The Squid and the Whale

[mouton]

THE SQUID AND THE WHALE
Written and Directed by Noam Baumbach


So rarely does a film say so much, so genuinely through simple, naturalistic dialogue about it’s characters, their plights, their story. And so rarely is it told so beautifully, so painfully and so honestly without being manipulative or obvious. “The Squid and the Whale” is that unique exception, that kind of film that you walk away from feeling lucky, fortunate for having seen it. This is a film about relationships, ranging from the influences our most intimate relationships have on us to the lengths we will go to to maintain these relationships and the difficulties experienced when trying to establish new ones with ourselves.

The setting for this exploration is the newly broken home of the Berkman family in 1980’s Brooklyn. We know from the moment we see the Berkman’s as they play a doubles tennis game with passive-aggressive unrest that they’re all playing a losing game. Bernard and Joan Berkman (played by Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney) had been together for nearly fifteen years and had two children during the course of their marriage, Frank and Walt, both in different stages of adolescence. As their relationship is at the point of its dissolution, the focus is placed on the children’s struggle to contextualize and understand their new joint custody lives. Bernard and Joan are left to discover a more significant relationship with themselves, a concept that had long since disappeared when their marital problems began to monopolize their attentions.

As Bernard Berkman, Jeff Daniels is superbly understated. As a once-acclaimed author whose successful past work has stumped him from producing anything new or of worth, Bernard is entirely baffled as to why he has found himself excommunicated from his home and living in a beat up house on the other side of the park. Daniels carries himself with pride and pompousness and never allows any hint of remorse or reevaluation to show in his eyes. The rousing performance is both brave and fresh; I felt as if I had seen a whole new dynamic to Daniels’ abilities. Bernard’s arrogance becomes all the more sad and contemptible when his eldest son, Frank is seen emulating his father’s ideals on topics as diverse as literature and women. Like his father, Frank only appreciates high art, carelessly dismissing anything that his father does not deem worthy despite having no formal knowledge of the art he praises. His opinions become hollow regurgitations that serve only to give himself the appearance of being more cultured than he truly is. He knows very much about very little. And like his father, he believes himself to be far more important than he truly is, causing him to view his relationships with women to be interchangeable depending on what opportunity presents itself and to see a woman’s purpose to be solely for serving his own needs.

Frank’s relationship with his mother, Joan is almost entirely severed after the separation. The blame needs to be placed somewhere and as it was Mom’s decision, this seems to be the best place to put it. Besides, what could possibly make her think she would know what’s better for their family than Bernard would? Joan’s presence is sparse and selfish, leaving Linney’s talents underused. Baumbach, pulling double duty as screenwriter, practically writes her character out of the story. Her career as an author is emerging and her sexuality and self-discovery burgeoning. Her character is more relevant as absent, leaving the men to fend for themselves for some much deserved me-time.

This absence has the most impact on youngest son, Walt, who is just entering his teens. With Frank constantly feeding his father’s ego, Walt is almost useless to Bernard, leaving him to his own devices. With little supervision or guidance, Walt feels his way through most situations, often making decisions that alienate him from society, making him reclusive and withdrawn while all the while naively participating in increasingly more destructive behaviour. It is too easy to dismiss Walt as lost cause in response to his behaviour as he is the only character who does not fear the future though he does not necessarily understand all of it.

Baumbach’s quiet masterpiece is the filet of the broken family genre. By demonstrating the effects of parents struggling to remain involved and not forgotten as well as reasonably putting themselves before their children, Baumbach shows how the Berkman’s selfishness leads directly to the children’s scrambling to regain their balance. That their selfishness is both warranted and understandable is what leads “The Squid and the Whale” to be the most levelheaded and pertinent film dealing with divorce I’ve ever seen.

[oscar jubis]

THE SQUID AND THE WHALE (USA, 2005)

The Squid and the Whale opens with a doubles tennis match that neatly diagrams the dynamics of the Berkman family and foreshadows the plot. The stridently competitive Bernard (Jeff Daniels) advises his 16 year old son Walt to take advantage of his wife Joan's weak backhand stroke. Joan (Laura Linney) and 12 y.o. Frank are clearly at a disadvantage, but they are not nearly as invested in winning.

We learn about Bernard and Joan's decision to divorce just before they organize a family conference. They discuss Bernard's moving-out and joint custody arrangements with the kids. Over the next few months, we witness Walt and Frank's attempts to understand what happened to their parents, adjudicate blame, and adapt to the inherent changes. The Squid and the Whale is their movie. It's more specifically about the effects of divorce on children than about the dissolution of a marriage. What's given primacy is not what happened to Bernard and Joan but what their kids believe happened to them and how these beliefs affect their relationships and their behavior (particularly sexual behavior). Because Walt is writer/director's Noah Baumbach's alter-ego, the film is devoted to dramatizing Walt's over-identification with his insecure, conceited father and his antagonism towards mother. Walt models himself after Bernard, adopting his views and following his advice. Both adults have Ph.D.'s in literature and recently Bernard is having difficulty getting published while Joan's career is taking off. Bernard's wounded self-esteem seems to have contaminated Walt, who seems desperate to impress others. At one point, just prior to performing Pink Floyd's "Hey You" (from an album that sold in the millions), he introduces the song to the audience as his own. He also attempts to parrot his father's opinions about books and art, risibly referring to "Metamorphosis" as Kafkaesque, for instance. The tone of the film is perfectly calibrated so that humor and pathos commingle at moments like these. The Squid and the Whale proceeds to the satisfying point in which Walt develops a more realistic and balanced picture of his parents. Perhaps the scene that I found most affecting involves his realization that he may have missed out on something special with a girl by following dad's dubious advice.

Faced with Bernard's personality problems and professional jealousy, Joan's maladaptive response is infidelity. This is an inference, not something clearly spelled out in the film. As I've said before, The Squid and the Whale is focused on how the kids react to what they learn about their parents at the point of separation. Just like Walt's problems mirror dad's shortcomings, there's a correspondence between Frank's issues and Joan's, particularly if we consider her cheating on Bernard as a form of sexual acting-out. At the door of puberty and newly aware of mom as a sexual being, Frank acts out by masturbating in public and smearing semen on lockers and library books. There appears to be an incestual quality to his fantasies when he uses mom's lingerie as wanking props.

The Squid and the Whale is based on the personal experiences of writer/director Noah Baumbach (Mr. Jealousy, Kicking and Screaming), son of novelist Jonathan Baumbach and former Voice critic Georgia Brown. The first draft of the script set the film in the present, with Walt and Frank as 30-somethings looking back on their parents' separation via flashbacks. A first viewing of Louis Malle's Murmur of the Heart convinced Baumbach to set it in 1986 and create something more urgent, immediate and candid. The resulting film is nakedly honest and remarkably clearheaded. Shooting on Super 16 with a steady handheld camera are obviously good choices as they facilitate immediacy and give The Squid and the Whale a lived-in quality (akin to the Super 16 films Jim Jarmusch and Spike Lee made in the mid-80s). The quality performances by Daniels, Linney, Jesse Eisenberg as Walt, and Owen Kline as Frank are also essential to the success of the film. Jeff Daniels in particular manages the difficult task of conveying the basic decency inside the often petty, pathetic and pompous Bernard.

My sole complaint about The Squid and the Whale concerns its failure to further develop the character of Frank. The film abandons him at the point in which his parents are summoned by a school counselor and told of his anti-social behavior. I ask, why include this scene if there isn't a subsequent one in which Frank is confronted? Are we to assume that his liberal, open-minded parents decide to do nothing? It seems rather niggardly of Baumbach to take the story to the point where Walt experiences significant development and growth as a human being while leaving Walt stuck in dysfunctional limbo. It's only with regards to Frank that I wish Baumbach had stuck to his original intention to set the film in the present, so that we'd had an inkling on what became of him. Otherwise, I found The Squid and the Whale, a title inspired by a diorama at the Museum of Natural History, quite satisfying and highly accomplished.

[Chris Knipp]

My NYFF capsule review:


Baumbach has crafted a "semi-autobiographical" but fully specific comedy about growing up with a little brother in the Park Slope section Brooklyn in the Eighties with literary parents who're splitting up. Baumbach co-wrote The Life Aquatic with Wes Anderson; here he's on his own. A bearded Jeff Daniels and plain Laura Linney give balanced readings of their parts as the defensively pretentious writing teacher dad whose days of published success fade while his wife gets a book contract and her novel is excerpted in The New Yorker. Jesse Eisenberg and Owen Kline are fine as the two brothers Walt and Frank who have to deal with the colder details of joint custody while their parents are still throwing verbal barbs at each other and rumors of earlier adulteries are coming out and who get¹s the cat * and the special edition of Bellow's The Victim -- are still up for grabs. William Baldwin is funny but one-note as a laid-back tennis coach called Ivan who turns out to be a wild card. The boys rebel in their different ways and the details of teenage sexuality are painfully detailed. Some will find the antics of the boys and their warring parents squirmy-funny, others will just find them squirmy. There are more embarrassing moments than revelatory ones, but for those who've been here, just seeing the situations may be revelation enough. Baumbach works in close to his subject for sure. The social and period details are very specific and there are some good scenes.

--------

In short, I found it very well done, as you, Oscar, also do. Had not noticed that the issue of Frank was dropped. Some audience members in the Q&A seemed shocked at Frank's behavior; it seemed not unusual to me, but that's one reason why I said some people will find the humor just squirmy. The graphically icky sex of the teenage boys has been commented on by some, and may be considered distracting, a bit overdone, unless that is the main focus as in Russell's Spanking the Monkey (going by the title anyway).

I would qualify what you say, Oscar, and say that George's "over-identification" with his father extends to completely immitating his worst traits and mouthing his pretentious and untrue literary opinions to all and sundry. This too is another area where the movie may overdo things and somewhat spoil an otherwise keen set of observations. George would be better developed as a character if his "over-identification" with his father weren't mere mimicry.

But your description of this film, which is so close to your areas of expertise, is of course excellent. If I seem niggling in its praise in my capsule, it's because in New York it was so much on home ground -- Baubach is a New York boy and his mom worked and was loved at the Village Voice, which did not hesitate do publish puff pieces for it and her at the time of the film's release -- that I felt it was a bit overpraised by critics.

[oscar jubis]

For me, the flaw in The Squid and the Whale is mostly an error of omission. I certainly don't have a problem with what is in it, "icky" sex and Walt's close allegiance with dad included. It all rings true to me.

With regards to omission, Mouton states that Baumbach "practically writes her character out of the story", meaning Linney's. I can see why he'd write that, yet notice how from the beginning the film assumes the p.o.v. of the youngsters. The adults' behavior is only given importance as far as its impact on Walt and Frank. For instance, Bernard almost forcing Anna Paquin's student into fellatio is only important, within this narrative, because Walt caught him. On the other hand, notice how much individual attention Frank gets in the script. Watch him in isolation drinking mother's wine and playing with her undergarments. Frank is the tragic figure in the piece; by self-definition, the philistene-among-intellectuals. In family therapy parlance, we'd call him the "I.P": the identified patient, the member of the family who's screaming for help and needs it more urgently. Baumbach gives him equal billing with Walt for most of the film then forgets about the kid.

Let's get more specific. The Squid and the Whale is the first film I have ever seen in which the parents-summoned-to-the-office scene lacks a corresponding kid-confronted-by-parent(s) scene. I think it's really odd. Is Baumbach implying something about these parents? If he is, Baumbach is being exceedingly oblique. If he isn't implying anything by it, Baumbach is being less than competent as a narrative director, in my opinion. It feels downright cruel to abandon Frank after burdening him with such desperate behaviors, while his big brother is allowed to come-of-age.

[Chris Knipp]

Perhaps you can present these objections to Baumbach in some way. Too bad you weren't at festival screenings when he had a Q & A. I can see a lot of what you say affirms the movie's validity as something about family behavior as you know it as a therapist. But it's less clear how good a movie that makes it. I guess to me where audience response is concerned, I'd be as interested in how it works for people who've had such experiences, as well as ones who haven't. I'm glad you said "rings true" which is better than "real," which always bothers me. As if someone knows and can certify events as "real."

[oscar jubis]

*You're absolutely right when you write "as if someone can certify events as real". I generally assume that when a person says something is real, the word is shorthand for: real for me based on my experience, my observations, and my conception of reality regarding human behavior. I find that being too particular about another's choice of words often detracts from the major substance of the discussion.

*I want to point out that, despite my comments about what I regard as the major flaw in Baumbach's movie, I still think it's very good. Just not a great film. Perhaps 8 out of 10, if I was inclined to grade the films I watch.

[Chris Knipp]

I would give most of the NYFF films an 8/10, though the best were certainly better than this one.

"I find that being too particular about another's choice of words often detracts from the major substance of the discussion."

Really, I think you might save that kind of advice for your therapy clients. We are writers here and words are important and "real" is an essential word, though perhaps more to be appreciated by its absence.

[wpqx]

Well that being said I found the film to be a bit mysoginistic. I mean Joan is very clearly seen as the cause of the problem, and her rapidly quick rebound with Ivan makes you suspicious of what had been going on. I don't think the film paints her in a remotely positive light. However I think more than Frank, it is Walt's perspective we see, perhaps the reason why that confrontation scene was excluded. At the beginning of the film he is overly anxious to identify with his father, and for the longest time so are we. Here's a guy who may be the occasional asshole, but he's not the cause of the dissolution. I think there is certainly some significance to Walt having a poster of The Mother and the Whore in his room.

It is the "father knows best" mentality that makes Bernard both admirable and dispicable. He begins to be selfish, and you can see the way he both pulls Walt closer and pushes Frank away. On the other hand Joan seems to do the opposite, although she seems to make a little more of an effort to reach Walt.

After 25th Hour Anna Paquin must have a lock on student seducing teacher roles. Ironically it wasn't two days ago I was wondering whatever happened to her. Her role is too obvious, as was much of the film in general. It was too easy to see which kid identified with which parent, and their divorce was inevitable after the first scene.

That said I did enjoy the film. What you call "icky sex" I looked at as embarassing humor. There was a great deal of laughing at rather than with, and some scenes that were funny, but you just didn't quite feel right laughing at them. A similar discomfort I found in Happiness, perhaps it was the semen that reminded me of it. I do find it rather odd that it took so damn long for someone to recognize the fact that Walt didn't write "Hey You", and I'm still scratching my head as to why that was even included. Is Walt just an incredibly unoriginal thinker that he must plagerize everything he does?

The style of the film worked at times, but every so often it did cause a headache. Lots of quick cuts, but I had to laugh near the end when Bernard quotes Breathless, and makes references to all the jump cuts in that. Frank is the somewhat tragic figure though, the kid who has some original ideas but none that match his families' ideals. Like most kids his age he doesn't care about great literature and "interesting films". He'd probably rather read comic books and watch ET. Either way the film was enjoyable, but perhaps not quite best picture of the year material.

[Chris Knipp]

Your detailed observations are appreciated. I don't think the movie is misogynistic -- that's just the boys' temporary limitation of pov. Yes, the humor is embarassing, for some people anyway. I don't know if that is wrong, but maybe this is sufficiently a mainstream "family" movie for it to be inapproprate. Likewise I agree the song plagiarism incident is far-fetched -- that he even would do it to begin with, and then that nobody would get it right away. I would have liked more of a feeling that the movie was taking off on its own as an imaginative cration. I was so aware that this was his current wry, humorous, affectionate take on various aspects of his younger days. This is where to me Junebug is better. It's another family story, but it works more as a movie that takes off on its own. The characters aren't just stand-ins for somebody's family but original creations. Or that's how they read to me.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by wpqx
Well that being said I found the film to be a bit mysoginistic. I mean Joan is very clearly seen as the cause of the problem

Joan is very clearly seen by Walt as the cause of the problem. The main narrative arc of the film details how he comes around.

I think more than Frank, it is Walt's perspective we see, perhaps the reason why that confrontation scene was excluded.

Yes, more than Frank's, it's Walt's perspective we see. Yet there are many scenes exclusively from Frank's point of view. He is "the sickest" member (the tragic figure as you put it elsewhere) at the exposition stage. Then Baumbach forgets about him during the film's resolution.

Here's a guy who may be the occasional asshole, but he's not the cause of the dissolution.

I simply felt differently than you about this material. I thought Walt was a regular, consistent asshole with a long history of being an asshole. I felt Joan's infidelity was her way of compensating for having to live with such a pompous and conceited yet insecure jerk. This is only my opinion. Hard to say with certainty, since we mostly get the partial info the kids get.

I think there is certainly some significance to Walt having a poster of The Mother and the Whore in his room.

Indeed. Good point.

It was too easy to see which kid identified with which parent, and their divorce was inevitable after the first scene.

Yep. The battle lines have been drawn for a while by the time the film starts.

Frank is the somewhat tragic figure though, the kid who has some original ideas but none that match his families' ideals. Like most kids his age he doesn't care about great literature and "interesting films". He'd probably rather read comic books and watch ET.

Proud to be a philistene. Gabba Gabba we accept you! One of us! One of Us!

[wpqx]

I just don't like the fact that being a slut is the same as being a feminist and an empowered female. This is a stereotype that's been around since the 70's that never really made much sense to me. I kind of like the fact that the confrontation scene was excluded. It was akward enough watching him smear semen on the lockers, let alone being confronted by his parents. Plus that could have been too cliche, after all you said every other film would have the confrontation scene.

[oscar jubis]

*I don't understand how your first sentence relates to the film or to any comments posted about it here.

*You're correct in that I said that every other movie would follow the parents-summoned-to-office scene with a kid-confronted-by-parent(s) scene. I believe the reason this is so is that I believe most parents in that situation would confront the kid because the behavior is a sign of a problem, a "cry for help". Its omission here may indicate Joan and Bernard are embarrased to bring it up, don't see the behavior as a problem, or simply don't care. None of these corresponds with my impression of either parent (which may differ from that of other viewers). So I regard it as a narrative flaw, given that Baumbach chose to include the scene at the school office.

[wpqx]

The line about being a slut and a feminist is my own ranting. I've been recently looking into "feminst film" and the only thing I can think of to separate normal women from feminists is being sexually promiscous (spelling?) Joan is a woman who does seem to be rather random about her sex and therefore gives her a distinction of being a bit of a feminist when I might call it just being a slut, just a minor rant.

[oscar jubis]

Thanks. I understand what you mean. Way I see it, everyone's got a right to properly get laid. Given his self-absorption and insecurity, I doubt Bernard has gotten her off for quite a while. I would hope a woman in this predicament would try to work things out with her husband before having sex with others. Maybe Joan did, maybe not; the film simply doesn't go there. The film tells us even less about Bernard's prior sexual behavior. But a scene in which he is on the verge of using force to get a blowjob from Paquin's character gives one food for thought. Maybe they're both "sluts", maybe not.

[Chris Knipp]

The film shows that both parents have weaknesses and strengths, like most people. Bad choices were made. Misbehavior took place. It's unlikely the director/writer means to condemn these people, since he is writing about his own family and still has good relations with the, I believe. The story is just somewhat broadly, wryly depicted. I think you're both trying to interpret the characters a little bit more than the fairly lightweight manner of the screenplay will permit.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
The story is just somewhat broadly, wryly depicted. I think you're both trying to interpret the characters a little bit more than the fairly lightweight manner of the screenplay will permit.

Overall, it's a very good screenplay. A flawed one in my opinion, yet still very good. You obviously disagree with the L.A. Film Critics Assoc., The NY Film Critics Assoc. and the National Board of Review naming it Best Screenplay of 2005.

[Chris Knipp]

Yes I do, but I don't think it's a bad screenplay, what made you think that? There's nothing wrong with a story being "somewhat broadly, wryly depicted," that is true of all Jim Jarmusch and I think he's one of our great ones. I just think TSATW has been somewhat overrated from the start. The same was true of Sideways, it was (in that case, terribly) overrated, but it didn't mean it wasn't a good movie with a good screenplay and excellent acting. People overract to the fact that I say a movie is overrated, and they think I am condemning it. I am not. The fact that you can't read a whole volume on adolescent development and marital relations from this movie doesn't mean it's no good.

[oscar jubis]

Thanks for the clarification, Chris.