a shame about the characters, because the cast is full of consummate actors. Hoffman plays these types of characters perfectly, but he never gets to do anything with it. Baker finds the ideal balance between normal family man and pedophile. Jane Adams is merely serviceable and doesn't try to make her character any more likable. Stevenson is wonderful, but Boyle is a little over-the-top.

There is one other standout in the film and that is Camryn Manheim, who manages to make the audience empathize with her even when she finds herself doing inhuman things. But just the fact that the film feels the need to place her in such a situation proves how miserable the movie really wants to be. Many times, scenes come off as completely inappropriate and unnecessary. Happiness is two hours and twenty minutes drowned in unpleasantness. It is a tough film to watch, not only because of its subject matter, but because of its sheer pessimism.

At least this movie wasn't boring. There was never a dull moment in this mess which might convince many viewers to overrate it. Fortunately dear reader I am not such a viewer.

I enjoyed this movie while watching. Perhaps I would have rated it higher if not for the ending which I shall not spoil, not that very much would be spoilt in any case, but I won't spoil. I would have rated it higher if my enjoyment was less derived from pure voyeurism and more from well developed characters and a terrific story. This is the kind of film that's well directed and acted enough to resemble art but depraved and disgusting enough to appeal to the voyeur in us, so we can excuse ourselves for sitting through it. The artistic elements did not outweigh the negatives, as you shall see in the following paragraph.

The situations in the film were just not funny, and thus in no sense can this be called a comedy. Pedophilia is especially not very humorous. There were scenes that I found to be quite gripping between a pedophiliac father and his son but they belong in a much better film, not in a film that turns everything into a joke with an ending that made me mad. Everything here deserves a better ending, perhaps a more tragic ending, but at least a conclusion that wraps everything up in a way befitting a drama and less befitting a Jim Carrey comedy.

There also just isn't much substance here. Characters make obscene phone calls. They have sick fantasies. They hurt others and themselves. The lesson that loneliness and desperation breed perversion is hammered into our heads with one shock after another. We learn that seemingly banal and normal families have skeletons. We learn that a child masturbating is funny. We learn all of his and more, but what is the point? Don't waste your time here trying to find one. It's all shock and no substance. The material is better handled in "American Beauty", a more mainstream and also flawed but far superior film.

If "American Beauty" is rented out or something, or there is nothing else on cable, watch this. You won't be bored but you certainly will not be enlightened.

On another note, I very strongly recommend the director's prior film, "Welcome to the Dollhouse" which is quite easily one of the greatest and most perceptive movies about teenagers.

I watched this movie with my Girlfriend and our mutual best friend and found it to be eerily true. Every seen my imagination would go to the worst possible scenario and the right before my eyes it was played out in some kind of sick horror show. There is something to be said for a movie that involves pedophilia on a scale that makes you feel scared for the old man. And how cruel people can be to each other. And just when you think happiness is found the fat chick has something in her fridge.

K, If none of this makes sense it is because we all watched it while coming off some of the sickest acid trips of all time. and we have been drinking since 7am. Great movie.