« Close to home
Cruising for sweets: chocolate recipes »

Uh-oh

Posted on August 5th, 2007 by Jodee Taylor in Film Festival Dailies

Jodee TaylorWho saw “Eleven Men Out”? Better yet, who at the film festival saw “Eleven Men Out” and wrote this description?

“Icelandic director Robert I. Douglas makes his debut in this quirky misfit-sports-team comedy about a professional soccer team whose star player is banned from the league after telling a journalist that he is gay. Solid performances all around contribute to the director’s deadpan style in this eccentric comedy. Not Rated.”

Hardly any soccer, hardly any comedy. Lots of full-frontal nudity. Sex. Swearing. Heavy drinking. More sex. More nudity.

Soccer moms, dads and coaches brought their soccer-playing kids.

I heard people walked out (I was in the front row, so I didn’t see any). I don’t blame them. If they won’t let anyone under 17 see “Borat: Uncensored,” why wouldn’t they warn people about “Eleven Men Out”?

One soccer mom said, “I was squirming because our family spent about 10 years in soccer, my daughter in high-level soccer, and all of those coaches and soccer families came, thinking there was going to be soccer, like in ‘Bend it Like Beckham.’ I thought it was going to be one of those underdog feel-good movies, like ‘The Full Monty,’ only with gay soccer players. It was not appropriate without a warning.

“It would be like going to ‘Clockwork Orange’ and thinking it was about a citrus plantation,” she said.

I think the film festival dropped the ball on this one. It slid through the cracks. And it slid through the cracks twice. I saw the 7 p.m. screening Saturday at the City Opera House. It was shown at 10 a.m. the same day at the Old Town Playhouse. So people had seen this movie earlier in the day and apparently still thought it was appropriate for families and little kids to go to Saturday night.

It wasn’t. It needed a warning.

The only other movie I saw Saturday was “Waitress,” a light-hearted comedy about spousal abuse, marital infidelity and serious breaches of medical ethics.

OK, so I’m a little tired and cranky. I’m going to get my Dreamy John Cusack fix today, even though I’ll probably sob through the whole movie and he looks dweeby in it.

I made a bet with a friend that “The Valet” will win the audience prize. People gushed about it, over and over, every single person who saw it.

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 5th, 2007 at 9:49 am and is filed under Film Festival Dailies. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Comments are first held for moderation.
Your comment will appear online within 24 hours.

A note about comments: We're pretty sure our readers are intelligent, easy-going and generally nice people. Please, remember what your mother may have taught you: If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. We reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason, and nasty comments will be removed. Readers, if you see an inappropriate comment before we catch it, please e-mail webmaster@record-eagle.com to let us know. Thanks.

Viewing 26 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Thanks Jodee!

    NOTHING in the description of this movie could have prepared me for this show that in my estimation came as close to what I consider a "Porn" movie to be. BIG mistake, big, big mistake. Whoever was supposed to have screened this movie must have only watched the first 5 minutes. If you Google the distributor, you will find his movies are 95% porn and most are gay porn.

    I am a Friend of this Festival and will continue to be, but I am VERY disappointed.
    • ^
    • v
    First I want to say that I completely agree that the description should have been much different than it was. The movie was not at all what I expected, and I was disturbed by it for two reasons: 1. the sex scene and 2. the scene with the pride parade.

    I really had to ask myself why I was disturbed by the sex scene since I would not be disturbed by an identical scene if it were between a male and a female. Apparently there is a double standard in society that even I held within myself without really being aware that I was holding it... and this movie really forced me to examine that.

    I was disturbed by the pride parade because the focus seemed to be on flamboyant male transvestites (male cross dressers of the Rocky Horror variety) when the rest of the movie was about gay men. Most gay men are not flamboyant transvestites but rather just regular people.

    I also felt that maybe Traverse City wasn't really ready for a film like this and I felt a bit offended that it was shown here. I REALLY had to ask myself why I felt that way since I'm a gay man myself and I didn't find myself particularly offended by all the blatant homophobia in the film (my partner was offended by it, however). I guess I was actually offended by it, but I am so used to it that I expect it. Which is something else I think people need to examine more closely within themselves and this society.

    I think the real reason I felt offended was that the description of the film was so far off base and I really got a sense of how uncomfortable many in the audience were with this film...very likely for the same reason. I think if we had been warned ahead of time that this would take so many of us so far out of our own comfort zones we would have been better prepared for what we saw and to think about it later...and probably not brought young people who are enthused about soccer and expected to see a movie with more focus on soccer with sexuality as more of a side issue (as the description seemed to portray).

    So overall I think this was a good pick for the festival, but the description should have been much different, that is, more accurate.
    • ^
    • v
    Granted, there could have been a more thorough description of this film on the Film Fest program and in the guide, but the onus is really on parents to ensure that films and their content is suitable for their children regardless of whether or not much detail is mentioned in the film's summary. When in doubt (if, for example a film has no rating), parents or individuals really must do their own research and not expect to be spoon-fed a detailed description. "Soccer" should not be enough of a descriptor for one to make the decision to bring children to films. The remainder of the Film Guide's description should've been enough to raise red flags about whether or not the film would be suitable for children. A man's decision to come-out and then subsequently be banned from a soccer league suggests to me that a major portion of the film had to do with adult themes and I might consider doing a little more research before bringing my kids and inviting other parents and their children.
    • ^
    • v
    Unbelievable. I cannot believe the Film Festival could air such a film in a venue that is billed as a family event. I will have a very hard time supporting the film festival in the future. The only good thing about the movie was it proved the US does not have the corner on the market of disfunctional families. Well done organizers, you managed to give an otherwise great event a big black eye!
    • ^
    • v
    I thought I must have mis-read the description! I knew it was about a gay soccer player, but, geez Louise, it caught me off guard. The saddest part was the nonchalance of the parents about the 13 yr old boy's being exposed to his mother's nudity and drunkenness as well as his father's sexual activity.
    • ^
    • v
    I didn't see “Eleven Men Out" and from your comments I am glad I didn't.

    But I'm with you about "Waitress." While I enjoyed the humor and Keri Russell is always fetching and delightful, the "serious breaches of medical ethics" and how lightly that was taken annoyed me to no end. Of course, part of that may be due to my being a physician. But if any of my fellow physicians acted like the dolt in this film he should (and hopefully would) lose his license permanently. His betrayal of the physician-patient relationship and the way it was unapologetically played for laughs is a stain on the movie that pretty much ruined it for me.

    Keep swinging away, Jodee!
    • ^
    • v
    On the other hand, this sort of begs the question of where personal responsibility to research a film diverges from the responsibility of the marketers to characterize the film accurately without being evasive or disingenuous through omission.

    I lean toward the former, especially when I'm talking about bringing my kids to a show. Personally, I'll see almost any film, as it is a powerful medium, and I simply LOVE movies. John Waters is as interesting to me as John Woo or John Ford. But I'll do the due diligence if I am being accompanied by someone who could potentially be offended. Marketers want to sell the film, so relying solely upon posters, trailers, and viral marketing content is probably a mistake.

    In this particular case, I haven't seen it, but a quick look at Rotten Tomatoes (or your review database of choice) would have shown that nudity, gay themes, and idiosyncratic Icelandic life dominate this film.

    BTW, what is a Friend?
    • ^
    • v
    I was the mom Jodee quoted in her first entry. I don't believe it was wrong to have the film in this festival -- I would like to think that Traverse City doesn't have to be insulated from certain themes or programming, though with only so many slots available, you do wonder if there could have been something more worth watching. That aside, the film is from Iceland, and maybe in Iceland that's how they do things, maybe mom naked on the couch with a 14-year-old son finding her that way isn't a big thing, maybe said 14-year-old boy needing a lock on his door "because he has a girlfriend" isn't a big thing, maybe even kids seeing people have sex on camera isn't a big thing. I have been in Denmark and Sweden and things there are much looser than here, and in Iceland, well, maybe all there is to do is have and watch sex.

    But there should have been a warning that it was equivalent of R or NC-17, with a little detail, so adults could make an informed choice for themselves as well as their kids. Most responsible parents research content of movies before they let their kids go see a film at a regular movie theater, and make decisions accordingly. I think in this case, based on the description, and on the fact that there were no warnings as there were for other ones like "Borat Uncensored" and "The Ten," and it was described as an "eccentric comedy," and it was about soccer, those responsible parents saw no red flags.

    A pediatrician I know who was there said it was a "huge clunker." He said another physician he knew brought his 9-year-old daughter and 13-year-old son. Makes me cringe just thinking about it. The next day I saw him after "Grace is Gone," which was wonderful, and he said, "From the worst, to the best."
    • ^
    • v
    There isn't any question that the movie should have played in TC. Even better if it got people thinking about our culture, other cultures and sexuality.

