I had planned to ignore "The Sea Inside" after initially viewing it, assuming it would be another one of these small films that would creep out of the theaters unnoticed and forgotten. To my dismay, it was recently nominated by the Academy for Best Foreign Film over deserving films like "House of Flying Daggers," bleakly ensuring "Sea" a run of at least another two months. So I feel it my duty to break the bad news for the critics who wept for this film: "The Sea Inside" is a terrible, and terribly simple movie. This does not take away from the excellent performance by Javier Bardem, who in the film plays a quadriplegic named Ramon condemned to a life in bed. As Bardem spends most of the movie under sheets, the role is exceedingly more difficult than the casual film-goer may be led to believe. In short, it's a masterful job of communicating charisma and pathos through facial tics alone. In the hands or more aptly face of a less capable actor, this role could be not just profoundly boring, but terribly frustrating. Bardem, the great actor he is, commits a fine face to the screen. Of course, in all fairness, since he IS lying on his back for a good portion of the film, it's not the most difficult role ever created. I got a small kick out of seeing him move his head around with that brush, just for the fact that there was finally some movement in his dreary dun bedroom.
With that out of the way, now we can criticize this sappy proselytism. The basic plot line is simple and straightforward and you can read it from the many other reviews on this site. What is not commented on is the dreadfully mawkish manner in which director Alejandro Amenabar chooses to tell his story. Every character gets his and her cameo to shed a tear (with an 's' in some cases), and Amenabar insipidly captures this sentimentality in gross close-up after close-up. Let's face it, folks: Amenabar is no D.W. Griffith, and these grieving mugs aren't in the same league as Lillian Gish. Hell, I'd even settle for Julianne Moore's Gretta Garbo imitation here. But as the director prods us on can't we see the sorrow and grief that not supporting euthanasia is causing? Yes, and that's all we see. Amenabar relies on this type of manipulation for two hours to push his agenda. Let me put it simply: any hack can plunge the knife in our hearts and twist. In my mind, "The Sea Inside" mines territory covered by "Stepmom," by "Beaches," by "Terms of Endearment." This is not intended as a complement.
Amenabar might think he's making waves, but he's really just treading water and going nowhere in his sea of tears as he preaches his sermon. Rather than present an argument for euthanasia, Amenabar settles for cheap good vs. evil storytelling. The chief flaw in this type of presentation about an actual social problem, not only in Spain but also in most of the world, is that there is absolutely no conflict of views. Believers in euthanasia are obviously understanding and sympathetic in the film; detractors of it are pious religious types with no brains of their own, intent on oppressing one's life for selfish and ignorant beliefs. Excuse me if this isn't simplifying the subject, all as the film clumsily sidesteps any moral or social dilemmas this topic has clearly had an effect on in society. Ham-handed attempts at equalizing discussion, such as a mildly amusing "debate" between Ramon and another crippled priest, are not as even as they may seem. I include debate in scare quotes because there really isn't even a reasonable battle of argument; the film clearly sides with RIGHT Ramon and his irreplaceable wit over the less articulate, stubborn, and clearly WRONG priest. By showing scenes like this, Amenabar doesn't want to challenge his own views, and instead piles on more hypocrisy and ad hominem by attacking Ramon's family rather than the issue of euthanasia itself. These instances are just a couple in many (the courtroom scene, the sympathetic lawyer, the didactic conclusion) that show how gutless single-mindedness can ruin a potentially good premise.
Those looking to be converted need not see "Sea." Like Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11," like Mel Gibson and "The Passion of the Christ," Amenabar, here a proud liberal, is only interested in addressing like-minded fans who agree with him. He sticks to his understanding of a sole idea slavishly and ostentatiously. T.S. Eliot, you may recall, said of Henry James that the writer had "too fine a mind to be violated by a single idea." This film, on the other hand, seems entirely to be the violation of a single idea: the unquestionable and unchallenged correctness and political correctness of the verity of euthanasia. I guess it's what we thought all along anyway, right?
With that out of the way, now we can criticize this sappy proselytism. The basic plot line is simple and straightforward and you can read it from the many other reviews on this site. What is not commented on is the dreadfully mawkish manner in which director Alejandro Amenabar chooses to tell his story. Every character gets his and her cameo to shed a tear (with an 's' in some cases), and Amenabar insipidly captures this sentimentality in gross close-up after close-up. Let's face it, folks: Amenabar is no D.W. Griffith, and these grieving mugs aren't in the same league as Lillian Gish. Hell, I'd even settle for Julianne Moore's Gretta Garbo imitation here. But as the director prods us on can't we see the sorrow and grief that not supporting euthanasia is causing? Yes, and that's all we see. Amenabar relies on this type of manipulation for two hours to push his agenda. Let me put it simply: any hack can plunge the knife in our hearts and twist. In my mind, "The Sea Inside" mines territory covered by "Stepmom," by "Beaches," by "Terms of Endearment." This is not intended as a complement.
Amenabar might think he's making waves, but he's really just treading water and going nowhere in his sea of tears as he preaches his sermon. Rather than present an argument for euthanasia, Amenabar settles for cheap good vs. evil storytelling. The chief flaw in this type of presentation about an actual social problem, not only in Spain but also in most of the world, is that there is absolutely no conflict of views. Believers in euthanasia are obviously understanding and sympathetic in the film; detractors of it are pious religious types with no brains of their own, intent on oppressing one's life for selfish and ignorant beliefs. Excuse me if this isn't simplifying the subject, all as the film clumsily sidesteps any moral or social dilemmas this topic has clearly had an effect on in society. Ham-handed attempts at equalizing discussion, such as a mildly amusing "debate" between Ramon and another crippled priest, are not as even as they may seem. I include debate in scare quotes because there really isn't even a reasonable battle of argument; the film clearly sides with RIGHT Ramon and his irreplaceable wit over the less articulate, stubborn, and clearly WRONG priest. By showing scenes like this, Amenabar doesn't want to challenge his own views, and instead piles on more hypocrisy and ad hominem by attacking Ramon's family rather than the issue of euthanasia itself. These instances are just a couple in many (the courtroom scene, the sympathetic lawyer, the didactic conclusion) that show how gutless single-mindedness can ruin a potentially good premise.
Those looking to be converted need not see "Sea." Like Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11," like Mel Gibson and "The Passion of the Christ," Amenabar, here a proud liberal, is only interested in addressing like-minded fans who agree with him. He sticks to his understanding of a sole idea slavishly and ostentatiously. T.S. Eliot, you may recall, said of Henry James that the writer had "too fine a mind to be violated by a single idea." This film, on the other hand, seems entirely to be the violation of a single idea: the unquestionable and unchallenged correctness and political correctness of the verity of euthanasia. I guess it's what we thought all along anyway, right?