Skip to main content

When they see you, they’ll forget their bonus.

Two Days, One Night
(Deux jours, une nuit)
(2014)

(SPOILERS) Two Days, One Night is the first Dardenne brothers (that’s Jean-Pierre and Luc) picture I've seen.  Mind you, my forays into Belgian cinema have been few and far between of late (only In Bruges springs to mind). Their drama of workplace ethics and personal morals is blessed with an outstanding performance from the magnificent Marillion Cotillard, but suffers in attempting to sustain its loaded premise.


Following a period of illness, Sandra (Cotillard) is informed she is to lose her job at a solar panel factory. Her 16 co-workers have voted, and the majority have come out in favour of their bonuses; the employers have decided that they cannot afford both. Due to allegations of pressure brought to bear by foreman Jean-Marc (Oliver Gourmet), it is agreed a second vote will take place on the Monday morning. Sandra has the weekend to persuade her colleagues to keep her.


There’s a sense the Dardennes have over-nourished the issues Sandra must face. As well as it being vital for her to keep her job (her husband Manu, Fabrizio Rongione, doesn’t make enough to provide for their family alone), she was off work due to a nervous breakdown and continues to suffer from depression. Consequently, she is pill-popping throughout the weekend, her already traumatic and demeaning quest made so much worse. I have to admit, the brothers lost me when they contrived to throw in an overdose as part of the weekend’s attractions. Not because I had problems with believing Sandra could reach that point, but because it felt calculated and manipulative (particularly as she then manages to get up and out to ask a few more colleagues for votes before the day is over).


That aside, the Dardennes adeptly depict the nuances of a dilemma where nothing is as simple as the (ideal) answer of solidarity against the unscrupulous bosses thinking only of the bottom line. At one point Sandra even says she would vote for the bonus if she was in her co-workers’ shoes, although the final scenes suggest she was perhaps merely showing empathy for their situation. Which she does throughout. She can only attempt so much persuasion, because she fully understands the choice is not black and white.


The dilemma identifies itself as a moral one to some of her co-workers. In the most moving moment, one expresses his gratitude that she has come by, as he has been feeling so guilty about voting no. In this moment we also see just how considerate Sandra is, as she took the rap when he made an error as a new joiner. Others refuse to even speak to her, or become aggressive and even violent when asked, blaming her for the situation. In the background Jean-Marc has been calling those she visits, attempting to persuade them vote against her (at the end, he has the effrontery to ask her if she is happy “now you’ve stirred up shit”).


To others the choice is simply one of survival. They also have families to support and bills to pay. One even tells Sandra he can’t in conscience vote for her because it would be “a disaster for me”, but he nevertheless hopes the vote goes her way. So it is the motive behind the decision that counts. How they react, irrespective of whether they feel the need to vote for a bonus or retain her, announces their moral perspective.


It’s evident that the Dardennes are more broadly critiquing the basis of an entire system, one that bases happiness, meaning and validation on one’s ability to earn a crust of bread. A system that happily sacrifices scruples and any notion of an ethical framework.


We end up pretty much agreeing with all Sandra’s reasons not to go pleading with her workmates (“I’ll look like a beggar”), even if this is partly entrenched by her fragile mental state. Rongione is particularly measured and understanding as the husband attempting to be supportive in a delicate situation. He has to push her against her will. We, as much as Sandra, dread the next visit to someone who may say no. And then there’s the future; how she can possibly be comfortable at work in the event that she does win the vote? A significant number of those present would doubtless resent her for what they have lost.


As such, the Dardennes shift the framing with the final offer, to allow her perspective and clarity. Sandra is able to lift herself from the quagmire of this unfair battleground. She loses the vote, as equal ones are cast, but she knows she fought a good fight. More importantly, her boss calls her into his office to inform her she can come back to work in due course, when he doesn’t renew the contract for a fixed contract worker. It is a mirror to the situation she faced, particularly since the worker who would lose his job mulled a similar consequence before deciding it was right to vote her way. Quite possibly her boss Dumont (Batiste Sornin) knows this, and he hoped for precisely such a means of regaining control of worker morale through exposing her own shortcomings. Through rejecting the option, Sandra embraces an inclusive regard for humanity her working environment has vied to eliminate. She moves a step closer to the envied bird singing merrily in the tree.


I was given pause a couple of times by the Two Days, One Night’s incidental choices. More than once, I expected a woman answering the door to assume her husband was having an affair with Sandra (it is Marillion Cotillard, after all) and I questioned the wisdom of showing this hard-up couple spending the entire weekend eating out or buying takeaway. Sandra’s depression also appears to be presented in a rather simplistic manner (she has turned a corner in the last scene; “I’ll start looking today. We put up a good fight”). Nevertheless, this is an engrossing picture and Cotillard richly deserved her Oscar nod. While the scenario may feel contrived, the moral realm it explores is both fascinating and affecting.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

It’s like an angry white man’s basement in here.

Bad Boys for Life (2020)
(SPOILERS) The reviews for Bad Boys for Life have, perhaps surprisingly, skewed positive, given that it seemed exactly the kind of beleaguered sequel to get slaughtered by critics. Particularly so since, while it’s a pleasure to see Will Smith and Martin Lawrence back together as Mike and Marcus, the attempts to validate this third outing as a more mature, reflective take on their buddy cops is somewhat overstated. Indeed, those moments of reflection or taking stock arguably tend to make the movie as a whole that much glibber, swiftly succeeded as they are by lashings of gleeful ultra-violence or humorous shtick. Under Michael Bay, who didn’t know the definition of a lull, these pictures scorned any opportunity to pause long enough to assess the damage, and were healthier, so to speak, for that. Without him, Bad Boys for Life’s beats often skew closer to standard 90s action fare.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

They seem to be attracted to your increasing nudeness.

Pokémon Detective Pikachu (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was put in mind of Shazam! watching Pokémon Detective Pikachu, another 2019 tentpole that somewhat underperformed based on expectations. Not particularly due to any plot resemblance, but because both movies fall apart under the weight of an overblown and underwhelming finale. In the case of Shazam! that may be more damaging to its prospective sequels (if they keep the team of super-adult kids), whereas Detective Pikachu will simply have to struggle with a whole heap of unnecessary expositional baggage attempting to imbue the proceedings with emotional resonance.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…