marriage

Take This Waltz
Take This Waltz screens at part of the Gala Presentations pro­gramme at TIFF 2011.

Take This Waltz (Director: Sarah Polley): Sarah Polley’s second dir­ect­orial effort, Take This Waltz starts out looking very much like a romantic comedy, and des­pite efforts to change gears later, never seems to achieve the weighty ser­i­ous­ness it needs. The super­fi­cial sheen of coin­cid­ental meet­ings and deserted spaces for lovers to flirt or to talk make it hard to take what is essen­tially a tragic story very seriously.

Margot (Michelle Williams) and Lou (Seth Rogen) have been mar­ried for four years, and their domestic routine is affec­tionate and a bit eccentric. In other words, like most couples, they share their own private lan­guage and long-running jokes. In small doses, this can add a unique intimacy to an on-screeen rela­tion­ship (I really liked the way Rashida Jones and Paul Rudd bantered in I Love You, Man, for example.) But over­used, as it is in Polley’s film, it makes the char­ac­ters annoying and infantile. And per­haps that’s her point. Margot and Lou never really seem to have an adult conversation.

Which makes Margot’s slow-burning flir­ta­tion with neigh­bour Daniel (Luke Kirby) such a powderkeg. Confused by her desire for some­thing new, Margot never really artic­u­lates to either man what it is she wants. Daniel appears out of nowhere and promises…well, what? Escape? Novelty? Temporary passion?

It’s never clear what he wants out of this flir­ta­tion either. In one more mad­dening rom-com touch, this power­fully attractive man has no mate, and the per­fect strong-sensitive work life. He works as a rick­shaw driver (macho side) but is also secretly an artist (sens­itive side). He is, in fact, the per­fect man.

But Lou isn’t so bad. Sure, he refuses to make con­ver­sa­tion at their anniversary dinner (“we’re not going out to ‘catch up’!” he scoffs), but he loves her like any good hus­band, some­times dis­trac­tedly but never less than deeply.

We see no evid­ence that they’re actu­ally bad for each other (unlike Williams’ superior turn in last year’s Blue Valentine, a film I’m sure will be drawing com­par­isons), so we’re left to think that Margot is simply pur­suing some­thing new and shiny.

When it turns out that it’s really Lou who learns from the affair, it makes it all the more frus­trating. On the cusp of having their first real on-screen grown-up con­ver­sa­tion, he says, “You didn’t want to have this dis­cus­sion before. Let’s not have it now.” It’s one of sev­eral moments when important things need to be said. And we don’t get to hear them. It robs the nar­rative of the angry and hurt con­front­a­tion that not only our couple, but the audi­ence, needs.

A series of word­less (of course) mont­ages near the end were almost laugh­able in their unreality, but when I wondered if Polley was pos­iting them as some sort of fantasy sequence, I looked back to the begin­ning of the film, and real­ized the whole begin­ning was equally phoney.

It’s painful to write those words, because I had very high hopes indeed for the film. And there are many things to like. My ini­tial fear that Seth Rogen would be the weak link was unfounded; his per­form­ance, in fact, felt the strongest of the three main char­ac­ters. And the cine­ma­to­graphy, by vet­eran Luc Montpellier (Cairo Time, Polley’s pre­vious film Away From Her), is gor­geous, lending Toronto a candy-coloured dream palette. It’s Polley’s script that fails for me. Perhaps she should have brought in Leonard Cohen (whose song “Take This Waltz” provided the film’s title if not its theme) for a rewrite.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Chris and Don. A Love Story
Editor’s Note: Doc Soup is a monthly doc­u­mentary screening pro­gramme run by the good folks at Hot Docs. It gives audi­ences in Toronto (and now Calgary and Vancouver!) their reg­ular doc fix each year from the fall through to the spring, leading up to the Hot Docs fest­ival itself.

Chris and Don. A Love Story (2007, Directors: Tina Mascara and Guido Santi): Don Bachardy was just 16 when he met Christopher Isherwood on a gay beach in Southern California. Prudently, Isherwood waited until Don was 18 before making his move. That is, if a 48-year-old man picking up a teen­ager can ever be con­sidered prudent. Despite a 30-year age dif­fer­ence, Don and Chris built a lasting rela­tion­ship that con­tinued until Isherwood’s death (at the age of 82) in 1986. Based mostly on inter­views with Bachardy, now in his 70s, Chris and Don is a sweet remem­brance of a unique rela­tion­ship, but as a film, I found it a bit flat.

I knew before seeing it that I’d be com­paring it with Bob and Jack’s 52-Year Adventure, which explored sim­ilar ter­ritory, but with the benefit of having both parties alive to tell each side of the story. Sweet as Don’s remem­brances of Chris might be, there’s not much drama there. Talking about a well-loved spouse who’s been gone more than twenty years is bound to become an exer­cise tainted by nos­talgia. Though there were a few bumps in the rela­tion­ship, Don (or the dir­ectors) seemed to gloss over them.

Perhaps most uncom­fort­able for me was the vast dif­fer­ence in their ages, as well as the fact that Isherwood was a well-known writer while Don was an admitted celebrity-seeker. Both men sought things in their rela­tion­ship which are gen­er­ally best found out­side of a romantic entan­gle­ment. The number of times the father-son dynamic was men­tioned was remark­able, and yet the dir­ectors didn’t dig very deeply into what could have been dis­turbing ter­ritory. Isherwood found in Bachardy the son he never had, as well as the youth he had lost. In return, Bachardy found a replace­ment for his dis­ap­proving father, as well as a teacher and someone who could intro­duce him to other famous people. There is a moment when Don recalls his frus­tra­tion at being com­pletely formed by Isherwood, and I’d have been curious to see more of that, espe­cially since he now seems to have com­pletely made peace with the fact that everything he has achieved in his life (he is an accom­plished por­trait painter) has been under the pat­ronage of his husband.

Technically, the film is solid but unad­ven­turous, although it does attempt some whimsy by anim­ating images Isherwood drew of his pet names for him­self (an old horse) and Bachardy (a cat). I found the anim­a­tions crudely executed, though my wife thought they were cute.

Overall, then, it felt like a bit of a missed oppor­tunity to me. I can under­stand the dir­ectors’ reti­cence since they had such great access to Bachardy, but I think some tougher ques­tions could have made the film stronger.

Official site of the film

6/10(6/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Bob and Jack's 52-Year Adventure

Bob and Jack’s 52-Year Adventure (Director: Stu Maddux, USA, 2006): Bob Claunch and Jack Reavley met in the early 1950s when both were sta­tioned with the army in Germany. This charming film charts the course of their love affair over the next half-century and beyond. Despite the rather unima­gin­ative title, the film deftly weaves together archival photos, audio record­ings (both men worked for Armed Forces Radio and later bought a radio sta­tion together) and present-day inter­views to tell a remark­ably con­ven­tional love story that, because it involves two men, makes it all the more remarkable.

I liked the way dir­ector Maddux filmed the inter­views with one man closer to the camera, allowing us to cap­ture each man’s facial expres­sions when reacting to the other’s com­ments. Just like all old mar­ried couples, these guys finish each other’s sen­tences; that is, when they’re not inter­rupting each other.

With all the debate over whether gay mar­riage should be “allowed,” it’s helpful to see that it’s really existed all along.

Official site for the film

8/10(8/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }