MovieChat Forums > Marriage Story (2019) Discussion > Ambivelant about this movie.....minor sp...

Ambivelant about this movie.....minor spoiler....

posted 5 years ago by [deleted]
6 replies | jump to latest

One thing I've noticed about movies with the included theme of occupations related to the "Hollywood" (the craft of making movies, plays, writing for the visual arts, acting, producing, directing and so on) is how often these movies become self-indulgent about the occupation and then "Hollywood" and its trades all swoon over such movies.

A large part of this movie was excellent, but then it would veer into the Hollywood-love-of-self-flagellation stage (like Johansson's too long monologue and the performance artist segments) and I would zone out.

My other negative critique of the movie is that it didn't establish the rationale for the sharp turn into vindictiveness streak the Johansson character made regarding the divorce (I'm not saying she didn't have cause to be pissed and feel a need to do that, but from the opening scene revealing what she wrote about her husband somewhat contradicted how she later behaved and didn't really establish very well her change - to me, it made her become the villain).

[–] brux (14736) 5 years ago

As I was watching this I was thinking ... isn't it wonderful to know all these experiences of rich artists ... as if the rest of the world does not exist. They wouldn't make this movie about a struggling middle class plumber or any other everyday job. Everyone in the movie we are supposed to care about is deep in some kind of glamorous artistic pursuit. The one movie that I really liked went against this trope, "Chilly Scenes Of Winter" ... brilliant.

Aside from those reservations, which are almost alway true of personal stories from Hollywood, I thought the movie was really excellent with a few trip ups ... like the musical numbers for example.

The acting in this movie was some of the best I have ever seen, singling out Driver's reactions to his son reading his ex-wife's list of his good attributes tying back to the beginning of the movie.

> it didn't establish the rationale for the sharp turn into vindictiveness streak the Johansson character made regarding the divorce

I think here is where you just have to acknowledge that the character evolved to feel that way and try not to project one's own standards onto her character. Maybe after getting away to clear her head and think, and getting the support of her mother and sister ( positive ) , as well as being whipped up by her lawyer she decided not to continue to be her old self.

She definitely had villain vibes, but I think you have to look at it from both a dramatic perspective and a story perspective. First, it is most often in reality the woman that gets screwed over in relationships, so this is an archetypical kind of appeal. It simply would not play in reverse, that the guy is angry and vindictive ... what kind of movie would that make? But, it is not a bad thing that she is left with some negative residual feelings, which is just how life is from whatever perspective. From loving couple to two individual harboring a lot of pain towards each other. For the most part we do not see the offense of the husband, and I think that Baumbach did that to be honest in a way, because this was his reaction to his own divorce when he left his wife for actress Greta Gerwig.

[–] [email protected] (1732) 5 years ago

Huh? There are, what, hundreds of movies about family grief - and the characters are NOT actors/directors.

I thought this aspect made it refreshing.

That said, I agree with the OP...we don't LEARN what changes Nicole - she's giddy and happily married - for four
minutes. Then, the sudden shift. It's way too abrupt.

I also hated the "he's going to be served" scene, where the kitchen/pie/sister stuff turns into a scene from "Rosanne."
You can almost hear a studio audience laughing at the "escapades" of the mother and sister. It took me right out
of the movie. Thankfully, Johansson's emotions bring us back into it.

[–] Cuddlebunny909 (71) 5 years ago

When she was first talking to the lawyer, she only had a suspicion of the cheating. Later we found out she had hacked his email (with the lawyers help or insistence no doubt).

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

My other negative critique of the movie is that it didn't establish the rationale for the sharp turn into vindictiveness streak the Johansson character made regarding the divorce (I'm not saying she didn't have cause to be pissed and feel a need to do that, but from the opening scene revealing what she wrote about her husband somewhat contradicted how she later behaved and didn't really establish very well her change - to me, it made her become the villain).

I found she always had that vindictive streak in her - she kept it well hidden. She came across to me as an opportunist, and knew how to play this (especially with the help of her lawyer). What she wrote about her husband in the opening scene was not really what she believed (all lies) which is why she didn't want to read it out loud. She knew it wasn't true and didn't want to validate it by her own voice.

At least, this is how I interpreted things.

[–] brux (14736) 5 years ago

Maybe the piece where she, or she and her lawyer hacked her husband's email and found the extent of what he was really thinking and doing. This movie was very much skewed in the husbands favor. They should have made the narrative a bit more smooth and continuous, but they left a lot out or unspoken ... but to be a fair movie he should not have done that. The husband walks around like he is totally innocent ... acting ... playing a part. It is hard for people who are being gaslighted to accept and really understand what is going on. There is no one that is telling them, and their closest friend, their spouse, is the one misleading them.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6398) 4 years ago

Her unhappiness was there, but she was trying to cover it over, though failing at that. So one of the production people referred her to the lawyer who helped her tap into her inner anger.