On the Contrary: The BLUE VALENTINE Has No Clothes
I love independent film. I really do. Not just the spirit of adventure and creativity that needs to go into even getting them made or distributed in the first place — though I can always appreciate that. I like that they can be about characters, emotions, and stories that are not for everyone. They can be raw, poetic, genuine, artsy, stylized, or sometimes all of the above. Unlike most big budget studio fare, they can even be surprising, taking the story where it wants to go rather than directions that focus groups or marketing departments think audiences want them to go. Independent movies can be the most thrilling experience you can have in a movie theater.
They can also be a real drag.
My case and point would be BLUE VALENTINE. On paper this should be a home run—a heartfelt indie drama exploring the growth and deterioration of a young married couple. It has two great young actors in Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams (who just received an Oscar nomination for her role), a concept ripe for good drama and character exploration, and a wave of critical accolades (currently 89% on Rotten Tomatoes). It could have been so sweet. Yet I hated it.
Why? Well, I’m sure some of it has to do with the fact that the movie is a deeply flawed exercise in emotional naval gazing, and its performances (while brave) add up to little more than a series of open scenes, the like of which you can find at any community college acting class (albeit played here by more attractive professionals). Its emotional tactics are well trodden by dramas of the past. Watching the scene of the arguments about the husband drinking, the boss awkwardly hitting on the wife, etc, I realized these clichés are the indie drama equivalent (in emotional terms) of the rote car crashes and explosions in big-budget Hollywood action movies.
A movie needs to have something happen, to have the characters argue/cry/shout about something, so rather than come up with an original and potentially enlightening new dramatic beat, the film opts for the easy way. Ryan Gosling asks the same questions repeatedly then gets frustrated and punches a wall; Michelle Williams cries and takes off her clothes (or takes off her clothes and then cries). The emotional beats in this film were repetitive like a Phillip Glass opera.
I could go on forever about what I dislike about this film, but I wouldn’t be anywhere near as eloquent as the contrarian film critic Armond White, who in his review compares the depth of the relationship depicted in the movie to that of a relationship from MTV’s JERSEY SHORE. He points out examples of films that have tackled similar material with much more maturity, wit, and revelation. Walking out of BLUE VALENTINE the first thought I had was how it demonstrated what a brilliant twist on similar themes ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND is.
Here’s the thing, though. BLUE VALENTINE is not a horrible movie. There are good things in it, some great moments, and strong performances (however misguided). Why then do I hate it so much, when a truly bad movie like THE GREEN HORNET inspires no animosity in me?
One reason could be because it seems to be universally respected by critics and many who see it, leaving me with that “Emperor Has No Clothes” feeling. But is that really enough reason? Other than in New York, Los Angeles, and the art houses in a handful of cities, no one is going to see BLUE VALENTINE. It’s not going break box office records. Maybe it will garner an acting Oscar, but in a year no one will really remember it. And as a creative person who values independent film, I should be cheering this movie on. Its success means more movies like it can be made (though hopefully they will be better). Yet I’m not just disappointed—I’m angry at this movie. How dare it fritter away this opportunity to be something special!
In art, particularly movies, we tend to be much harsher judges of things that come close to our taste but then somehow miss the mark. My friend Jason loves character-based independent comedies, but hated THE SQUID AND THE WHALE, a movie I thought would fit right into his sensibilities. From my perspective it was a great little movie, but for him there were a handful of scenes and plot turns that not only made him dislike it—they make him utter an expletive any time I bring the movie up in conversation. I never really understood this—until now.
We develop relationships with movies like we do with loved ones. For two hours we intensely engage emotionally with what is presented to us on the big screen, laughing with it, crying, or becoming frustrated by it. They are like family members, with some being closer than others. It’s always harder to have your mom forget your birthday than some aunt you see every few years. Likewise, it’s much harder when you see a movie that you know should and could be right up your alley but instead find it making a U-turn and heading down Main Street (to strain a metaphor).
BLUE VALENTINE is a deeply flawed movie, but probably is not worth the amount of vitriol I have heaped upon it. Many people might enjoy watching two hours of an unhappy working class married couple who clearly need to get a divorce. I just feel like I’ve seen this story enough in both movies and real life, and would have preferred a movie with some opinion about its story—a filmmaker’s voice—rather than one that just shows actors playing the same intense emotions scene after scene. I mean COME ON! Be about something!
(Joe punches the wall)
And….scene.
i didn’t hate it as much as you because i understand how the writer/director could have sold the idea of the film, won the prize money, gotten actors involved, etc. It’s a compelling little movie about ‘real life’ that is gritty and raw in the most meaty kind of way that actors probably love.
My problem with it is that the two actors in question have done this movie before, way too many times.
Ryan Gosling plays the same guy in every one of his little indie movies since coming of age and it’s a tired act. He perfected it a long time ago and it’s really no different then Stallone or Bruce Willis or Julia Roberts, etc. sliding into an archetype they’ve mastered.
As for Michelle Williams, I think she’s given a little bit more credit because so few actresses pull this kind of role off as well as she does, but like Gosling, I am sick of seeing the same stuff from her.
I honestly think it’d be ballsy of them to stay away from these sorts of uber-realistic hardcore dramatic parts for a while and go off and do comedy or even a mindless action movie. Because if they can sell us on their commitment to those kinds of roles, too, I think i would appreciate their efforts more in movies like “Blue Valentine”.
Did you just appeal to the authority of Armond White? His reviews are more about how intelligent Armond White thinks he is than legitimate film criticism. He’s putting the whole system on trial man. Everyone’s lost but him.
Here’s an excerpt from the afore-mentioned review:
“Derek Cianfrance, writer-director of Blue Valentine, and his collaborating actors Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling, show themselves to be sexual and artistic naifs. They try reinventing The Catherine Wheel, the 1981 David Byrne-Twyla Tharp ballet about spiritual dysfunction…”
Classic Armond. Find an obscure movie, explain how it’s much better than the one he’s reviewing, grab a thesaurus with the biggest words he can find and then use them to chastise everyone involved. Isn’t it incredible how you can bet on Armond White to hate something everyone else likes and to praise something everyone else hates? Hmmmm, it’s like he’s…doing it on purpose [dunt dunt dunt]. From his “Toy Story 3” review, “Pixar has now made three movies explicitly about toys, yet the best movie depiction of how toys express human experience remains Whit Stillman’s 1990 Metropolitan.” Rinse, wash, repeat.
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnyway. Even though I haven’t seen “The Catherine Wheel” (or an episode of “The Jersey Shore”) I feel pretty secure about my affection for “Blue Valentine.” I agree with a lot of what you pointed out. “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” does a lot more with similar material (I like how you mentioned a different Michel Gondry movie as an example of a truly bad film), alcoholism and potential infidelity is a tired staple of independent cinema and Gosling occasionally grated my nerves. It’s also too long. Oh and Gosling looks too much like Jason Lee from “My Name Is Earl.”
That being said, I think “Blue Valentine” is an observant juxtaposition (Armond would be proud) of the romanticized meet cute love-story we’re often fed. It’s like a cynical rebuttal to “The Notebook.” Both mid-twenties Dean and Cindy fell in love with concepts of each other but only early-thirties Cindy is able to grasp that. Early-30’s Dean simply shifted his lack of ambition onto her, finding sufficient self-worth as one half of a couple. I thought Cianfrance had strong opinions of his characters, who they were, are and why they should have never been together in the first place. I don’t know man, I dug it.
Oddly enough, I have similar issues with “Winter’s Bone” & “The Kids Are All Right.” I wanted to like them and both fell far short of my expectations. Maybe that’s a me problem.
Side Note: I’ve have the same ongoing argument with a director friend of mine about “The Squid and the Whale” (a movie I adore). He’s wrong.
I usually disagree with Armond White, and I certainly can’t defend some of his opinions. But he certainly has a distinct voice, which is hard to find in a critical community which usually all reaches the same conclusions (a quick perusal of Rotten Tomatoes will show this). His style is actually kind of reminds me of Pauline Kael, with the obscure references, unapologetic pretension, and outright hostility to certain movies.
I could dig on that if his intentions weren’t so obvious. It’s like he’s sitting in the theater thinking, “This is really good, they’re all going to love this” and then spends the rest of the night performing the necessary mental gymnastics to find an angle he can use to pan the shit out of it.
Let’s again return to his Toy Story 3 review. White remarks, “But Toy Story 3 is so besotted with brand names and product-placement that it stops being about the innocent pleasures of imagination—the usefulness of toys—and strictly celebrates consumerism.” Fair enough. If he finds the use of product placement offensive then fine. I think it’s an unfair criticism in this case considering the two main toys are specific creations of the franchise (i.e. Woody & Buzz Lightyear) but I’m willing to go along with that objection.
However, during the summer of 2009 he praised Michael Bay’s pandering, nonsensical adolescent wet dream “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen” without a single mention of its blatant product placement. Every other shot in that movie is set up to expose one brand name or another. Oh, and the title characters are internationally celebrated toys for Christ’s sake.
I refer you to my anti-TOY STORY 3 column from last year. (Although I respected it as a movie, I just thought someone needed to cut it down a peg).
http://fierceandnerdy.com/on-the-contrary-toy-story-3-isnt-that-great
I think you found the only reasoned, honest negative angle on “Toy Story 3” and you didn’t have to stretch so far as indefensibly praising “Small Soldiers” or introduce the red hearing of commercialism. I enjoyed “Toy Story 3” as a great entertainment in spite of the fact that I didn’t much care for the first one and I never saw the second. Had the toys been incinerated at the dump their hand-holding emotional preparation for death would’ve carried more weight but I can’t fault PIXAR for ultimately saving them. Can you imagine the outrage of child-coddling parents? That they skated the line was enough for me.
I would, however, like to see Woody return to Andy for college in Toy Story 4. Woody covering his eyes in horror as Andy awkwardly loses his virginity a few feet from him. Woody gritting his teeth while a drunk frat-boy pukes up a vile cocktail of vodka and pizza all over him. Okay, maybe not. Perhaps some realities should be avoided for the purpose of entertainment.
Also, how reliable was the disposal service in that town?
I refer you to my anti-TOY STORY 3 column from last year. (Although I respected it as a movie, I just thought someone needed to cut it down a peg).
http://fierceandnerdy.com/on-the-contrary-toy-story-3-isnt-that-great
I can understand why many people would hate this movie, but it is a dead-on depiction of a slowly dissolving marriage and the realization that a relationship is beyond repair. Especially when there is no event that precipitates the dissolution of the marriage. Just the sad fact that two people are not right for each other, despite their best efforts and intentions.
While you may not have liked the fact that “Ryan Gosling asks the same questions repeatedly then gets frustrated and punches a wall; Michelle Williams cries and takes off her clothes (or takes off her clothes and then cries).” Sadly, that’s how real life often plays out. When we don’t know how to fix something, frustration ensues and we resort to other tactics to relieve that frustration. Isn’t that why we go to movies that are more predictable and have happy outcomes in the first place? Real life can be boring, repetitive, and often sucks. And we don’t have script writers who provide us with appropriately witty and poignant remarks to help the scene flow into the next, which ends up being a complete resolution of the conflict. (Because that always happens in real life . . . )
This movie certainly is not perfect and there were some moments that I thought detracted from the core, such as the boss’s flirtation. However, having seen this on the weekend of my one-year anniversary of my divorce, I could not help but be awed and deeply disturbed at how the emotional storyline paralleled that of me and my ex at the end of our marriage. It was strangely helpful to watch it as an outsider and viscerally feel what the characters were going through.
Regarding your Phillip Glass comment: “The emotional beats in this film were repetitive like a Phillip Glass opera.” I can tell you from the experience of spending months rehearsing and then singing a Phillip Glass opera that the depth of his music only comes out after you have been immersed in it for weeks on end. Only then are you able to detect the nuances and subtleties of his harmonic variations. Let me be clear that I am not a Phillip Glass devotee and only appreciated him after going through this experience. So I think your comment is very apt. I think only those who have been through the same experience portrayed in Blue Valentine can appreciate the subtleties that are there in performances where the characters are stuck in repetitive patterns that solve nothing and seemingly have no end in sight.
For the record, I’ve always liked Phillip Glass, but he’s good for quick comments about repetitiveness.
As for the realism of the film, I’ve seen this kind of relationship play out many times. Maybe it’s realistic, maybe it’s not. I still believe that Gosling’s repetitive questioning was a result of his limitations as an actor rather than a desire to depict reality, and that a stronger directorial hand (or any director at all) could have helped shape these performances much better.
But assuming this collection of scenes is realistic–is that a movie? I’ve spent the last 2 days terribly sick, hardly leaving my room. I’m sure someone could create a harrowing and realistic portrait of an illness based on my experience, but it wouldn’t be a movie. Movies need to do more than just represent life. They need to tell a story, and have a voice with that story. Especially when, like BLUE VALENTINE, the material has had countless other cinematic depictions.
The thematic content of Blue Valentine hit close to home with me. That may have padded my affection for it. Perhaps that’s the difference between us on this one.
As far as “Rusin’s Vomit House” [registers title with the WGA] it could be a movie. If one can make a movie about a guy with his arm caught under a rock for two hours, why not?