The Lost Daughter (Maggie Gyllenhaal, 2021)

[Mr Sausage]

I said "it feels ethically wrong to me" to engage in a purely knee-jerk devaluation, and the "flexing our muscles of ethical evaluation" doesn't always mean that we are going to be perfectly even- we bring our own judgments, notions, and power dynamics (including yes, our invasive position as viewers) into the equation. This isn't a plea to sing Kumbaya around a fire for every character, but that films like this are aiming to be complex, and I was answering DarkImbecile's question with my own personal dismissal of the idea that someone (fictional or literal) should be easily dismissed as irredeemable. There's a difference to me between analyzing how killing off a character is unethical and the process by which we dismiss the worth of a central principal's humanity when there are opportunities to challenge ourselves to see deeper and peripherally, especially in a film like The Lost Daughter that is built around such a character study, and one I think is tragically devoid of richness. I believe such processes of looking down on these characters are detrimental to social engagement outside of fiction, and perhaps I have a personal stake in this, beyond professional codes of ethics, as someone who saw himself in "irredeemable" black-sheep characters growing up (in films clearly designed to feel a mix of empathy and judgment for them) and that shaped my sense of self, but my post was clearly about what I believe subjectively and not an objective analysis you seem to be drawing that reminds me of a puzzle from my college philosophy of logic class.

I seem to've hit a nerve.

I normally wouldn't mind if something feels wrong to you, but you said it feels ethically wrong. But ethics are not a feeling; they're a systematized way of classifying behaviours as right and wrong. You can't claim someone's behaviour is unethical on a feeling. You have to justify it. This is pedantic, yeah, but important because it's not nothing to claim this or that is unethical. That word has a ton of weight. I don't think it applies here.

There's a difference to me between analyzing how killing off a character is unethical and the process by which we dismiss the worth of a central principal's humanity when there are opportunities to challenge ourselves to see deeper and peripherally

Whatever the difference is, it's not an ethical one. A character that does not exist cannot be hurt. Devaluing them has no direct consequences on another human being (and you can devalue a character as a way of devaluing a set of attitudes or values or actions that do have direct negative consequences in life, such as you find in satire). That is, unless you want to argue...

I believe such processes of looking down on these characters are detrimental to social engagement outside of fiction

...this. And this could be true. But then perhaps the opposite is true: our social engagement determines how we look at fictional characters rather than vice versa. There's a correlation = causation problem here. Also, something that may make it more likely for you to behave unethically later is not therefore itself unethical. A. That's a slippery slope argument of a weird kind. B. That would make, say, a feeling like envy unethical, eg. liking your neighbours nice new car makes it more likely that you would steal said car than if you didn't like it, and therefore unethical because it is detrimental to our social etc. etc. Or, you know, anger. Being angry makes you more likely to do something hurtful than if you're not angry. Is anger therefore unethical? I doubt it.

not an objective analysis you seem to be drawing that reminds me of a puzzle from my college philosophy of logic class.

I guess I could always be more illogical in the future.

[therewillbeblus]

You're not hitting a nerve, I sometimes get caught up in explaining myself and it can present as exhaustive and that I am exhausted by it. My point is that I do think it's a problematic process when we see a human being- fictional or otherwise- and engage in devaluing worth from a position of disconnection (and I don't think this film's artists are aiming for this effect- quite the opposite, and failing in the process).

[swo17]

We’d agree that killing humans is more unethical than looking down on them.

If you're talking about society at large, I don't think this is true anymore

[zedz]

I normally wouldn't mind if something feels wrong to you, but you said it feels ethically wrong. But ethics are not a feeling; they're a systematized way of classifying behaviours as right and wrong. You can't claim someone's behaviour is unethical on a feeling. You have to justify it. This is pedantic, yeah, but important because it's not nothing to claim this or that is unethical. That word has a ton of weight. I don't think it applies here.

I agree with this, of course, and agree that's it's an important distinction, but I'd add that an author looking down on their characters can often be a mark of bad writing, and the expression of a failure to fully characterize them. But it can also be a characteristic of great writing - e.g. Lolita - so there's not much point in generalizing about it. You need to respect the work by giving it a close reading.

I also don't think this film is looking down on Leda. I think the problem is more that it has a muddled attitude towards a muddled character. It definitely looks down on the nouveau-riche interlopers from Queens, and I have no problem seeing that as a failure of writing (and probably of empathy): with the possible exception of Nina, they're just manipulable plot furniture to block Leda's way or push her where she needs to go.

[zedz]

We’d agree that killing humans is more unethical than looking down on them.

If you're talking about society at large, I don't think this is true anymore

Swo's one word New Year's Resolution was: EDGIER.

[swo17]

Thank you for noticing

[therewillbeblus]

I normally wouldn't mind if something feels wrong to you, but you said it feels ethically wrong. But ethics are not a feeling; they're a systematized way of classifying behaviours as right and wrong. You can't claim someone's behaviour is unethical on a feeling. You have to justify it. This is pedantic, yeah, but important because it's not nothing to claim this or that is unethical. That word has a ton of weight. I don't think it applies here.

I agree with this, of course, and agree that's it's an important distinction, but I'd add that an author looking down on their characters can often be a mark of bad writing, and the expression of a failure to fully characterize them. But it can also be a characteristic of great writing - e.g. Lolita - so there's not much point in generalizing about it. You need to respect the work by giving it a close reading.

I also don't think this film is looking down on Leda. I think the problem is more that it has a muddled attitude towards a muddled character. It definitely looks down on the nouveau-riche interlopers from Queens, and I have no problem seeing that as a failure of writing (and probably of empathy): with the possible exception of Nina, they're just manipulable plot furniture to block Leda's way or push her where she needs to go.

This is all true, and Lolita is a great example where the aims are different. I do want to clarify that I don't think this is everpresent in fiction, but that specific to films like this that are exploring that empathy/judgment balance. I should have been clearer about that. In any event, I find myself predominantly agreeing with zedz' take on why this film doesn't work in its half-measured aims.

[schellenbergk]

The Lost Daughter

Unfortunately, the screenplay went missing.

Don't make posts like this, please. Make a real contribution to the discussion.

WK was a bit too pithy, that is true. But he nailed the weakness of the film.

I found the film extremely well acted. I thought all of the performances were spot on. But the story itself didn’t deliver a strong catharsis. It didn’t really seem to go anywhere, once you figure out the flashback structure of it. I was engaged, but ultimately a little disappointed.

I can envision an Oscar nomination for best director though. Mostly because the Academy loves actors who direct.

[zedz]

Thank you for noticing, bitch.

Fixed.

You're new to this, aren't you?

[swo17]

Yes, bi--.... I sure am, bi--.... Sorry, I can't do it

[domino harvey]

Yes, bi--.... I sure am, bi--.... Sorry, I can't do it

Mandatory Key and Peele

[swo17]

That was good though as a side note, I didn't watch that show as it aired and vowed never to catch up with it after seeing their diss of Gremlins 2. You're lucky I'd forgotten about that when I clicked your link

[Persona]

Great movie, really wonderful character study by Maggie and Olivia.

[ianthemovie]

Count me among those who thought this was fantastic. Personally I thought Colman and Buckley's scenes complemented each other beautifully in order to add up to a complete picture of Leda. Colman is extraordinary; I could watch her face forever. Buckley was also fantastic, as expected. Dakota Johnson surprised me because previously I have never been much impressed with her acting. In just a few quick scenes she imbues her character with poignancy and a "lost" quality that allows her to transcend what might have been a classist stereotype. Whatever charges of class snobbery may be leveled against the other characters in the film, Johnson's is clearly someone toward whom Leda feels sympathy as well as an unexpected affinity/identification.

SpoilerShow

Leda's tentative, halting connection with Nina is, I think, necessary for understanding their final scene where Leda tries to give the doll back. For me it wasn't so much a mystery/thriller question of "do they already know she stole the doll or don't they?" The question is rather: "will Nina and Leda bridge their differences in order to connect to each other as women?" Nina opened up to Leda and confessed that she felt depressed and was doubting whether she was happy being a wife and mother, something that Leda obviously related to. Consequently Leda confesses about stealing the doll in an effort to connect with Nina, hoping that she would understand. That Nina literally turns on her and stabs her begs to be read as a betrayal of a female bond that Leda was trying to forge. The doll is indeed a fairly obvious plot device/symbol, and perhaps not a very elegant one, but it works to play out Leda's intensely conflicted feelings toward the American women and their family.

At the risk of stating the obvious, gender is clearly of key significance to this film and is really necessary to understanding nearly every scene. Much of Leda's behavior begs to be read in terms of her identity as a woman and a mother. So it's not just that the movie is about how "parenting is hell" or "parenting involves compromise," it's that as a mother Lena was never entitled to the same grace to pursue her own life enjoyed by the various fathers in the film--as implied in both her conversations with the male hiker and the Ed Harris character, both of whom refer quite casually to having left behind their children in order to pursue lives elsewhere. Leda is clearly sensitive to, and to some extent justifiably bitter about, double standards surrounding male vs. female parenting and the expectation that women must naturally assume the role of child-rearing.

This also helps explain her seething contempt for the American tourists, who are (on top of their general noxiousness) are a picture of toxic gender stereotypes. The men in the family either treat women as sex objects or dismiss them as "cunts" and "bitches." In the movie-theater scene, neither Leda nor the female manager is able to command their respect, and they only shut up after they are put in their place by the father which only adds to Leda's rage. Hence the irony of her finally being called a "bitch" by Nina, after thinking that Nina was perhaps in a position to relate to Leda woman-to-woman. The women in the family are just as noxious for having internalized the men's misogynistic attitudes toward them.

All in all, a welcome corrective to the swaths of mainstream movies and TV shows nowadays which lay claim to "female empowerment" simply because they cast a woman as a superhero or whatever, as if feminism were a matter of showing a female character who knows how to shoot a gun and land a spaceship. The women in this movie are not "strong," thank god: they're messy, thoughtful, confused, impulsive, horny, bitter, intelligent, awkward, and a million other things besides.

Also, a minor thing, but I love how Gyllenhaal and her cinematography shoot all of the women in this film, finding beauty in Colman's naturally saggy body and Johnson's crow's-feet. Arguably no mainstream Hollywood movie nowadays would dare to show someone like Johnson sans eye makeup (let alone cast Colman as a sexually viable woman of 48).

[Walter Kurtz]

The Lost Daughter

Unfortunately, the screenplay went missing.

Don't make posts like this, please. Make a real contribution to the discussion.

WK was a bit too pithy, that is true. But he nailed the weakness of the film.

1) Oxcar Wilde once said, "If you can nail the fucker in five words, why spend 800 of them obfuscating your point with improper language, atrocious sentence construction and abominable rhetoric?"

2) I finally caught up with this thread again now that Maggie has a nom. Herewith, an explication of pithiness...

I remembered reading coverage (industry term) on the novel many years ago and recalled two areas of potential interest... A) "Coleman's" sexual attraction for "Crockett's daughter". And... B) The beach family being an almost exact replication of Coleman's family back home. The "no matter where you go... there you are thing. In this case... you can never really get away from your own family (it's inside of you... blah blah blah).

3) I passed on the project.

4) Many years later (now 2021)...my wife puts the film up on the telly and I had some mild interest because the coverage was faintly familiar.

5) Within three minutes I tell her a woman directed the film (I hadn't paid attention to the credits). "How can you possibly know that?" "Check it out." She checks the credits and sure enough, it's Maggie G. "How did you know?" "Look at the way the camera studies her (Coleman's) face. A man doesn't take that care really looking at a face." I also said [blah blah blah about how men and women see differently blah blah blah}.

6) I found Gyllenhaals's direction rather impressive as far as camerawork, mise-en-scene and direction of actors are concerned. I always find Coleman impressive.

7) Most people cannot separate what actually makes a film work. In this case the acting and direction were vastly superior to the screenplay. A screenplay which eliminated the only two things I found interesting in the coverage of the novel.

8) But of course the director is ultimately responsible for story logic and approving the screenplay.

9} Gyllenhaal-as-director approved a sow's ear of a screenplay (by an evil doppelganger!) that Gyllenhaal-as-director mostly redeemed through visual direction and accomplished direction of actors. Gyllenhaal-as-director didn't quite make a silk purse out the sow's ear that Gyllenhaal-as-writer provided her... but she certainly improved the screenplay.

10) Out here we (they) often give screenwriting noms to people who make interesting films that aren't "BIG" enough to justify a director nod. It's bullshit of course.

11) I look forward to what she does with a good screenplay.

[therewillbeblus]

Those two pieces you report as excised from the film do sound like interesting material, though not exactly fitting for what I think is a rather safe and pat project- Has anyone read the book who has also enjoyed the film, and can speak to these narrative pieces' function in the story, and how the film manages to maintain its thematic value (or alters it) in spite of the cuts?

[Mr Sausage]

1) Oxcar Wilde once said, "If you can nail the fucker in five words, why spend 800 of them obfuscating your point with improper language, atrocious sentence construction and abominable rhetoric?"

That's a hell of a self-own there, Mr. Kurtz!

[Walter Kurtz]

Yeah, it was [lol]... but s-----b---- is the one who said i "nailed the weakness" in the first place, correct? So ownership "after the fact", so to speak? Just sort of quoting someone else who reminded me of the terribly pithy (but loveable??) Mr. Wilde?

Hey, I just got in from having four splendid margaritas (agave + Cointreau is the secret) so let's be on a first name basis. You... Mr. And me... Mistah!

BTW... s----b---- nailed a lot of the film with his writeup. Good job s----b----! And TWBB... I am 90 % sure the coverage said what I said it said. But there is a 10% chance I read the coverage then dreamed the take (industry word) I would have had on my approach in adapting/directing the novel. And I say this because I've written s/plays that were planned out scene-by-scene and others I had an approach + endpoint only and wung (is that a word?) the whole thing in a trance. And those times I would dream the continuation then sort-of record the dream on paper the next day knowing EXACTLY where I was going. I've have industry acclaim using both methods although noone really knew/knows my process for getting there.

'But I gotta tell you... winging the whole thing (almost) is a hell of a lot more fun!

So TWBB... further anon to your open query about the novel... I think either the coverage captured those two missing dimensions (90%)... or my dreamlife captured it (10% but with a bullet).

If it was my dreamlife... then my interest would have been a combination of the two missing elements.

Why is "Olivia" now sexually attracted to "Sonny's daughter"? Is it because Olivia - when younger - was attracted to a same-sex familial cousin? And she couldn't express it because forty years ago that sort of thing was a bit tougher than it is now... not to mention it was a relative?

Now I think here we are getting to something a bit more interesting.

But then it would be "my" movie - my take - and not Maggie's.

Different strokes for different blah blah.

Further... I mentioned how women see different than men see.

Maggie's a woman, of course.

But she is a photographed woman who has spent considerable time in front of the camera. I find it doubly interesting to see how she photographs other women.. not only from the perspective of being a woman... but being a photographed woman... becoming the photographer.

Okay. Not 800 words. But more than five.