"I am Sam": How do you rate.

[BobbieDog]

I watched "I am Sam" last night: and despite its carrying all sorts of cliches, I thought it did communicate something about people with special needs; I liked the film, and would happily show it to special needs people.
I thought that Penn, in what I presumed to be a "method acting" approach to the part: showed some real understanding of what is, what it is like, to be as the character he played.
I could forgive the movie all the cliches, because they gave a vehicle for Penn to explore some truth.
I was then pretty taken aback, when I googled up some reviews: and "I am Sam" seemed to being slated as the most contrived piece of cinema trash, for some considerable time.
What think others? Are the critics right? Or does Penn give valuable insight into how a vulnerable other ticks?

 

[oldrooster]

I thought it was a great movie, Sean Penn has become quite a good actor in the past few years...

 

[psychoceramic]

what cliches are you talking about.... because i watched this movie... and after working with the DD population for the past six years every thing in there was the truth......

as for the movie... i didnt like it and i am not sure if it is because of dakota fanning... or the subject matter.... my bet would be on fanning... i havent liked any movei she has been in!!! = : >

 

[BobbieDog]

what cliches are you talking about.... because i watched this movie... and after working with the DD population for the past six years every thing in there was the truth......

as for the movie... i didnt like it and i am not sure if it is because of dakota fanning... or the subject matter.... my bet would be on fanning... i havent liked any movei she has been in!!! = : >

What clichés you ask? I mean the building blocks from which a movie is made: where such blocks have to communicate to an audience; but in so doing, risk using conventional meaning which does less than justice to what is nominally portrayed.



So the tricks of the trade, to do with music, camera angles, light and shade: which enable the film to stimulate something in us the audience. Where that can really challenge us, and perhaps risk not communicating: or conversely focus so much on ensuring communication, that the portrayal becomes something of a parody.



I agree with you that there was truth in this film. What do you mean by DD? I use the term special needs, which may be old fashioned now. It was the disconcerting sense of being inside special need, that made the film powerful for me: Penn communicated some special need to me, and my wife, much more powerfully than often do practioners in the field.



I didn't like the portrayal of the lawyer: her part and Penn's part were not joined in any way. The portrayal of the social worker people was too parodied: not unfair, but too starkly negative; something of a cliché.



Some of Sam's friends were well portrayed.



The portrayal of Sam's sensory overloading and disorientation, with the camera cliché of swirling vision: was okay; but missed dealing better with what was the crux of Sam.



I thought the crux was the relationship between Sam's intellectuality, and his emotionality: where the film well suggested how a person could be sustained in an emotional completeness; where that completeness was not reflected in intellectual capability, nor was it degraded by that absence of intellectual correlation.



I think there was more truth about the character, that could have been drawn out by more sensitive, and perhaps more complex exploration of the relation and interaction between Sam's emotionality and intellectuality.



For me, the way this relation was dealt with, was something of a cliché.



I'm a bit out of my depth here: Penn showed an understanding of his subject, that surpasses mine; what I can see is, that good as his portrayal is, there is even more to be done in understanding the occurrence of that character, to further the cause of such character’s inclusion.

 

[FireRock]

I saw the movie awhile ago, but I really liked it. I thought it was well made, from a filmmaking perspective. I don't know much about special needs individuals, but I thought that Sean Penn did an excellent job partraying his character. I think it takes a good dose of talent to portray such a difficult character such as that. I have recommended that movie to many people since I watched it, and many others have really enjoyed it as well. One of my friends noted how the Beatles music was intertwined very well into the movie, which is something that I hadn't caught right away.

A lot of times I think that the critics are looking at and for things that we as the general public either aren't looking for or don't care about. Either that or I have a very different taste in movies than the critics!

 

[BobbieDog]

One of my friends noted how the Beatles music was intertwined very well into the movie, which is something that I hadn't caught right away.

The film-makers had a fairly good grasp of how the autistic can have a powerful and detailed knowledge, with great recall, of particular things in life: then use forms from that topic, to give patterns to much they might themselves meet. So Sam was heavily into knowing the whole beatle adventure. To reflect that in how the beatles music was used as film music score, was clever. One of Sam's friends was also shown portrayed as having detailed knowledge to do with films, their actors, directors, and dates ofd shooting and showing. When Sam in court, in answer to a question, looked innwards and heavenwards: then in fact "acted" out the script from "Kramer verus Kramer"; that was insightful, but perhaps heavily done.
I would imagine I too could watch this movie again, and see stuff I'd missed first time round

 

[FireRock]

Those are my favorite movies, the ones you can watch again and again and see different things each time.

 

[BobbieDog]

Those are my favorite movies, the ones you can watch again and again and see different things each time.

A bit like faith and loving: there's always more to see, understand, and weave in.

Maybe what makes a great actor is, that while focusing on the finite of portraying a character, part or whatever; they can keep that infinite aspect of being a real and aspiring human being, fully there and in play.

I think that Penn suggested a Sam with sustainable yet unexpected aspiration: and I suspect that you could remove all the details of the film and plot and other characters; and what Penn held in focus as Sam, would still be alive.

I think he has something in how he "acted" here, that he could for example take into theatre and cabaret and other mediums: I imagine he could use it as basis for being therapeutically effective in supporting special needs inclusion.

Wouldn't want to overplay what he does, and such can easily slip out of focus: but, as a human being, and as professional actor doing something for a collective; he does earn great credit in this part.