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

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog