criterionforum.org

After over a decade's worth of preproduction, Blue Valentine was finally ready to be shot. The budget was set, locations were finalized, and the small but loyal cast and crew were finally excited to get to work. Yet writer/director Derek Cianfrance still wanted to wait six more years to shoot half of the film so that Gosling and Williams could age more accurately into their roles. When Film Independent asked him if he was serious, Cianfrance responded "In order to believe in things, you have to be crazy. You walk a fine line between reality and delusion." The producers didn't give him six years, they gave him a month and a million bucks. Cianfrance still gave them the best film of 2010.

This is a romance film for our generation, speaking equally on part of the glibness and convenience of postmodern marriage as well as the emotional insecurities that lead to premature commitment. While Hollywood cinema dangles love as some form of expressionless fulfillment waiting behind a sunset, Blue Valentine isn't just about finding love. Its about the pains of questioning it, the pains of its maintenance that we're all so familiar with. Cianfrance claims that Gosling and Williams should be listed as co-writers along with himself, Joey Curtis, and Cami Delavigne for their contributions. Each member of the young collaboration's parents were divorced, thus the ghostly memories of all five are felt amidst the distancing that propagates between the film's protagonists. All five of them went so far as to asking their friends and family members whom were involved in failing marriages to list the things they didn't like about their relationship; as the spectator can attest, the results certainly feel universal. The scope of the protagonists' relationship is given so much depth because of the film's vivid portrayals of the two settings: the "past", six years earlier where their relationship first burgeons, and the "present", an emotionally draining weekend that exemplifies their dwindling marriage. While the idea of all the actions in the "present" taking place in a few days seems somewhat unlikely, it is hardly noticeable given the breathless pacing of Cianfrance's dictation between the "past" and the "present".

The craft behind Blue Valentine is almost as impressive as its thematics. After years of practicing their readings straight from the script, Cianfrance startlingly told Gosling and Williams once they got on set to scrap it and improvise their lines. If that wasn't nerve-racking enough for the young actors, he then informed them that very little time would be spent on rehearsals and that they'd be aiming for only a single take on most shots. Instead of rehearsals, Cianfrance had them spend extended periods of time in character together, even living in the film's house with their daughter (Wladyka) for the allotted month between shoots. Cianfrance stated that all these decisions were made so that the film would feel more fresh after a decade's worth of revision. The resulting performances from Gosling and Williams are simply astonishing. Gosling has shook the cocky comfort that once seemed like an aura atop his inarguable talent, for he finds glances and twitches to embody all of the loneliness and insecurities that hide behind Dean's blithe smile and quick wit. Williams' courageous role of Cindy showcases an infallible range, a youth scarred from her fastidious father's expectations to a mother torn between the patriarchal roles of parenting and working.

Cianfrance's compositions follow them beautifully, usually utilizing every inch of the frame with balance and surprising relevance to add visual context to the plot. He effectively frames the couple together in all of the "past" scenes while keeping them separated by close-up cutbacks in the "present" scenes to emphasize their disconnect. Rack focusing feels a little overused at times, but more often it accents this unique style of framing to draw attention to different objects and characters. While the score felt slightly too suggestive or lingering in a few shots, it usually does a fair job of drifting behind the montages and scene connections without becoming tedious. An original composition could have probably strengthened the emotional impact of certain scenes, but Grizzly Bear was on tour at the time and thus Cianfrance could only use their previously released instrumentals. Elsewhere, however, the sound design is nearly flawless, with source music from Gosling's ukulele and record collection combining for a perfectly charming mix. Cianfrance also does a fantastic job of getting the most rounded sounding speech and effects within his claustrophobic sets (an asset probably acquired in his documentary days).

Cianfrance's choice to hybridize Blue Valentine with 16mm film for "past" scenes and HD RED digital for "present" scenes is somewhat symbolic of its ambitions. It is the postmodern prototype for all the capabilities and vigor of cinema; it has the power to not only express, but to inspire and to change. It is pulsing proof that Art Cinema can produce films every bit as accessible and entertaining as Hollywood, with thrice the endearment yet a hundredth the budget. Oscars abundantly await, as Blue Valentine is cinema vérité at its most muscularly modern potential.

What is "our generation"? What are the romances for other generations? Why is this review tonally mirrored from an article for a campus paper?

James Mills wrote:Oscars abundantly await

Fat chance

There's a bunch of stuff in the Trailers thread that might be worth moving into this thread.

whoa man. that review. Just a little over the top. I'll give the movie a look though. I like the trailer very much.

I was surprised to read on Phil Solomon's blog how the director of this was actually one of his ex-students.

domino harvey wrote:What is "our generation"? What are the romances for other generations? Why is this review tonally mirrored from an article for a campus paper?

I hate to really join the James Mills confusion band wagon, but what the hell does "postmodern romance" mean?

Also, I plan on trying to see this film before the end of the week, but has anyone noticed that Ryan Gosling in this film is almost a dead ringer for Derek Cianfrance? This seems like Pialat territory to me.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:

domino harvey wrote:What is "our generation"? What are the romances for other generations? Why is this review tonally mirrored from an article for a campus paper?

I hate to really join the James Mills confusion band wagon, but what the hell does "postmodern romance" mean?

They were references to the subsequent line "speaking equally on part of the glibness and convenience of postmodern marriage as well as the emotional insecurities that lead to premature commitment," and the idea that so many of us these days are from broken families (like the writers). But yeah, I definitely gushed over this one and it reads like a college fanboy's school newspaper entry. I just think this film is absolutely incredible, and its making is deeply inspirational to me.

Also, I plan on trying to see this film before the end of the week, but has anyone noticed that Ryan Gosling in this film is almost a dead ringer for Derek Cianfrance? This seems like Pialat territory to me.

Their appearances really are similar, but their demeanors aren't. I want to say that it's mainly coincidental for that reason as well as the fact that Cianfrance has claimed that his own relationship has been healthy and happy for a long time (and his parents weren't divorced until he was 20). It'd be interesting to find out more about this.

James Mills wrote:But yeah, I definitely gushed over this one and it reads like a college fanboy's school newspaper entry.

I think you're missing domino's point -- it wasn't the fanboy aspect as much as it was that it literally read like the lede from a newspaper article.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:Also, I plan on trying to see this film before the end of the week, but has anyone noticed that Ryan Gosling in this film is almost a dead ringer for Derek Cianfrance? This seems like Pialat territory to me.

I've not seen the trailer, but that seems pretty astute of you to bring up Pialat. I was reminded of Pialat and especially Cassavetes when I saw this. Cianfrance was able to create those painful to watch scenes of awkward confrontation that Pialat did so well. I hope he's not a one film wonder.

FWIW this isn't the first example of a film threatened with a NC-17 by the MPAA which gets a 15 (and not an 18) from the BBFC.

GaryC wrote:FWIW this isn't the first example of a film threatened with a NC-17 by the MPAA which gets a 15 (and not an 18) from the BBFC.

15 does sound more appropriate. It's really only a few dozen motherfuckers and two contrasting scenes of love making that would even bother it with an R if the MPAA were at all organized.
The film itself is great. It stands in excellent contrast with rabbit hole, a film with basically the same purpose that despite great performances and a nice sense of reality just doesn't have any muscle. I especially liked the usage of out of focus shots. In the some of the longer shots this can get a bit dizzying, but the effect is more powerful than had he gone with the usual never in the same frame trick that is usually done. He doesn't leave the effect only up to racking though. In one very memorable shot he separates them by a greasy window. This makes their scenes of touching all the more meaningful, including a clever out of focus via window comfort session. For this alone I already would like to watch this film again, examine the reasons for a shot being out or in focus. The most notable examples of them being in focus is the sex scenes. In fact these are the most brightly lit and stationary sequences in the film. I bet this can mostly be blamed on Cianfrance's obsession with William's butt(not that I blame the man), but it also makes the notorious sad sex scene all the more powerful. It 's primarily composed of two shots, one being the void between their two bodies even as Gosling is in her and the other is the closeup of Williams crying that the moment ends with. That crying face alone makes this one of the best films from this past year. add to that the pressing sense of failure surrounding the film makes it about so much more than marriage. It's universal themes don't distract from the story at hand. Williams and Gosling, who both are amazing giving performances that for most people their age would be career defining, are always the center of attention and can't leave your mind as characters. One wants so badly for them to make it out as one even as it becomes more clear that there is no way this marriage could succeed for everyone. One of my favorite moments is early on there's that cliched scene of the parent late to the kid's musical or whatever, but it's set up in a way that causes it to mean so much more than the cliche. It's a truly original spin that allows for everyone to gather audience empathy. That sense of neutrality is what truly wins the day for me. These people may screw up, but they have the best intentions. Every choice they make is like traveling through a maze that has no exit. even the very literally suggested death turns out to be nothing more than an other chance for failure.

knives wrote:It stands in excellent contrast with rabbit hole, a film with basically the same purpose that despite great performances and a nice sense of reality just doesn't have any muscle.

How do you figure Rabbit Hole has "the same purpose"?

Married couple are in a failing relationship that the movie tries to portray 'realistically'.

The marital conflicts of Rabbit Hole are pretty innocuous in comparison to what the film is really about. If you went into it thinking it was about a married couple in a failing relationship, it's no wonder you thought it showed little muscle; it's about dealing with loss, not about trying to maintain a marriage. They have to learn how to want to even keep on living before they can worry about their marriage.

But we digress.

James Mills wrote:The marital conflicts of Rabbit Hole are pretty innocuous in comparison to what the film is really about. If you went into it thinking it was about a married couple in a failing relationship, it's no wonder you thought it showed little muscle; it's about dealing with loss, not about trying to maintain a marriage. They have to learn how to want to even keep on living before they can worry about their marriage.

But we digress.

I went into it completely blind actually. I only knew who starred in and directed it. As for the discussion of loss thing, I found that aspect to lack muscle even more so. I'm trying to say more, but I can't think of anything about that particular aspect to comment on. It's totally unmemorable for me. The martial issues, especially the Love in the Afternoon redux with Sandra Oh, at least was entertaining even if it didn't do much for me.

I think that Rabbit Hole is largely about how men and women process grief (and other profound emotions) differently, and how those different reactions lead to conflict. Blue Valentine also broaches the subject of how men and women often view relationships, parenting, conflict, anger, and sex (among other things) differently, and how those conflicts create tension within the relationship. Both movies ultimately hinge on whether the strength of the relationship can overcome the conflict. I saw Rabbit Hole about a week before I saw Blue Valentine, and was definitely reminded of the former when I saw the latter.

Jeff wrote:Blue Valentine also broaches the subject of how men and women often view relationships, parenting, conflict, anger, and sex (among other things) differently, and how those conflicts create tension within the relationship.

This isn't really true at all. Dean and Cindy are by no means meant to represent "man" and "woman", as their gender traits are inversed for the most part (Cindy takes on the male role, with her promiscuity and desire to succeed as "man of the house" which she basically admits in one of the best scenes in the film; Dean is the romantic one who wants nothing more to be a father and a husband, ie a house a wife). I agree that Rabbit Hole uses Becca and Howie as vehicles for "woman" and "man" as universal takes on how differently males and females process grief (though I'd still argue that this is a secondary theme behind the idea of loss), but Blue Valentine does not make the same general inferences.

James Mills wrote:

Jeff wrote:Blue Valentine also broaches the subject of how men and women often view relationships, parenting, conflict, anger, and sex (among other things) differently, and how those conflicts create tension within the relationship.

This isn't really true at all. Dean and Cindy are by no means meant to represent "man" and "woman", as their gender traits are inversed for the most part (Cindy takes on the male role, with her promiscuity and desire to succeed as "man of the house" which she basically admits in one of the best scenes in the film; Dean is the romantic one who wants nothing more to be a father and a husband, ie a house a wife). I agree that Rabbit Hole uses Becca and Howie as vehicles for "woman" and "man" as universal takes on how differently males and females process grief (though I'd still argue that this is a secondary theme behind the idea of loss), but Blue Valentine does not make the same general inferences.

All personality conflicts aside, how does this explanation make what Jeff said untrue? All of his points seem to be reinforced by your explanation, and the one point of disagreement that you seem to have -- that the gender roles are seemingly reversed in the Blue Valentine relationship -- is immaterial to the thematic similarities that Jeff saw between the two films.

Irrespective, it all sounds very of a piece with Bergman and Rohmer, and I'm anxious to see both films.

Tom Hagen wrote:

James Mills wrote:

Jeff wrote:Blue Valentine also broaches the subject of how men and women often view relationships, parenting, conflict, anger, and sex (among other things) differently, and how those conflicts create tension within the relationship.

This isn't really true at all. Dean and Cindy are by no means meant to represent "man" and "woman", as their gender traits are inversed for the most part (Cindy takes on the male role, with her promiscuity and desire to succeed as "man of the house" which she basically admits in one of the best scenes in the film; Dean is the romantic one who wants nothing more to be a father and a husband, ie a house a wife). I agree that Rabbit Hole uses Becca and Howie as vehicles for "woman" and "man" as universal takes on how differently males and females process grief (though I'd still argue that this is a secondary theme behind the idea of loss), but Blue Valentine does not make the same general inferences.

All personality conflicts aside, how does this explanation make what Jeff said untrue? All of his points seem to be reinforced by your explanation, and the one point of disagreement that you seem to have -- that the gender roles are seemingly reversed in the Blue Valentine relationship -- is immaterial to the thematic similarities that Jeff saw between the two films.

Irrespective, it all sounds very of a piece with Bergman and Rohmer, and I'm anxious to see both films.

Because, at least from what I took from his post, he seems to be stating that both films are concerned with how women and men deal with situations differently and whether or not their relationship is strong enough to overcome this difference. Whereas Rabbit Hole seems to support this notion, I believe that Blue Valentine's protagonists are characters that act from their pasts rather than their natured/nurtured genders (at least in the situations given in Blue Valentine; a situation as grave and uncontrollable as Rabbit Hole reveals a deeper, more visceral understanding of the differences between the American man and woman). Cindy grew up with a domineering father thus she has some infatuation with there being a "man of the house" and some form of patriarchy; Dean grew up with a single father and resorted to crime to get by, therefore his idea of just getting by with his wife and kids seems like heaven to him. These were my takes, at least.

Jeff wrote:Valentine also broaches the subject of how men and women often view relationships, parenting, conflict, anger, and sex (among other things) differently, and how those conflicts create tension within the relationship. Both movies ultimately hinge on whether the strength of the relationship can overcome the conflict.

James Mills wrote:Cindy grew up with a domineering father thus she has some infatuation with there being a "man of the house" and some form of patriarchy; Dean grew up with a single father and resorted to crime to get by, therefore his idea of just getting by with his wife and kids seems like heaven to him.

Yet to see the film (probably this afternoon) ... but what James Mills has described here sounds an awful lot to me like views of "relationships [and] parenting" which lead to "conflicts [that] create tension within the relationship." To echo Tom Hagen, I think Mills has failed to explain why Jeff's take on the film "isn't really true at all." In fact, he's seemed to reinforce Jeff's point.

Gosling and Williams achieve the sort of authenticity that married couples might look at and identify as “the indie version of their relationship”. Really?

Tom Hagen wrote: Irrespective, it all sounds very of a piece with Bergman and Rohmer, and I'm anxious to see both films.

The Pialat comparisons earlier were much closer to the film. In fact the styles are so similar it would be fair to call Cianfrance wholly derivative. He does the style so well though that he can be forgiven. Maybe thematically there are some of Rhomer's traits though, but there wasn't a trace of Bergman.

Brian C wrote:Yet to see the film (probably this afternoon) ... but what James Mills has described here sounds an awful lot to me like views of "relationships [and] parenting" which lead to "conflicts [that] create tension within the relationship." To echo Tom Hagen, I think Mills has failed to explain why Jeff's take on the film "isn't really true at all." In fact, he's seemed to reinforce Jeff's point.

Meh, I guess I'm having a hard time explaining myself again. I may have misunderstood him, but his line that I quoted said "Valentine also broaches the subject of how men and women often view...", which is what I believe "isn't really true at all". Blue Valentine isn't about how men and women "often view" anything, as Dean's and Cindy's roles are largely reversed and thus the relationship's dynamic is entirely abnormal to the majority of society. This is different from Rabbit Hole, where the film does try to dissect the different ways how men and women "often view" loss. Does that clear things up a little bit?

It never does, dude.