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.

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders Carry On, Jeeves but this time blends it with a tale from The Inimitable Jeeves for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog