PDA

View Full Version : BLUE VALENTINE ( Derek Cianfrance 2010)



Chris Knipp
12-30-2010, 08:43 PM
Derek Cianfrance: BLUE VALENTINE (2010)
Review by Chris Knipp

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/539/KEt1UJ.jpg
MICHELLE WILLIAMS AND RYAN GOSLING IN BLUE VALENTINE

Hallmark gone bad

Blue Valentine? Indeed. Dean and Cindy's love story is tinged with magic but things have turned very wrong. If this is a celebration of love, it's tinged with deep sadness. The film expresses the bittersweet quality of such relationships, of the honeymoon that goes wrong when the child is six and the partners aren't in sync anymore, by telling both stories, of the early meetings and the serious decline, simultaneously. And as Dean and Cindy, Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams put on a virtual tour de force show of naturalistic, improvisational acting that's awesome, if rather exhausting, to experience because such openness is on display, such raw emotion, such a lack of reserve. Tight camerawork often reinforces this effect by making things too close for comfort. And there is a lot to deal with here too. There is enough material in the two-hour running time for three movies. Cianfrance and his co-screenwriters Joey Curtis and Cami Delavigne have a host of precise observations, gestures, turns of phrase.

No wonder Blue Valentine has been nominated for four Gothan Awards and the Suindnce Grand Jury Prize. And yet, this strong and original film is also seriously flawed. As acting, it's hard to fault. But as storytelling that would make sense of events and of the emotions on display, it leaves much to be desired. This is simply a matter of structure. The binary narrative goes astray almost from the beginning. It's awkward and confusing, and finally ham-handed.

Williams has never seemed more authentic, present, and vulnerable, and Gosling gives a miraculously spontaneous impression of a young working class man whose lumpen lack of ambition rarely gets in the way of his enthusiasm for life. Gosling in The Believer was remarkable. But it almost just seemed he took a terrific concept -- a good Jewish boy who turns into a violent Nazi skinhead -- and ran with it totally. He's obviously always been an actor willing to go all-out, and to take chances. But Dean is no gimmick. He's a high school dropout estranged from his parents and works for a moving company. A drinker, a guy with no ambition, caught unawares by becoming a husband and father, he's the epitome of the "homme moyen sensuel," the average unintellectual man, with ordinary tastes and appetites. But there's no condescension, caricature, or gimmickry in Gosling's performance as Dean. In his other recent film, All Good Things, saddled with a mysterious cipher of a man, Gosling never found his character or his rhythm. Here he's got them the minute he comes on screen, so perfectly that you don't even think, "That's Ryan Gosling," not for a quarter of an hour anyway, by which time he's got you fascinated. This performance shows what a gift the actor has. Williams is harder to judge, recessive. But she gradually blooms, and the contrasts she goes through between the increasingly joyous early stages and the increasingly disenchanted and fed up later ones in the alternating scenes of the relationship are stark, but in every case real and unforced. She shows great talent here too.

The trouble is with the cutting back and forth. The viewer is over-strained in trying to make sense of the two chronological periods. And beside that, there aren't just two, because the early stage covers a considerable, but indeterminate, period. In the end it becomes hopelessly confusing. In the constant effort to contrast, parallel, or interset sequences from alternate periods (which are never exactly specified), certain details, such as Cindy's job, are under-presented. Worst of all, the disintegration of the relationship is not delineated well. There is a forced weekend at a tacky lovers' motel that goes wrong. But what leads up to Cindy's withdrawal into her cocoon before that? The whole film focuses too much on emotion and not enough on the day to day events that give rise to changes of feeling. There's an implication that Cindy blames Dean for what goes wrong, but no indication that she is any more thoughtful, well-planned, or mature than he is, to justify her position. Finally, as a narrative, despite all its materials, the film begins to seem a complete shambles, haphazardly edited and not fully thought out.

Which seems an enormous shame, because there are amazing scenes here. This is a movie that you remember even though it never seems quite right. Derek Cianfrance is great with actors and clearly has talent beyond the ordinary. But he and his co-writers need to make some clearer decisions about where their film is going next time. Blue Valentine gives us the pieces and expects us to put them together into something coherent on our own. We can't. But the performances are remarkable.

Blue Valentine debuted at Sundance, screened at Cannes, Telluride, Toronto and London, and has been shown in a number of other film festivals. The US theatrical release date (limited: NY/LAA) is December 31, 2010; Jan. 7, 2011 in the "top 10 markets," including San Francisco. A January 14 release date is set for the UK.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/860/41575409530865011205148.jpg

oscar jubis
01-18-2011, 12:57 AM
BLUE VALENTINE

When the film starts, the marriage between Dean and Cindy is already in serious disrepair; they no longer share the bed and the presence of their daughter is the only instigator of pleasant interaction. This Valentine's Day begins with Dean finding out their dog has run away and ends in the "future room" at a themed adult motel, where Dean attempts to restore some romance and passion to their marriage. In between, Cindy runs into an old lover at the liquor store. This chance meeting triggers an argument between Dean and Cindy, whose memories motivate the first of several flashbacks which cover the period from their introductory meeting to their marriage ceremony.

Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are thoroughly and consistently convincing in the lead roles. Director and co-writer Derek Cianfrance works within the John Cassavetes tradition in which the authenticity of the dialogue is never sacrificed for the purpose of narrative exposition and the performances dictate the mise-en-scene. The camera functions here as a microscope, closely scrutinizing the expressive qualities of these impeccable actors.

The early scenes and the title forecast a sad ending, so the prevailing question the material instigates in the mind of the viewer is how and why did the relationship sour. More than answering the question, Blue Valentine offers clues, or material from which the viewer can infer an answer. The non-directive quality of the material provides a wide interpretative range to the viewer; this became most evident to me while reading a few critical reviews. A post-viewing discussion among attentive viewers could prove quite rewarding given the multiplicity of responses to the film's prevailing question. A much longer, spoiler-tagged piece would be required to dwell into the details of particularly significant scenes and their sequencing. I'll just say for now that Blue Valentine seems to be saying that the seeds of marital discontent were already present during courtship. That nothing unpredictable happened in the long interim between the two discrete time periods to which we are privy. That Dean and Cindy were doomed to fail as a couple from the beginning, that they should have seen it coming. And perhaps, that we are viewing a rather typical story which incites moments of recognition in many of us in the audience.

Chris Knipp
01-18-2011, 02:17 AM
This kind of structure has a gimmicky feel to me. It has been fashionable for some time to chop up chronology or run it backward, as in Memento, Ozon's 4X2, Noé's Irreversible. Such arrangements may feel as though they evoke the complexity of memory or of an emotional chronology that overrides logic. Scenes from a marriage, early and late. This is a very good way to spotlight a marriage that didn't work out, that began romantically and then went slowly and ever more horribly wrong. It's an approach that works well for a short story, or for a short play, or for a movie. However Cianfrance does something that some critics have found careless and slopppy more than profound. I think Blue Valentine would be regarded as at best an interesting experiment that didn't quite jell if it were not for the performances of Gosling and Williams. J.R. Jones of Chicago Reader: "The performances are so gripping that the movie works despite its diagrammatic structure, which focuses on ironic rhymes between past and present and leaves out the entirety of the couple's marriage." This hollowness at the core, so to spleak, has been noticed by many; besides which, the structure is sufficiently lacking in clear signposts to make which end of the relationship we're at sometimes unclear. Others hence wouldn't describe the structure as "diagrammatic," preferring to look at it as simply choppy, material that has been shuffled without quite enough internal logic. You can say that it's interesting for the viewer or student or critic to have multiple interpretations of how the material fits together, and it is, but the fact that a film makes a good topic of debate doesn't necessarily mean it's a successful film. For when all is said and done Cianfrance has cheated a bit simply in the human terms of depicting a couple's experience. He has gone for the dramatic highlights, the honeymoon phase and the breakdown phase -- omitting what A.E. Housman called "the long littleness of life" -- which is life's, and a marriage's, essence -- the kind of material, say, Mike Leigh gives the viewer. What many find unsatisfying here however is not the omission of a mass of quotidian detail, but the essential moment that great writers like Jane Austen and Henry James made it their business to elucidate: the turning points, the moments when relationships and people subtly and irreversibly changed. I would put it to you that Derek Cianfrance is a young man who hasn't honed his observational skills to the point where he can delineate those moments, and so he skips them, and hopes we won't mind, because he gives us a puzzle to play with. It's only acceptable because the acting's so great. I would not question the acting for a moment, and that's why this movie has gotten such a great ride with critics and viewers, an 80 rating on Metacritic and an 8.1 user's score on IMDb. I'll bet that's higher than anybody hoped at the outset. It has surprised me. I saw the movie a long time before there were more than a handful of reviews and I didn't see any.

Another aspect is that the Cassavetes-esque improvisation further complicates the structure, which J.R. Jomes may be off in calling "diagrammatic" (though he's getting at something too, because when there's chaos, there's a diagram to make sense of it). Hence Betsy Shakey of the LA Times writes, "That meandering dialogue can be difficult to control, and at times the film feels as if the director has stepped away from the vehicle, leaving it to veer off the path. Still, it's an experiment that works more than it fails by giving Gosling and Williams both the motive and the means to create something extraordinary, a valentine that actually says something true about being in love." Again, the suggestion that things are a bit of a mess, but the strong performances save it. I don't agree with A.O. Scott's claiim tha the characters are never developed enough, though that's a possible outcome of the film's design, or with Karina Longworth's in the Voice that Cianfrance is so shallow with his female character as to seem misogynistic, but all this mystery, can be great in a truly successful work of art, but it can only be pulling the wool over eyes in a work that falls a little short, as this one does. But given the material the cast provided, with enough tweaks this might have been a good movie. I also do not buy the idea reiterated by many that it's a wallow in misery. It is an honest try to look at the highs and lows of a relationship and in that aspect I agree it is universal.

oscar jubis
01-21-2011, 11:29 AM
This kind of structure has a gimmicky feel to me. It has been fashionable for some time to chop up chronology or run it backward, as in Memento, Ozon's 4X2, Noé's Irreversible. Such arrangements may feel as though they evoke the complexity of memory or of an emotional chronology that overrides logic. Scenes from a marriage, early and late.
I do not understand what is "gimmicky" about the structure. The film is set in the present, during a period of just over 24 hours, and uses flashbacks to show how they met and the events leading to their wedding. We are not shown scenes from early in their marriage.

the structure is sufficiently lacking in clear signposts to make which end of the relationship we're at sometimes unclear.
This was not at all my experience, to be honest. Cianfrance and DP Andrij Parehk (Sugar, Half Nelson) use film for the flashbacks and DV for the contemporary scenes to create a different visual texture, the color palette is different too, the make-up folks give Dean a receding hairline in the contemporary scenes, and there are several contextual clues that kept me well-oriented throughout. I don't disregard your experience with the film and that of others with similar reaction to the material but it is different than mine.

What many find unsatisfying here however is not the omission of a mass of quotidian detail, but the essential moment that great writers like Jane Austen and Henry James made it their business to elucidate: the turning points, the moments when relationships and people subtly and irreversibly changed.
True. My conclusion, as stated in my review, is that nothing WENT wrong. It WAS wrong from the beginning. We learn that Dean and Cindy are damaged to begin with. He was wounded by the absence of his parents and she was wounded by the noxious presence of her parents in her life. They are ill-equipped for marriage, at least at this young age. Besides, they are grossly mismatched. She had ambitions of becoming a doctor while he seems proud to have dropped out of high school. And that, to a considerable extent, they got married because Cindy was pregnant and doesn't know who is the biological father. Dean explains to his co-worker at a moving company: It is men who buy into romance while "girls get to a place where they just kinda pick the best option." That is the closest these characters get to a revelation. These are not the eloquent and self-reflexive characters of Classical Hollywood melodrama, and I think it suits them.

Chris Knipp
01-21-2011, 11:38 AM
You have neatly pointed out how we differ. Therre's not much for me to add. It's a different reading and a different response and a different evaluation. All I can say is, like others I have read, talked to, and cited, we find the film, especially structurally, is not up to the acting. But obviously a critical majority in the US find the film affecting and powerful as a whole, as you do. I could agree with you that the couple were 'mismatched from the start,' but that's hindsight. If they'd had a happy marriage, those 'mismatch' qualities would have turned out not to matter. But the difference in ambition is a big difference. However I know a very happy couple who are very like that, the wife ambitious and energetic, the husband staying home and watching TV and keeping the same undemanding job for decades. However, he's not an alcoholic. That could be the tipping point. That behavior was probably not in evidence when this couple were first dating.

oscar jubis
01-21-2011, 06:49 PM
This is/was a productive exchange for me, Chris, as it helped me to elucidate my reaction and to consider alternative takes on the film. I think you are right to point out the dearth of dramatic turning points, or at least obvious ones. The reticent script places unusual demands on Gosling and Williams and, I think, they come through. The film demands the active participation of the viewer and, I think, rewards it.

Chris Knipp
01-21-2011, 09:41 PM
Glad to hear that. I think also you like films that are challenging to decode more than I may, in some cases (not all; I like mystery too; I'm just very particular about how and why it is imposed). You probably would prefer Ulysses to A Portrait of the Artist, and would like Finegans Wake even more. Sometimes great performances bloom in the editing room and sometimes they lose some of their luster. Either way, I remain convinced the acting is awesome by both Williams and Gosling, as I've said all along.

oscar jubis
01-22-2011, 12:34 AM
Right on. I have yet to comment on any film awards this season. Nominations and awards really matter to movies like Blue Valentine. Check this quote from boxofficemojo.com: "the movie's chances of substantial further expansion will likely be based on whether or not stars Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams earn Academy Award nominations next Tuesday". I hope they do. If Greenberg, my favorite American film of 2010, received a nomination, then I would really be happy.