The Weather Man (2005) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

If you read our site regularly, you know that our essays are not usually about whether movies are "good" or "bad." Oh, there are some films which are just plain bad, but with those few exceptions, most movies constructed by professional filmmakers are considered "good" by a fairly sizeable number of people. Some films have a broader appeal than others, of course, but that does not make them better. Indeed, one might argue that quite the opposite is true - that a very broad audience indicates that a film panders to the lowest common denominator.

That may or may not be true, but is outside the purview of today's discussion, which centers on identifying the audience for The Weather Man. I think I can do that quite accurately, because it has a very specific target market. I was first led to the identification of that market by the IMDb "external review" page. I was curious about Mr. Cranky's reaction to this film, and I looked for his review - unsuccessfully. In its normal place was a review from Mr. Smiley. Mr Smiley, who up until recently had been Cranky, loved the film because, "This film is actually filmed in Chicago, and to be perfectly honest, I just love Chicago so much that a movie could be about beating kittens to death and I'd still love it if the Chicago scenery were good because I'd sit in the theater and point and grin and think to myself "ooh, I've been there." What Cranky/Smiley didn't mention is that Chicago not only played the part of Chicago, but also played the part of New York late in the film, when the lead character took a job in The Big Apple and got to appear in the Macy's parade - which actually went past Marshall Fields!

I didn't think much about it at the time, since it was obvious that Cranky's review was ironic, but I soon realized that he was definitely onto something with that Chicago point. I went to the Metacritic page and noticed that the film's three best reviews are from the only three Chicago critics. Here's the critical average at that page:

That's a very large difference. The average critic basically said, "Two and a half stars - not bad enough to pan, not good enough to recommend." Chicago critics basically said, "Three and a half stars" - near genius." (For the record, Richard Roeper, who is not covered by Metacritic, also gave it a "thumb up"!) New York critics said, "Not even two stars - basically horseshit." So it seems to me that the audience for the film is quite evident: film critics from Chicago. To be fair, let me point out that other people might like this film as well. I would also recommend it for film critics from Evanston and Joliet, possibly even those in Kenosha, Wisconsin or Gary, Indiana.

If you aren't a film critic, you might consider using Alexander Payne films as your guideline. The Weather Man is about a man who is deeply disappointed with the outcome of his life, and expresses that disappointment in a series of interior monologues in which he talks sincerely to the audience, or maybe to himself. Jack Nicholson did this in About Schmidt; Matthew Broderick in Election; Nic Cage in The Weather Man. In each case, the narrator is not an especially likeable character and he expresses ideas with which we cannot sympathize. In each case, the character is somewhat pathetic, but not an absolute loser. In each case, the film is supposed to be a comedy, but will probably leave you in a sad mood as you exit the theater.

Here's my theory:

• Find 100 people who don't know anything about directors.
• Show them Election, About Schmidt and The Weather Man.
• Tell them two of the films were directed by the same man, but the third was directed by someone else. Ask them to choose the "odd man out."

I'm pretty sure that The Weather Man would get picked by no more people than the other two. It's a Payne film without Payne. The IMDb scores are also similar: Election 7.4, About Schmidt 7.3, The Weather Man 7.1. All good films, all worthwhile, although none masterpieces. None of them reached a very broad audience. If you liked the other two, you'll probably like The Weather Man as well.

For the record, I liked The Weather Man better than I like those two Payne movies. Two reasons.

• First, the central character is not totally self-deluded. This one fact closes some of the infinite distance that Payne always puts between the audience and his central characters. We look down on and feel sorry for Payne's protagonists, but Steve Conrad's script for this film is subtle enough that the audience can relate to the Cage character even though he is kind of an asshole. Although Cage's Weather Man is basically a superficial douchebag, he knows of his failings, and hopes to change himself. Furthermore, he realizes that he can't accomplish anything instantly, nor ever completely overcome his inherent douchebaggery, yet he can still improve and strive to be a better person. In other words there will be no magical Hollywood or Dickensian redemption for the character. We are not left thinking his life will turn around, but we do feel that he will make some hard and selfless choices in the future instead of always thinking only of himself and taking the easy way out.
• Second, the wise, centering presence of Michael Caine provides the audience with an emotional door into the film. That portal is something which I really miss in Payne's smart-ass films, in which we tend to learn that nearly every human being is essentially despicable.