Both Johansson and Driver are wonderful actors, unfortunately the characters they play are so vapid and insulated by their privilege they are unrelatable if not downright unreal. The lawyers played by Laura Dern, Ray Liotta, and Alan Alda are the only real rational humans in the film and we are seemingly suppose to view them as coldly pragmatic and mercenary. Their performances are the most compelling because they behave in a way that actually reflects reality. The other characters veer from farcically thin to an attempt, in the case of Charlie's theater company, at a woefully halfhearted Greek chorus. The cast does their best but they are within a hodgepodge of tone and a narrative that assumes engagement solely because it exists.
The cinematic craft on display is masterful, Baumbach is a beautiful conductor of the technical aspect of the production, but his screenwriting ability is self-indulgent and banal to the extreme and as such the story is myopic and absurd to the point it has little to no credibility.
Examples: both Nicole and Charlie act as if they have no understanding whatsoever of the process of divorce in general, the legalities involved, nor fundamental concepts as they pertain to marriage, custody, etc. As the movie has a contemporary setting this is baffling. Either the characters have consumed no media past 1960 and no one they know has been through a divorce and/or they are so blinded by their own terminal uniqueness they somehow believe they are outside the system. Either way their plaintive and aghast posturing to their attorneys rings incredibly false and even if it were believable what is relatable or particularly interesting about characters flailing in their own entitlement?
The issue of finances is given lip service to but one look at Charlie's NYC apartment and Nicole's beautiful LA property, hell even Charlie's "crummy" LA apartment, clearly renders this point moot. And even though Charlie complains about money once or twice neither Charlie nor Nicole are seen to have any financial repercussions what so ever. So clearly they are protected by their upper-middle class security but this is never acknowledged and the filmmaker seems clueless that it exists at all. Which, perhaps, would be fine if the characters were at all interesting.
Early on Nicole basically says the relationship was doomed. We never see them in love nor at a time when their relationship is particularly healthy or really functioning beyond the baseline. As such there is no reason to care about their marriage or their divorce. Yes, Charlie is kind of domineering and Nicole is vaguely sympathetic but there is nothing in particular that defines either of them. There are numerous emotional crescendos but it is clear all this is a result of the couples inability to communicate and their fundamental incompatibility. Their bombastic, scenery chewing arguments in the latter half of the film play out more akin to 20-somethings drunkenly screeching outside a bar than the dynamic emotional epiphanies they are clearly going for.
Substantially more egregious than Little Women it must be asked why this story, why now, why should I care. The appeal of the self-involved artistic inexplicably affluent New Yorker is waning if not diminished completely. We have seen this before not once but countless times. This tale of a relatively emotionally stunted and inept well-to-do couple going through an absurd divorce has no universal appeal. It does not teach us anything about the human condition, it does not inspire, it is a spotlight on a sub-set of a sub-set of society that already has a glut of stories.
Don't See It.
No comments:
Post a Comment