    The issue is that some kids saw the movie when their parents would rather they didn't; in fact their parents took them to the movie when, had they known the contents, they wouldn't have.

    There's a wide chasm between the spoon -feeding that Michael fears and the shit shoveling that he does. Any responsible organization tries to accurately portray its products. Jodee is right on in suggesting that this probably simply fell through the cracks. It would have been a noble gesture for the FF to post something about the movie after the first showing.

    Arguments that the FF bears no responsibility to movie goers for its descriptions of the films don't hold water. That old notion that we are the vessel of the message, but not responsible for its content, falls short of the integrity a film festival like this ought to be seeking.
    • ^
    • v
    Todd, the Friends of the Film Festival is something you can pay to join ($50 usually; going up Sept. 1) and, in return, you can order tickets a week ahead of the general public and a few other perks (a potluck, e-mail updates, etc.).
    • ^
    • v
    Once again, I think the film festival did a wonderful job overall, with many interesting and valuable films. I was very dismayed with the disparity of the description of Eleven Men Out" and the actuality of the movie. A " quircky misfit sports team comedy" about a coming out gay person, does not clue me in at all about the content of the film. That's the point of writing descriptions of the movies in the brochure...to help viewers choose what they want to see. I thought the sexual content was highly inappropriate for anyone under 18, and the film festival should have put a warning on it. The irresponsibility of both parents of the 13 year old boy with no resolution seemed even more disturbing for children than the sex scenes. I would have been just as dismayed about bringing a child to a movie with that level of heterosexual sex. Furthermore it just wasn't a very good movie...not particularly complimentary to the gay population, and NO SOCCER. Hopefully the screeners of next year's movies will learn from this and do a better job.
    • ^
    • v
    Joe, my friend, you're confusing fear with frustration. I agree with you about the what real issue here is, but what I don't agree with is that that FF is somehow responsible for what children may or may not be exposed to. The burden is absolutely not on the FF to clarify what kind of content is in a particular movie and it's very much up to the parents to make certain that a movie that is dealing with adult themes is appropriate for their children. It would've been easier, yes, if they had given some kind of nudity/profanity warning, but, c'mon, when movies these days generally deal with sexuality issues, we should think twice about bringing our children...at least not before a little more research is done. Apparently a couple of the other bloggers did some quick searches and discovered that there was much more to this movie than what was written in the synopsis, so this is really not a difficult task and yet it should be taken very seriously. Therefore, hopefully you'll see that what I'm "shoveling" is a little common sense.
    • ^
    • v
    I wasn't going to comment until I saw Michael's reply. I love the film fest and I love the movies. But there hardly can be debate that the description of Eleven Men Out was woefully inadequate. If it had said there is no soccer in the soccer movie and there are graphic sex scenes THAT would have been adequate.
    • ^
    • v
    Michael - I do not agree that it was the parents responsibility - in this particular case (only) BECAUSE we were told that the film festival had seen all of the films that were being shown at the festival.

    That being said, they apparently did not watch much of this particular film or if they did, then this is worse than I imagined. I only googled the film after seeing it and I should not have had to do that before, as the TCFF had supposedly done that for me. The description of this movie sounded no more than a Will and Grace episode.

    Whether this was a gay or straight movie - it was a vulgar depiction - period. It should not have been shown here at all.
    • ^
    • v
    I think Eleven Men Out should have been called "Arctic Tail." That way TFCC could have run a double feature with the similarly titled festival film about the polar bears and walruses. Then the cuteness of the cubs and the perceived depravity of the gay footballers would cancel each other out, and all would be right. Oh, how we'd laugh and laugh.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, Michael, I don't think we're going to agree on this one. I think we agree that we don't have an issue with the film being shown, that the FF is a great thing to have in TC. We differ when it comes to whether the FF should take responsibility for its description of the films. I think it should.

    I'm not saying I want the descriptions to be detailed filmographies. I just want the FF to do exactly what it did up to the moment "Eleven men" ran and that was tell viewers the movie might not be appropriate for kids. I can take it from there.

    The FF did that with Borat. The FF said it contained some explicit scenes. Good enough. The precedent was set. I trusted the FF; had no reason to think the established standard would change.

    We part company when you maintain that the whole issue is a matter of parental responsibility. I think not. I think if the FF wants to say it has no responsibility then it should claim no credit for its good works. Arguing otherwise is a kind of intellectual infidelity.
    • ^
    • v
    As the parent of 2 I always question a film that has not been rated. That in itself tells me that I should learn more about the film before taking my children. The only way I'd consider it without researching the film further would be if the film specifically said it was a family or childrens film.

    While the description for this film may not have been as detailed as it could, at what point do we, as parents, take responsibility for what we expose our children to?
    • ^
    • v
    I love these comments.

    Yes, as parents we are responsible, but there are a few reasons why I didn't double-check on this movie.

    1. The description read, as one person put it, "like an episode of Will and Grace." My son actually picked this movie out and I opted in because there wasn't anything else I was dying to see in that time slot. (He's a teenager and has been to many "R" movies - he loved Borat but had to throw away his ticket to Borat: Uncensored after the film festival said "No one under 17 - but even he might have thought twice if he knew about the sex ahead of time. He's fairly modest.). The description of "Eleven Men Out," however, did not lead me to even THINK about double-checking it. Many foreign films are unrated, so that alone hasn't been a red flag to me.

    2. The film festival doesn't give us a heckuva lot of time to double-check these things. I think the lineup came out on Thursday and tickets to Friends went on sale the following day at noon.

    3. The film festival thought it appropriate to warn people about Borat: Uncensored and The Ten, which made me think they would warn people about other movies that might not be appropriate for kids (and squeamish adults). All it would have taken were the words "graphic sex and strong language" in the description. Those words, coupled with the ones in the existing description, would have clued us in to what we would be seeing and we could have made an informed choice.

    4. I'm kind of surprised no one from the film festival has weighed in on this yet. Not so much this blog, but there was an item in the paper about it, too. If the film festival isn't going to include some kind of heads-up about movies like this, then I sure hope the lineup comes out earlier so I can double-check the 30 or so movies we buy tickets to ...
    • ^
    • v
    FYI, the "Michael" commenting on here is not Michael Moore.
    • ^
    • v
    At the Volunteer Thank-you Party on Monday (Aug. 6), Michael (Moore) referred to the film, "Eleven Men Out," and said they probably should be more careful in their movie descriptions in the future. He hoped the students seeing the movie didn't need counseling.
    • ^
    • v
    There's a story in Friday's Record-Eagle.

    www.record-eagle.com/2007/aug/10eleven.htm
    • ^
    • v
    Ummm, let's talk about the huge elephant in the room. Does not the word "gay" connotate adult themes? Not that it would necessarily have foreshadowed the sex scenes and other yuck, but it certainly stood out more than "soccer" when I read the description. That said, I do think that a heads up would have been appropriate. It is too bad that it happened like this, but lesson learned by the FF and attendees. I will look harder next time too, for my own sake. Funny, it never occurred to me that kids would even attend an independant film festival. Not that I thought it was wrong, it was just a paradigm that I had unknowingly held, regarding their interests.
    • ^
    • v
    The Film Festival obviously screwed up by not providing a warning about the adult content of this film. Graphic sex scenes, whether they are gay or straight or anything in between, are not the type of thing that most parents would want their children to see.

    That said, assuming that attendees would think that the word "gay" connotated adult themes was the exact mistake that FF organizers made. It doesn't. The graphic content in this movie aside, the story of what professional athletes go through when they "come out" is especially relevent considering that more than a few have done that lately. The issues that people like Billy Bean (who played for the Tigers, Dodgers, and Padres), NBA player John Amaechi and several others have dealt with have little to do with adult themes, other than the fact that those issues could be too complex for children to understand... not because they have anything to do with sex.

    In response to "Me" (the guy who thought that TC was not ready for a movie like this): Traverse City is not in a bubble. I'm sure that the graphic sex scenes made you and the entire theater uncomfortable. Frankly, watching a graphic sex scene onscreen in a room surrounded by other people probably wouldn't make anyone feel comfortable! The fact that there was not proper disclosure prior to the film was a major mistake, but there is nothing about it that mature adults in Traverse City or anywhere else can't deal with.

    In terms of the gay pride parade, you're partially right. There usually aren't transvestites in gay pride parades, because the word "transvestite" is used to describe heterosexual men who like to wear female clothing, and there is nothing gay about them. BUT, pride parades do usually feature drag queens, shirtless guys on floats with dance music, as well as elected officials, church groups, parents and grandparents, children, pets, and floats for business organizations, nonprofits, and even schools. They are fun (even straight people love to watch them and be in them), and make about as much sense as throwing a festival to celebrate a kind of fruit. The depiction in the film was not necessarily that far off, it just didn't cover the entire parade!

    As a gay man myself, I don't understand what you mean by "regular." Two months ago, a group made up of myself and some friends (both gay and straight) went to see a drag show. Among the other people in the audience was former Bush White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card with some of his family. Donald Rumsfeld was at another one of these shows. Straight guys seem to like watching drag shows as much as the gay ones. Meanwhile, I know several guys who are in the US Navy who are gay, in fact, two of them have recently been transferred to Iraq. I'm sure they would have hated the show. I have friends who are gay that belong to the NRA and love hunting, but I also know some straight guys who like to wear expensive clothes and go clubbing all night.

    We are all "regular" to the extent that we are different. If a prominent right-wing Republican can watch a drag show in Key West, then people in TC are ready for this kind of movie. Whether they like it or not is a completely different issue.
    • ^
    • v
    OK OK... I understand the poor parents that were going to see the film with their football loving kids (it's called football, not soccer!) being angry. I'm not familiar with how the film was advertised but it sounds like it should have been a bit more specific. BUT, then again, Sexuality and a little male frontal should be a hell of a lot more normal to a human being than seeing Rambo slaughtering hundreds of Vietnamese. The sick moral double standards that are so prevalent in American culture can really get me angry! Dont get me wrong, I love America... Well, actually, I love the idea of America, cause the actual reality of it is FAR removed from the original idea of freedom from the oppressive powers of the European elite, now the World Order Elite.
    But Back to the Topic at hand!
    I think that this quirky comedy is just a healthy slap in the face for all you "morally superior" people out there that cant stand to watch a few colors of the human interaction rainbow shaded with some dark humor!

    So aside from the error of not warning you "soccer parents", bringing your little ones, to the TERRIBLE, soul destroying sin of the full male frontal. I think the decision of showing Eleven Men Out at this festival was a brave and intelligent way of slightly shaking the otherwise sheltered middle American minds of Traverse :)

    and remember Sex is better than Violence and Murder...

    Got nothing but love for ya people,
    the Viking

    Oh, and by the way, The Gay pride parade was not staged for this film.... it was an actual gay pride parade in Reykjavik, Iceland.Which, I might add, is one of the most popular event of the summer, for both gay, straight and families with little ones alike.

    But again, I got love for you brothers and sisters of different opinions... cause it takes all sort I guess ;)
    • ^
    • v
    This film was banned for under 14 in Iceland, so I guess that's somewhere between a PG13 and R rating in the US. It certainly doesn't warrant a NC-17 rating, let alone being banned for people under 18, as someone suggested here.

    I saw this movie a while back, and while I certainly wouldn't take a 12 year old or younger to see it, mostly because they would probably feel uncomfortable, I don't think its inappropriate for teenagers nor do I think that anyone would need therapy after seeing this film. I realize that US culture is a bit more prudish, especially in small-town America (having lived there myself), but this is the 21st century after all.

    Also, I'm surprised that at least one person who commented here thought that the pride parade was disturbing in some way. FYI that was filmed during an actual gay pride parade in Reykjavik, which is a huge family event and around 60.000 people attended this year, in a country of only 300.000. :)
    • ^
    • v
    I think anyone who would take a child to a film festival without vetting the films they intend to see thoroughly beforehand is naive and/or obviously is not very experienced in seeing independent or foreign films.

    These type of film NEVER follow the 'expected' on any level, be it plot, content or the quality of the actors. The descriptions of these films rarely capture what you watch on the screen. And all this is precisely the fun of seeing these films!

    Seems to me that some folks in TC just got a big lesson as FFgoers. To those that think the FF should be a 'family event', I think that this is antithetical to the premise of a film festival. Who would bother standing in line for days or hours online trying to buy tickets to see the sort of sanitized bubblegum film one can catch at any screen featuring the latest pixar/disney flick.

    Perhaps this experience has created one more lesson that may be worth exploring by those who are outraged...consider answering for yourself some of the apt questions posed by some of the posters here. I think looking for these answers inside yourself might be a valuable process of self discovery.

    I made this same journey after seeing a film with explicit homosexual content myself some years ago. I didn't like my answers much as to why I was mortified and made a point to change as result.
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus